After the committee adjourned after considering this clause there was a certain amount of confusion in the minds of various members. It was stated that a delegation representing the associated pharmaceutical societies in South Africa was to wait upon the Minister. They then stated the opinion of the chemists, being the unanimous opinion of all wholesale and retail chemists in South Africa. The Minister, after discussing the matter with the delegation, said he would state the case fairly to the committee and he would leave it to the committee to come to a decision. In other words, he would not make this a party question, or a Government question. It would save a tremendous lot of discussion and meet the wishes of almost everybody if he would accept my amendment. He is now slowly completing this Bill, and I would ask him to do this. The Minister has one little difficulty in regard to this question and several members have the same difficulty, and that is a circular issued by Burroughs & Wellcome, Ltd. In this they set forth arguments that have little to do with the clause at all. They tell you they have reduced the price of insulin from 36s. to 3s. 4d. While they have always been progressive chemists they have also been a business firm. They are not a firm that manufactures anything in this country. Even the labels and capsules attached to medicine are made in England. Burroughs, Wellcome & Co. in South Africa is purely and simply a depot. They have an office at the bottom of Hout Street, Cape Town, where there is a general manager and one or two clerks, and that is all, so far as the company is concerned in South Africa. They now ask that the Government should so alter this clause as to meet their difficulty. They are taking up the attitude that the Government should legislate so as to fit in with the articles of association in this country. The firm of Lennon, Ltd., to-day have a 100 per cent. directorate of chemists and druggists because they believe it is the best policy for them. They are a very successful firm and one of the biggest firms in this country. Another point is that my amendment will bring the South African consolidating Bill into line with what exists to-day in the Transvaal. The Transvaal Pharmacy Bill, passed in 1904—and the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) had a great deal to do with the passing of it—says that the managing director of a company trading as chemists and druggists must be an accredited chemist and druggist, When the Minister had difficulties with the Bill he reminded the House he was not taking away any rights from any person. [Time limit.]

I am sorry that I could not entirely follow the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie), but as far as I could follow him I entirely disagree with him. The Minister moved an amendment on Thursday by the insertion of further words, and this amendment does clarify the clause to a considerable extent, but it does not go quite so far and clarify it so completely as mine did. It will be best if I withdraw my amendment and support that of the Minister. We will then have a clear issue between the hon. member for Langlaagte, who is an employing chemist, and the Minister. As the Minister’s amendment stands, the public are entirely protected, and nobody can deal in any of these dangerous medicines except a duly qualified man. Under the Minister’s amendment there is one individual in the Union responsible to the Public Health Department to see that all the chemistry work is carried out properly and within the law. Under the Minister’s amendment it would particularly allow of a storekeeper in a small town to provide it with the advantages of a qualified chemist, because he could utilize that man in his business for other purposes, while it would never pay for a chemist to set up for himself in a small village. The principal point the hon. member for Langlaagte made as far as I could catch it was that all the big chemists in this country are in favour of his amendment, and it is suggested that they have all the influence of the big chemists behind them—I will not say that they wave the big stick. They are chemist employers, not employees. Yet here is an hon. member from the Labour benches talking good employers’ stuff, and here am I from these benches talking diametrically opposite. I do not suggest that as the hon. member is an employer that is why he is taking up the line be is, but his amendment is distinctly in favour of the chemist employer and diametrically opposed to the chemist’s assistant. Under the Minister’s amendment it means that there must be a bigger demand and more employment for chemists’ assistants. Under the amendment of the hon. member there would be an entirely close corporation in chemists’ business in this country controlled by the big concerns. I would suggest that there is no reason whatever why chemists’ businesses should be drawn into a close corporation. Provided the public are protected against unsatisfactory chemical preparations the country should be prepared to leave the matter an open one. In the ordinary chemists’ business not more than 15 per cent. comes from professional work and the other 85 per cent. is purely the ordinary trade of a general dealer. When one goes away from the larger centres if you want notepaper or a walking stick or a sponge, you go to the chemist for it. You do not want to protect people who sell these things, and they can look after themselves. Provided the individual dealing with the 15 per cent. is a properly qualified man, the committee should leave it at that. With the leave of the committee I withdraw my amendment.

The chemists have now agreed to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Langlaagte—not that they are satisfied, and they would very much prefer mine—but in the present state of affairs in the House they know it is not prepared to carry it. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) looks upon the chemists’ business purely as a business concern. I would like to look upon it as a business to do good to and protect the public.

15 per cent. of it.

I do not care whether it is 15 per cent. or 5 per cent.; it is in the interests of the public, and we are out to protect the public. The chemist has a licence to dispense, and that is the part we have to look after. The hon. member referred to a close corporation; not a single other profession has a man who is allowed to be a partner and is not qualified. Clause 75 provides, in effect, that every partner in a chemist’s and druggist’s business must be a qualified man. The moment, however, that they accept the privileges given by the Companies Act we depart from the principle that every man concerned must be qualified. We must consider not only the interests of the public, but the interests of the chemists, and to be qualified professionally a man must first pass a preliminary examination, serve for three years and then pass a stiff professional examination. Assuming that he is qualified to be a druggist, but does not happen to have money, he may enter into partnership with a man who has capital. We have cases of absolutely unqualified men forming a company and putting in a man who has never been qualified, or who has been disqualified. I feel very strongly that we have to put aside the idea of simply protecting the men who are running chemists’ establishments as a commercial concern. We have to consider the public, and unless all the men in the business are qualified they have no right to be there.

I don’t agree with my hon. friend. Is it necessary that every man in a big concern for the sale of drugs should be a qualified chemist, as they do not all do dispensing work? Some of them, for instance, have to look out for the financial side of the undertaking. I shall support the Minister’s amendment, for it meets the case thoroughly.

I am in favour of the amendment of the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie). Take a printing establishment. I do not quote it because some people will say the press is analogous to a chemist shop, because it spreads so much poison, but because, if the director knows nothing about printing, there is a danger of the business being a failure. As managing director he ought, for the sake of the business itself, to be a man who understands printing. In this case, the point is, I think, very strong. The danger that may arise through wrong treatment, etc., in a chemist’s shop, is very great, and therefore the chemists in the Transvaal are apparently somewhat proud, impressed with the position they at present occupy, because, as I understand, the provision that the managing director must be an expert in pharmaceutical matters has existed for years—and this is one of the most important reasons, I think—and my constituency has asked me to vote for the amendment. We in the Transvaal have hitherto been successful with the stipulation, and I think our friends in the Cape should also try the system. I think it will prove a great success here.

It seems to me that the Minister’s amendment meets the whole case—I don’t see what more is required. It amused me to hear the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) talk about the letter from Burroughs, Wellcome and Company. He said they were a very progressive firm, but they always have an eye on profits. Perhaps the hon. member for Langlaagte is an exception, but I have never known a chemist who had not an eye on the profits. When I was in office and the department was trying to get supplies of drugs for its various institutions, we found the chemists in particular places made an absolute agreement with each other, and put in one tender only. They took advantage of the fact that they are a limited profession in order to form a ring and force up prices against the Government. One poor man who tried to stand outside the ring, and tendered at a low price, was dealt with very promptly and sharply by his brethren. Does the pious observation of the hon. member for Langlaagte that Burroughs, Wellcome and Co. are actuated by profits mean that other members of the profession take a very much higher outlook? That, at any rate, does not agree with my experience of chemists. We should be very careful before we do anything to enable these people to draw a tighter line around themselves than is necessary. If we provide, as the Minister proposes to do, that in respect of its business as chemists there should be a qualified manager, then we are going quite as far as public interests demand.

I am very much surprised that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) should suggest that argument—

We cannot hear.

Chemists have never forced up prices, but they combine to protect their interests against departmental stores, such as Norman Ansteys in Johannesburg and Stuttaford & Co. in Cape Town and other companies who try to exploit chemists’ business for the purpose of having an advertisement to show how cheaply they sold drapery and other things. The chemists were compelled to combine not to raise prices but to prevent themselves being exploited by firms such as I have just mentioned. The profession of the hon. member for Yeoville recognises that it is only right that a fair reward should be given them for services rendered. I take it that lawyers, advocates and barristers fix their fees on the basis of what they consider a fair reward for the work they have given to their clients. Then we have the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) who certainly introduces into the debate something I did not think he would have brought forward, namely, the suggestion that a person in moving something is influenced by his own point of view. He tells this committee that the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) is an employing chemist, and then he says “Of course, I don’t want to say anything about that.” Very clever of the hon. member. Then he goes further and says that assistants are not in agreement with what I said. Well, let me say this, every chemist’s assistant is in favour of my amendment. Every member of the Pharmaceutical Society is behind me in this amendment, and the great majority of them are employees, and not employing chemists. There is no question of me speaking for the employing chemists. I speak for every chemist in the country, and the Minister knows that. With regard to the suggestion by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) following upon the suggestion of the hon. member for Newla.nds (Mr. Stuttaford) that by having the Minister’s alternative titles we should encourage a further spread of chemist businesses in the country, I want to point out to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) and to the Minister that when you put these titles, managing director, general manager or principal executive officer, they would only choose the least title of the three, namely general manager. Where would the public be protected by that? The type of man who would be engaged as general manager would be one who is to-day a derelict. I can give you chapter and verse for that. We have to-day an increasing number of people who are endeavouring to exploit the chemist and druggist business, and you would find the type of man who is engaged as manager is one who would have no responsibilities at all, and for ten out of the eleven hours he is supposed to be there, he would not be there at all. Under this Act we are going to administer the habit-forming Drugs Act, the Dangerous Drugs Act, and there is a question then that every person placed in a position of responsibility, whether he himself is in business or he is general manager, would find it quite easy to abuse the law dealing with the importation and the sale of cocaine, opium and morphia, which every Government in the civilized world is trying to keep down as much as it possibly can. It is only by having the chemists in such a position where they can control companies and have responsibility, and where a firm would only take a, man of honour as manager, that they would find it would not pay them to play the fool with regard to dangerous drugs and make money out of them by breaking the law. In the chemists we have a body of men to-day which is an honourable body, men who take a pride in their profession and men who have assisted the department in regard to the sale of drugs. The Union Medical Officer, Dr. Mitchell, will tell the department he has had a great deal of assistance from the chemists in the country. The carrying out of the law would not have been so easy for the department but for the chemists throughout the country. I ask hon. members to vote for my amendment. The Transvaal chemists are not asking for anything more than they have at present. In the Transvaal a limited liability company has to appoint as managing director a man who is a chemist and druggist, and if he resigns they must appoint another as managing director. With regard to this £12 10s. registration, which the Minister has now amended, when the general manager or principal executive officer is appointed he has to be registered with the Pharmacy Board and pay £12 10s. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) says that if they have to pay that they would not make a change every month. Let me say that it would be easy to change the general manager, and it would be a considerable time before we knew he had disappeared from that firm. If the general manager was in the position the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) desired him to be, he could be picked up from the streets to-day on a payment of £12 10s., and it might be months afterwards before you knew he had disappeared. The managing director has to be registered under the Companies Act and with the South African Pharmacy Board, and we then have a double check. I submit there is every justification for the chemists asking for this, not only in the public interest but in carrying out the law itself. I would say further that I think the biggest justification of the whole lot for this committee is the fact that the opposition has come from the two members I have mentioned, the hon. member for Newlands and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central).

And the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan).

I say that that should be sufficient justification. [Time limit.]

I never thought at any time I should rise in agreement with anything which comes from the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie). I do rise to support him to-day. I have been inundated with circulars from every chemist in the Transva.al asking me to support this amendment. I do not for a moment say that chemists are greater altruists than the lawyers. I do say the chemists fulfil the laws of humanity, whilst the lawyers only bleed them. I would point out that the chemist and druggist of this country is not an ordinary artisan, but somebody who has to spend a good many years of his life in being educated and who has to pass very difficult examinations. I would like you to consider the people in the wayside villages and the backveld, the platteland. It is quite possible under this clause, as it now stands, for anybody to start a chemist and druggist business. As the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) pointed out, the chemist has in his power the handling of very dangerous drugs. The managing director is apparently the person with responsibility, the person with power, the person whom you can get at, but it would be perfectly easy, if you wanted to get at him for him to discharge his manager, and there would be no recourse against the managing director. You would have no hold upon the company. I trust that the Minister will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Langlaagte, and let it be made clear that it is the managing director or somebody whom you can get at if you want to.

I intend to support this amendment because I think it is essential that responsibility should attach in carrying on the responsible calling of a chemist and druggist to a qualified registered person. As the clause stands at present it will be difficult to fix responsibility where it should rest. Another reason why I think this amendment is advisable is that it would prevent unqualified persons exploiting the services of qualified persons, and all those in professions know very well that that is a safeguard which has been set up in nearly every profession. I think the chemist and druggist is entitled to the same protection. At the present time, it seems to me, it is competent for a merchant or general dealer to set up a pharmaceutical business by merely employing a qualified and registered chemist, and in that way be able to exploit the services of a professional man for his own personal benefit. In the public interest I think the amendment is a precaution which should be taken not merely as a protection to the chemist himself, but also as a protection to the public. For that reason I intend to support the amendment.

I have received communications from every chemist in my own constituency to support the amendment of the hon. member for Langlaagte, and, provided such amendment is reasonable, I am prepared to do so. The sine qua non of the whole clause is that the person must be a chemist. The difference between the Minister and the hon. member for Langlaagte is that the chemist the hon. member wants must be the managing director. The chemist that the Minister wants may be either a managing director or general manager, or principal executive officer. Now, why not? I can conceive cases where a managing director may have even less power than a general manager. The great point is that the man must be a chemist. Whether you call him the managing director or general manager or principal executive officer, what does it matter?

Some of the amendments which have been moved have been withdrawn, and that simplifies matters very considerably, but still the cause, as it stands, is, I think, not quite so clear to everybody in the House, and, therefore, it is necessary perhaps that I should add a few remarks to what has already been said. The general principle underlying this section is that the public generally shall be protected against incompetence or unreliability on the part of a chemist and druggist. Everybody, of course, understands that it is very vital that, when a doctor treats a patient and gives a prescription, that prescription should be made up correctly. Therefore, the chemist and druggist, who is the responsible man, must be competent arid he must be reliable. Now this clause proposes to ensure that, and therefore, in the first instance it is laid down that when there is a chemist and druggist’s business having various pharmacies in the country then for that business generally there must be a responsible man who is responsible to the Pharmacy Board, and whom you can get at under the law. Another safeguard is that the control of every individual pharmacy must be under a competent and reliable chemist and druggist, so that that man, as far as that individual pharmacy is concerned, can be got at by the Pharmacy Board and by the law. That is the general principle underlying this clause. Now I must explain how the provisions of this Bill have come to stand as they do. Originally, as this Bill emerged from the select committee to which it was referred, the provision was, as far as bodies corporate are concerned only, that the managing director shall be a qualified chemist and druggist. Afterwards it was represented that there are some firms, for instance Burroughs, Wellcome, where the company is registered abroad, where they are doing a business not only in South Africa, but in a large number of countries throughout the world, and that company being registered in Great Britain the managing director has certain statutory duties to perform and for that reason he has to remain in Great Britain; he cannot be resident here, and it is impossible, or very difficult, for such a company to have two managing directors, and it was represented that to make it possible for such a company to continue business in South Africa, some wider provision must be made in the Bill to cover their case. For that reason it was made possible in such a case that not only the managing director shall be a chemist and druggist—he must be in England—but that as far as South Africa is concerned it may be the principal executive officer who has the supervision of the whole of the business throughout the Union of that particular firm. That is the history of this alteration that has been effected in the Bill since it emerged from the select committee. I undertook when a deputation from the chemists met me to take up this general attitude in Parliament, that I would certainly not make it a party matter. It is a matter which I would rather leave to the judgment of the House. Of course, we have heard the one side; we have heard members who represent the view of the chemist stating that we ought to favour purely South African concerns by making it impossible for a firm registered overseas, like Burroughs, Wellcome, for instance, to operate in South Africa under existing conditions as they do now. They contend also that if in South Africa you have only the principal executive officer of the business, you cannot get at the really responsible person who is at the head of the concern. These gentlemen have explained the matter better than I can do. On the other side it can be said that if we accept the amendment of the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) we are, to a large extent, going to restrict trade, and that we are cutting out competition.

Quite correct too.

Already there is little competition in South Africa between chemists’ businesses.

That has never been said.

No, I am saying that, that we shall be restricting and cutting out competition, and that will not be in the interests of the general public. As I said, the House can judge about these two points of view. I certainly will not accept that amendment and personally I am going to vote against it, but in any case, I think we can safely leave it to the judgment of the House generally to come to a conclusion on that point.

I want to put the Minister right on one point. It would be quite easy to register companies in this country, so that point falls by the way. There is another point in regard to cocaine. You are putting in the hands of unprincipled people a very dangerous weapon. Under the clause as it stands a man with a parcel of cocaine can go to another man and say, “We will open a store and you must sell the cocaine.” That is the difficulty with liquor in the Transvaal; you can get at the man who sells it, but not at the man who supplies it.

The last speaker has made some extraordinary statements. As I understand him we have to be dreadfully careful about this question of habit-forming drugs. We all agree with him, but this is another of these funk ideas constantly being put up in the Bill. In the case of these gentlemen who are supposed to be suborned by someone else to sell habit-forming drugs, will it make any difference whether you call the man managing director or principal executive officer? People who come along and get other people to sell habit-forming drugs will do exactly the same thing under the amendment of the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie), but they will call him managing director. The whole question of these habit-forming drugs does not come into the scope of this clause at all. If a man wants to be crooked and sell habit-forming drugs they will call the man who sells them anything they like and anything the law likes. I do hope the House will accept the Minister’s amendment, which lays the matter down perfectly clearly and reasonably satisfactorily.

I just want to clear up this point the Minister has made. He has shown his solicitude for Burroughs Wellcome. The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Rockey) has shown how they can meet the law as it exists to-day in the Transvaal, and that is by forming South African companies. They have only a little depot, but their goods are handled by every chemist in the country. They would not lose any sale whatever. They could still have, instead of the depot, more representatives in this country keeping their products before the doctors and chemists. In regard to the other question of restriction of trade I was very disappointed to hear the Minister. I think it would have been right for the Minister to have waited for the other side to raise these objections. The other side had not raised them. There is no sign of restriction of trade. There is no suggestion except made by the Minister that my amendment will cause restriction of trade. In accepting my amendment you will be doing what the Minister claims and said he intended to do—taking no rights away from any person or body of people who have those rights to-day. Messrs. Burroughs, Wellcome & Co. are the people the Minister is standing up for, who have not bought a cork or a label in this country.

With leave of committee, amendments proposed by Mr. Stuttaford and Maj. G. B. van Zyl withdrawn.

Question put: That the words “or general manager or principal executive officer” in lines 34 and 35, proposed to be omitted by Mr. Christie, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—44.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Ballantine, R.

Bergh, P. A.

Blackwell, L.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Buirski, E.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Jager, A. L.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Wet, S. D.

Duncan, P.

Du Toit, F. J.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Henderson, J.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Jagger, J. W.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Macintosh, W.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Moffat, L.

Mostert, J. P.

Nathan, E.

Papenfus, H. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Rider, W. W.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Stuttaford, R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Rensburg. J. J.

Watt, T.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—59.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Anderson. H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Basson, P. N.

Bates, F. T.

Brown, G.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

Deane. W. A.

De Villiers, W. B.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Geldenhuys, L.

Grobler, H. S.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Heatlie, C. B.

Keyter, J. G.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Madeley, W. B.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Nel, O. R.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oost, R.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Richards, G. R.

Rockey, W.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sampson, H. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; Robinson, C. P.

Question accordingly negatived and the words omitted.

With leave of committee amendment proposed by the Minister of Public Health in line 35 withdrawn.

Remaining amendments proposed by the Minister of Public Health put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The title having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; to be considered on 9th February.

What is the reason for the omission of the Transkeian territories from the operation of the Bill? Is it because that the conditions in the Transkei are so excellent that it is unnecessary to change them? There are many native territories in the Union which are in the same position as in the Transkei; why is provision not made for the extension of the principle obtaining in the Transkei to the other native territories by proclamation?

It largely follows from what the hon. member has said. We made provision for government of the Transkei by proclamation, and it is better that anything necessary for the Transkei should be imposed by proclamation. It is a question largely for the Native Affairs Department. I think we should not depart from that system of government by proclamation. The Native Affairs Department is strongly in favour of this course which was approved by the House under the Act the hon. member referred to.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I have an amendment that does not affect the merits of this, but makes it clearer. I move—

1. (3) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to repeal, or affect the operation of, any provision of the Native Administration Act, 1927 (Act No. 38 of 1927).

I do not know whether the Minister proposes to introduce many amendments to the Bill. We have his assurance in this case that they are not important. Will the Minister table the amendments, and give us a chance to study them?

All the amendments I shall deal with will be drafting amendments, and will not deal with the merits of the case. I shall not reach any amendments on the merits of the Bill to-day.

In the Cape, especially the country districts, the practice has grown up to issue a licence after the erection of a hotel upon a proper plan agreed to by the licensing court. The proviso is that as soon as the building is complete in terms of the plan, the licence is issued. The licensing courts in the Cape Province meet in a few weeks’ time, and there may be such licences as appear on the application form every year. The issue is dependent upon the completion of the building in the terms of the plan, but before the building is completed, the new law will come into operation. It comes into force in October, and the applicant would come before the new licensing court and the grant of the previous licensing court would fall through. Is there no way of protecting such issue of a licence? The practice is very prevalent in the Cape Province. I may have an opportunity of moving an amendment later on, but I do not think such a case is protected in Clause 3.

*I think my amendment comes in para. (a), and if the Minister’s amendment is adopted in a subsequent paragraph I shall not be able to put mine.

I will read out what the Minister proposes. I am not yet putting the amendment.

The difficulty raised by the hon. member was not put before me, and I should like to discuss it with him. If it is necessary we can make the amendment at the report stage. It is a difficulty which we do not have in the Transvaal, and I should like first of all to discuss it with the hon. member.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I move—

It changes the thing somewhat, and makes it clearer. I don’t think there is any change in principle. It is a drafting amendment made by the draughtsman.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the use of the singular instead of the plural in this clause. I know that under the Interpretation Act, unless the context otherwise declares, the singular includes the plural. A very important question arises under Clause 4, where the singular is used throughout. It has been in the minds of some that it might be a possible interpretation of Clause 4 that if a man, for instance, holds two licences of the same class he will be compelled to make a choice only of one of them. I do not think that is the intention for one moment, but it is possible that some question may be raised. For that reason I hope the Minister will consent to an amendment which I now move—

I have no objection to that amendment.

I would like the Minister to consider the advisability in line 59 after the word “may” where it occurs for the first time, to insert “in such application,” otherwise one of these applicants may first elect to take an hotel licence and then in six months’ time he may change his mind and say that what he wanted was a restaurant licence. I submit the intention is that he must choose once for all at the meeting of the licensing board. I therefore move—

I have no objection to the amendment.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause as amended put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

Hon. members will see that I have an amendment on the paper to omit sub-sections (2) and (3). To explain the effect of this I must ask the committee to allow me to refer to Clausa 6 as well. The two clauses go together. Clause 5 is the clause which exempts from the operation of the whole Act certain classes of business and certain classes of transactions. Clause 6 merely exempts from licensing provisions, that is, from the necessity of going to the licensing court and getting a licence. Now the commission, after very carefully going into this matter, came to the conclusion that there was no reason on earth why, if the Government started an hotel or the railway started an hotel, or if the railway runs, as it does run, a refreshment room or a dining car, those institutions should not conform to precisely the same restrictions as any private institution. We believe that it would be quite impossible to defend any proposition under which you would say to the trade: “You must not open before 10 o’clock in the morning or keep open after 10 o’clock at night,” and, at the same time, to allow railway dining cars and railway refreshment rooms to be a law unto themselves. We handed the Bill over to the Minister in that form. We did not stop, but actually permitted the establishment of a State hotel if any Government was foolish enough ever to start one; we did not stop the establishment of a railway hotel, if the railway found it necessary. We merely said that all of them, including the refreshment rooms and dining cars, must observe the same restrictions as any other institution. If Clause 104 is passed—and I do not think it will be—the restrictions as to the employment of labour which must be observed by the ordinary hotel, must be observed by railway refreshment rooms. I regret to say that the Minister, for what I believe to be insufficient reasons, has, to some extent, gone back on the broad principle which we laid down, and has allowed the railway concerns to be entirely exempt from the provisions of this Act, except certain classes which he lays down here by number. That is wrong, and I ask him to go back to what we originally decided. Let me put this view to the Minister and to hon. members, there is no doubt that if we are going to pass the Bill in anything like the form in which it appears, we are going to tread on the corns of a good many vested interests in this country. We say to them in effect: “You may have done so-and-so in the past, but in the interests of temperance and the general good, we are going to ask you to submit to a certain measure of sacrifice; we are going to ask wine farmers and others to submit to certain regulations.” It stultifies the whole of that object if we say at the same time: “You have to submit to these restrictions, but we, the State, when we start a concern, shall be exempted from all these restrictions.” This is unfair. It is not right. Let there be a certain amount of State trading if you like, but let the State trade on fair and equal terms with the rest of the liquor trade. On this one point the liquor trade and the temperance alliance are in complete unanimity. According to the Minister of Railways the profits last year in the bars in the Cape Town station were £18,000. That was the ordinary trading profit. Surely you are not going to be allowed to make that profit by getting privileges which the ordinary tradesman will not get. The matter seems so plain that I will ask the Minister whether he will not be good enough to accept that principle and if he accepts it, to restore this portion to that as recommended by the commission. The commission’s proposal will be found on page 199 in my amendment, which involves the deletion of sub-sections (2) and (3), and also sub-section (d) of the next clause. I move—

The railway authorities themselves are very anxious to have it in this form. That by no means proves it is right that they should have it. My idea is this—that it is a difficult thing to know for certain that we are not doing an injury to a thing like a refreshment car, a travelling car, which is in quite a different position from something situated in one place. As far as refreshment rooms are concerned, I have no objection whatever to accepting the amendment. There is no reason why they should not be liable to the same hours of opening and closing as the rest of the licensees. Even as far as the refreshment cars are concerned, I have no great feeling on that, but I think it should be dealt with in a rather different way.

I hope the Minister will agree to the amendment. In principle he does agree. He has exempted railway restaurants and refreshment cars from 11 of the clauses. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) wants another 8 or 9 exceptions. That makes about 20—

I give in, yes.

I hope the Minister will not agree to waive this provision, because the catering service of the railway and harbours is put on an entirely different formula than the licensing matters in towns and villages. The catering service on the railways provides for the needs of the travelling public, and, although other people also use it, it is primarily meant for travellers. The Minister allowed the principle of this important sale of liquor, and I hope he will not accept anything in conflict with it. There is no force in the argument of the hon. member. If there is danger of abuse in railway carriages, then the danger is removed by paragraph (2). A person running danger is excluded by the exceptions. Why should the refreshment rooms be referred to? Where has abuse taken place? Let hon. members quote instances of abuse in refreshment rooms. I am very sorry that the Minister has already more or less said that he is in favour of it. I hope he was not in earnest.

I just want to say that the position is indicated by the amendment which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) will move to Clause 6. That will put the railway service in such a position that dining saloons are not affected.

I just want to point out that, if we look at the section of the Railways and Harbours Act No. 25 of 1916, we shall see that there is particular reason to emphasize that the railway refreshments shall also come under the provision. I am not speaking so much about railway carriages, but of other ordinary licensed premises on the railway. In a scheme to put up more railway hotels, or for the railway to run hotels, there is great danger if the licensing boards are not consulted. Why should they not come under these provisions? The Minister will simply be able to consult the magistrate, and then grant a licence. What is more alarming is that, according to Chapter 25 of Act 25 of 1916, there is the right of letting refreshment rooms to members of the public. Persons will be able to hire them without having to obtain the ordinary licence. The refreshment rooms in railway hotels must come under the licensing board to prevent abuse. I, personally, would like to see the provision regarding sub letting deleted, but it is possibly a matter that concerns the Railway Regulation Act.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I move—

The first is a necessary thing to add, and we can cut down 91 as much as we like when we come to the clause. As far as the second is concerned, it is only making the language clearer.

I move—

1. (d) to any person selling liquor in any hotel or other premises established and maintained by any department of state, including the Railways and Harbours Administration, or in any refreshment room or refreshment car in which liquor is sold or supplied under the authority of Chapter V of the Railways and Harbours Regulations, Control and Management Act, 1916 (Act No. 22 of 1916), or any amendment thereof: Provided that—
   1. (i) nothing in this paragraph shall be deemed to affect any provision of the said Chapter V of Act No. 22 of 1916; and
   2. (ii) for all purposes of this Act the manager or person in charge of such hotel, premises, refreshment room or refreshment car shall be deemed to be a licensee in respect thereof, and such hotel, premises, refreshment room or refreshment car shall be deemed to be licensed premises of the particular class to which they would belong if licensed under this Act.

This sub-section is one inserted by the select committee to which the Minister has now agreed.

I would like the Minister to explain what the amendment means. It is very difficult to follow what the meaning is.

I move—

1. (g) Any person who, or combination of persons, which, is bona fide engaged in viticulture.

I move this because I think that the farmer should be exempted from licences. A wine farmer, and an association of persons who make wine, or have to do with viticulture, should not be included amongst persons who have to take out a licence. Viticulture has been going on for centuries, and the wine farmers have never been asked to take out a licence. Any farmer who sells wool, or fruit, or what not, is exempted from a licence. A few years ago it was laid down that the tobacco farmers should take out a licence, but it was so unpopular that the Government had to withdraw that licence. This is a case where the interests of the wine farmers apparently do not coincide with those of the licensed wine dealers. There is a slight conflict because the wine merchants want the monopoly. They grudge the farmers, who are the source of their wealth, being also allowed to sell wine, and, therefore, as many privileges as possible must be taken away from the farmers, and limitations put on them. I think that is unfair. The farmer should not be obliged to take out a licence, nor do I see any object in it, except that the wine merchant will be assisted a little. If my amendment is passed the obligation on the farmers to keep books, contained in the same clause, will also lapse. The clause wants the farmers to keep books for every little sale that takes place. There are many illiterate persons among the farmers, and now they are expected to note the time of day when anything is sold; they must further state what sort of drink they sold, and to whom. How on earth is a farmer to give a description of the particular kind of liquor he sells? I shall not go further into other provisions. It is a wilful obstruction be the farmers. At the second reading the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) stated that the object of the Bill was to take facilities as much as possible out of the hands of the trade; in other words, to make it unnecessarily difficult to sell drink. If that policy is to be followed, it will have an injurious, instead of a beneficial, effect. The farmers, of course, want to stop drunkenness as much as possible. A man who wants to drink will get as much of it as he wants. This provision will not alter that one bit. I hope the Minister will accept my amendment. There is no reason why wine farmers should take out a licence, and not other people.

I hope that the Minister will, in this case, accept my advice, and not agree with the amendment. I cannot see that the farmers have any grievance, they are free to sell as much brandy or wine to a licensee as they want to, and if they want to deal directly with the public they will have to pay a licence of £1 per annum. If they had the right of selling to the public without a licence, it would be an unfair competition with the dealers, and we want to be fair to the dealers also.

We think there is no reason why a wine farmer should be required to have a licence so long as he sells his product to licensees, but the minute he sells it direct to the public, he should take out a wine farmer’s licence and be subject to regulations in the same way as other people are. To argue that is unfair goes beyond my comprehension. Very strong pressure was brought to bear on the select committee and the commission to lay it down that wine farmers may not sell direct to the public at all. There are large numbers of people who object to wine farmers sending hampers of wine to the Transvaal, and in this way competing with licensees who have to pay licences. With regard to my amendment to substitute “four gallons” for “two gallons” in line 46, surely the Minister should accept it, for no wine farmer would sell as little as four gallons to a licensed holder.

The wine farmers recommended years ago that these private sales should be tightened up. No reputable wine farmer wants to turn his place into a canteen, but that is really what has been happening under the Cloete Act. Where a farmer wants to sell to private parties he must do so under rigid restrictions. There has been no more fruitful source of supplying liquor to shebeens than farmers selling in small quantities round about the Cape Peninsula. I move—

It Would be a distinct hardship to a vinegar manufacturer if he had to buy his requirements second-hand. I also move—

1. (iii) if such wine or brandy has been sold to, or ordered by, a licensee other than the holder of a wholesale liquor licence it shall have been so sold or ordered before being removed from the land or cellar of the owner or occupier;

The amendment means that where a producer delivers direct to the wholesaler and distiller he need not keep any of these records. My amendment frees the wine farmer from keeping a record where he sells to a wholesaler and I think it should be accepted.

I support the amendment of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal). The licensing of farmers is a new principle, the thin end of the wedge. It is said that it is necessary for control, but whether there is a licence or not the farmer will be able to sell just as much as he wishes to the licensed dealer, the £1 will not create control over the sale. If the wine farmers once have to take out a licence, it may, possibly, subsequently be made obligatory for a grain farmer or wool grower to have one. The principle is wrong. It will not be confined to wine. If we vote for this the farmers will subsequently say that we voted for their having to pay a licence, and we shall be blamed.

I would like to know if the hon. member for Wepener (Mr. Hugo) is prepared to see wine and brandy sold by the wine farmer, without a licence, to anyone who comes along. If that is his policy I am surprised, because usually hon. members from the Transvaal take a more sensible view than that. What would be the position in the Western Province, if the wine farmers could sell liquor to anyone who came along without licence? The hon. member’s amendment does not say even that it shall be for his own products but for anything he likes to sell. He may even start a bar in a barn. Even with regard to his own products this Bill goes as far as we should reasonably go in the interests of the wine farmer himself. Nothing will do more harm to the wine farmer than a continuance of the policy of selling wine, and strongly fortified wine, to the people in the country round about. A good deal of the scandal of intemperance in the Cape comes from the farmer having this privilege of selling freely to the people in the country. The wine farmers should welcome these restrictions which are being put on.

I want to draw the attention of the Minister to one or two points which are not in the Bill and which I hope he will take steps to meet. I mention one on this clause because the provisions of the Wines, Spirits and Vinegar Act of 1913 are referred to. I am informed under that Act you cannot import wine from outside if it contains more than a certain quantity of free sulphur or spirits below a certain strength. I am told the provision is so drastic that very few wines conform to it, which is all the better perhaps for South African wines. If wines are landed and can be certified as for the private consumption of the importer or his friends, they need not be analyzed or tested, but if they come in for the wholesale merchant they must be tested and if they contain more than a certain quantity of free sulphur they are not allowed in. Surely that is unfair to those engaged in the trade. I think this is the proper place to put it right. The other point is it provides in Section 6 that certain sales can take place in the defence department, police department and prison department without it being necessary to apply for licence. I think there you should say after “consumption” “on the premises.” We should not encourage these Government departments to compete with people who are paying heavy licences. It may happen that the liquor is being bought for the consumption of friends and in that way it would compete in unfair circumstances. In order to have it as it is intended to be, a canteen under proper supervision on the premises for the benefit of employees, I move—

I hope the Minister will not be induced to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal), nor do I believe that the hon. member is actually doing a service to the wine farmers. The Minister has already met the farmers to the extent of reducing the licence to £2 for a new licence, and £1 for a renewal. We surely want to control the liquor traffic. To compare it to wool farming and butter farming is, I think, so absurd that we need not reply to it. The whole Bill proceeds from the supposition that liquor must be sold under proper control, and for such control the seller must pay the State. Everybody should not be allowed to sell, but there must be control. On the whole, we think a great deal of the wine farmers as a class; they will not be guilty of abuse, but the responsibility upon the police, if the right is given of selling liquor on a farm to anyone, without a licence, will anyhow be very great. We remember the paraffin-tin system. I think the wine farmers should be grateful for the concession. Only when they sell by retail to private individuals, will they have to pay an insignificant amount for a licence. Then I should like to call the Minister’s attention to para. (d) which provides that the Licensing Act does not apply to any person selling liquor in any hotel established and maintained by any department of State including the Railways and Harbours administration. I do not know why special mention is made of other public departments besides the railway. The people at present respect the principle that the Railway and Harbour Administration can sell drink to a certain extent. Why, however, should other State Departments also have the right of establishing canteens? Is the Minister thinking of hotels that other departments may erect? If it becomes necessary later on for other State departments to have canteens and hotels, let them come and bring their own Bill before Parliament, and convince Parliament that it is desirable. I therefore move—

What about the defence force?

That comes under quite a different clause.

After the speech of the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander), I should like to move to delete (b) and (c) of Clause 6. We had evidence in the select committee of police officers who said that it was quite unnecessary and undesirable to continue to allow the sale of liquor in police barracks and in the warders’ quarters. I should like to see it deleted. I have had experience in this matter, and know that the wives of police officials in Pretoria often complain that the officials remain so long at the shebeen. I do not see why we should permit it. The policemen are congregated in barracks, they play billiards and only frequent the bar, with the result that their pay is much diminished, and the wives and children suffer. I therefore move—

I will reply at once on a few points. If there is one place where there is no abuse it is in the bars of the police and of the warders. Very little liquor is sold, and the men usually take tea. It is possible that in some cases they do not get home early enough, but that is the fault of the billiards more than anything else. There is very little money taken for drink in the bar. What would be the position if they were closed? At present they are all together, and drink is consumed under the supervision of the officers. If we close the bars they will go to the usual bars of the village. That will unavoidably be the result. It will be wrong to take away all temptations from the police. This is the small temptation in contradistinction to the big temptation to go into the town if there is no bar in the barracks. Drunkenness amongst the police has in recent years been less than ever. The old hard fighting policemen of the past are gradually disappearing from the service, and new fellows are not of the drinking kind. Then the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) spoke of making vinegar; a licence is only necessary for that in the Cape Province, not in the other provinces. His amendment only affects the vinegar makers in the Cape Province, and he would only be able to give a licence there, and nowhere else in South Africa. I would suggest his so altering his amendment as to read “Persons who lawfully manufacture vinegar.” It is immaterial to me whether we fix two or four gallons in the law as the smallest quantity which may be sold to a licensee. I fear that the farmers do not consider the point of much importance. As for the licences to wine farmers, I can see no great objection to it. Hon. members opposite who are concerned in wine making do not seem to have any objection to it either. It is only a licence for the direct sale to the public. A licence will entirely justify such a sale. That licence is necessary for better control, so that nothing wrong shall take place. It was first proposed to make the licence money £20 and £10. In order to avoid trouble, I reduced it to £2 and £1 to notify that it was only registration fees. It is becoming necessary for the farmer to keep books so that we can investigate that everything is in order. I hope the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) will not insist on his point regarding State hotels. If there can be railway hotels, I do not see why the other departments cannot have the same power. The provision is intended for the distant future. If, later on, such hotels should be built, it will not be necessary to pass fresh legislation.

I move my amendment as amended according to the Minister’s recommendation. I may tell the Minister that the wine fanners are not particularly anxious to sell these small quantities of two gallons. If any wine farmer wants to sell such a small quantity as two gallons he can avail himself of the wine farmers’ licence and sell under that.

I think the Minister is right in refusing the amendment of the hon. member opposite. In regard to the amendment by the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander)—

I am prepared to accept that.

I agree with the amendment of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal), exempting wine farmers from licences. The wine farmers have sold liquor for years to the wheat farmers, and no licence was necessary. It is only a small amount, but it is not so much the amount, as the obligation to keep books. We have to fill in all the complicated income-tax forms, and this new bookkeeping will only cause trouble. The wine farmers will be very grateful if the Minister accepts the amendment.

In sub-section (2) it is possible there for any native or coloured person to manufacture wine or brandy. I take it the object of this Bill is to limit the consumption by natives. I move—

The Minister says that he has already been good enough to reduce licence fees from £20 to £2. I appreciate it heartily, but the farmers are not yet satisfied. They want to know why they have to pay £1. It is said that the object is to exercise more control. In what respect? Every farmer has the right to sell just as much wine as he likes. It is not said that some wine farmers, and not others, shall have the right. The licence cannot be refused to a single wine farmer, and anyone can ask for it. The only difference from the existing conditions is that the Government will once more get £1 from all the wine farmers in the Western Province and elsewhere. It is partly a making of money, and for the rest silent pressure is again being put on the farmers by that side of the House. It does not come from the Minister, but from the other side. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) said that if they did not have to pay the licence, all the farmers would open bars. How many farmers have opened bars up to to-day? Bars are regulated under the law. Half the persons in a ward must sign a petition in favour of a bar licence. The hon. member need not therefore be afraid of any change in the position. The farmers have not had to pay licences for hundreds of years, and no bars have been opened. Just as little will it occur if the provision regarding the licence is dropped. It has been said here that they can sell to the licensees without restriction. Is there any other class of farmer who has to have a licence? What about the sheep farmer who sells his wool, or sheep, or a farmer who sells an ox? If he does not sell his produce to a licensed butcher, he does not have to take out a licence. If the fruit farmer does not sell his fruit to a market agent, has he to take out a licence? Now it is said that they can exercise control better. Every farmer will be able to sell drink, and I cannot see what is being attained. I cannot understand the argument. I should like to know what difference it will make. Strong pressure which was exercised on the commission has been mentioned. It did not come from the wine farmers, but from the people who established associations to get hold of the liquor business, as a monopoly, and from the licence holders, but not from the farmers. I persist in my amendment.

We appreciate the attempt of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal), but possibly other hon. members here, and I, who represent wine districts, have a little more experience of the sale of wine without a licence. The class of people, of which the hon. member speaks, always consist of the black sheep of the district. As far as I know there is one in the district of Stellenbosch, and one in Constantia, and, owing to this one black sheep in Stellenbosch, the wine farmers there are being smirched. The licence is so insignificant, namely, £2 for a new licence and £1 for a renewal, and it is only to give the Government an opportunity to send its policemen and inspectors to see to whom the drink is sold.

They can control it today.

We are also in favour of drink not being supplied to persons who should not have it. We must get rid of the black sheep. I do not think that there is much objection to this licence scheme. We know that large consignments of liquor have sometimes gone to the Flats for the low class of people, and that it has led to abuse. We are opposed to drunkenness.

I trust the Minister will not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) which is intended to confine the privileges of this clause only to persons who are European, considering that it applies only to persons who are bona fide engaged in viticulture. I fail to see why one should have protection under the Act and not another.

I am very glad that the hon. member has raised this point; I was going to do the same. Surely if a man is bona fide engaged in viticulture, he should not be deprived of privileges because he is not a European. The hon. member is seeking to deprive every coloured man of these privileges by his amendment. There is no total prohibition of liquor with regard to coloured men here.

I am afraid that my hon. friend (Mr. Giovanetti) is not acquainted with the conditions of the districts hereabouts. In the district of Stellenbosch there are a few, but not many, coloured farmers who run excellent farms and keep them in excellent condition; I think the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw) will bear that out. Some grow fruit and others grow grapes also. Why such a farmer should be debarred from a privilege a European possesses, I cannot, for the life of me, understand. What the hon. member proposes would be an injustice to some very respectable people. If my hon. friend will use his motor car and go to the Stellenbosch district and over Helshoogte to Pniel, he will pass some excellent farms run by coloured people. Some are in the most sound position and live most respectable lives. To agree to the amendment would be carrying this colour prejudice extremely far indeed.

I think the hon. member has lost sight of Clauses 95 and 96, which say that no natives or coloured people may be in possession of intoxicating liquor.

I just want to remark that I admit that Col. Truter is in favour of bars in police barracks, but against that I have Majors Grey and du Toit on my side, who desire the bars to be taken away. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter and accept my amendment.

I do not see the objection to bars in the police barracks. A policeman cannot, like any other person, go into any hotel to quench his thirst. When his duty is over he is still in uniform, and he cannot go everywhere. When a man has finished duty, and takes a glass of beer in the barracks there can be no objection to it. Things are very orderly in the police bars. With regard to my farmer friends opposite as to wine farmers licence, there is surely a large difference between the sale of drink, and of other products. We want to control the sale of drink in the interests of the people, and the wine farmers also want to assist us. The wine farmers here are satisfied with the measure. I hope the Minister will not accept the amendment.

The hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) jumped in rather hastily to point out that Clauses 95 and 96 were quite inconsistent. He forgets, however, that this clause says that any person or association of persons engaged bona fide in viticulture may sell wine or brandy without obtaining a licence under this Bill.

I just want to reply to the hon. member for Witwaterberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius). He is only occasionally in touch with conditions in Pretoria, and on occasion shows his colours like a swallow in summer. We are in daily touch, and know the position. If the hon. member would go with me once, and see what the wives and children of some policemen think, then he would also favour the abolition of the bars in police barracks, and warders’ quarters. Young Afrikanders come from the countryside to the town, and do not know the conditions. They are not popular unless they go along to the bar. Young fellows have told me that they are jeered and laughed at if they do not go to have a drink. I know from experience what the position is, and so I am very anxious to have the sub-sections deleted.

In view of the representations which have been made I will withdraw my amendment.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Alexander put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Dr. van Broekhuizen put and negatived.

May I ask the Minister a question before the amendment is put? What is his object in this provision? My amendment referred to hotels and bars of State Departments other than the Railway Department. I want to point out to the Minister that it will possibly create more suspicion than exists already, and if it is a matter of the distant future, why is it necessary to include it now and make still more trouble?

I cannot see why other departments should not be treated on the same basis as the Railway Department. As far as I know there is not the least intention to build hotels or anything of the kind, but it may possibly be necessary later, and of course such a thing would then have to come before Parliament in the same way as if it were in a new law. We do not only legislate for the present, but we also try as much as possible to avoid the necessity of introducing in a few years an amending Bill. The Select Committee went into the matter fully, and I do not see why it should be allowed to the railways, and not to other departments if it is necessary.

I believe the Select Committee was not so unanimous, but with regard to Act 16 of 1922 on railway administration specific restrictions are laid down for the railways and harbours which do not apply to the other departments. If there is any need for such a thing later, a Bill can be introduced.

The commission was unanimous. We discussed it a little, and the total abstainers agreed.

I am very sorry that the Minister will not accept the amendment. I feel that further powers are being given to the Minister in this way. Why is it necessary to lightly give the other departments the right of establishing bars and hotels.

Is the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) moved to my amendment or to the question as it stands?

To the question as it stands.

The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) has moved the omission of certain words. They appear in the original clause and in the substituted clause of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). What will happen if they are carried in the one and thrown out in the other?

It will be better, I think, to decide whether the amendment of mine should be accepted and then the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg could be put to that, because the words are similar.

But the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) is a very important matter. It is a question of whether the State shall be allowed to open hotels, and I think the matter should be allowed to stand over for members to appreciate the amendment of the hon. member. If the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is accepted, the principle of State hotels is accepted. Some of us object to State hotels. There seems to be a considerable amount of misunderstanding about this. I am opposed to the State opening hotels wherever it pleases. I think the State has quite enough on its fork, and should not be allowed to compete any further with private industry. We have it that the railways can open hotels, and the hon. member for Winburg by his amendment wants the State to open hotels. I think that is not appreciated by the committee, and I move—

Motion put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by Dr. van der Merwe put, and a division called for.

May I ask you, Mr. Chairman, whether the result of voting in favour of the retention of these words will be that we shall exclude the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell)?

Yes.

So to obtain that amendment, it is necessary for us to vote “no”?

That is right.

Will you kindly explain the position? It is quite apparent that a large number of members, by the way they are running away, do not understand the intent of the amendment.

I think it is quite clear. The proposal is to omit certain words from the sub-section and to insert other words of which notice has been given in the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). The amendment has been put as it has always been put, and there is no difference in the procedure. Does the committee still insist upon the division? Who asked for the division?

It was asked for by the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux), and he is voting on this side with the “noes.”

Does the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) still ask for the division?

No.

In view of the confusion which has just arisen when members did not seem to know exactly what they were voting for, am I in order in moving again that this stand over?

No, I cannot take that. There is no confusion if hon. members will remain quiet.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Blackwell in sub-section (1) put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by the Rev. Dr. van der Merwe put and negatived.

Are we to have an opportunity of voting on the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe)?

That amendment has fallen by omitting paragraph (d). The sub-section was put in part and then as a whole in accordance with the procedure which has been carried on in this House for years and years.

Would it not be possible for the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) to move in addition to the amendment which we have just carried, because I think there are some members of the committee who agree with him?

He cannot do it now. He can do it at the report stage.

I understand that this amendment by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) takes the place of Clause (d) in the Bill. That, I understand, falls. In these circumstances is it not possible for the hon. member for Winburg to move an amendment to the amendment by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout?

If the hon. member moves it now he will be too late. He should have moved it before, but he can move it at the report stage.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice to insert a new paragraph to follow paragraph (f) on page 10 put.

In the amendment moved by the Minister it states definitely “European.” I take it that coloured farmers in the Stellenbosch division would be prevented from selling their products; is that so? Would the Minister not explain the definition of “Europeon” in that sense?

“European” is always as a red rag to a bull. I have no objection to the word “European” going out. I move, as an amendment, that—

Will the Minister kindly explain to us?

This amendment is only of value to arrange your Bill properly if Clause 91 is passed. The House has still to decide whether we will allow anything of that sort. When the House decides not to allow it, that will also drop out. The draftsman wishes to have the arrangement put straight.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. de Waal put, and the committee divided:

Ayes—30.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Bergh, P. A.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Steytler, L. J.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Conradie, D. G.; Hugo, D.

Noes—57.

Allen, J.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Basson, P. N.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Brown, G.

Buirski, E.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Wet, S. D.

Geldenhuys, L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Heyns, J. D.

Jagger, J. W.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moffat, L.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oost, H.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, B. J.

Pienaar, J. J.

Reitz, H.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Stals, A. J.

Stuttaford, R.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Vermooten, O. S.

Watt, T.

Tellers: Alexander, M.; de Jager, A. L.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

On the amendment proposed by Mr. Heatlie

I move—

The paragraph provides that the farmer must keep books of the wine which he sells to a licensed victualler. The farmer will now have to make a note of the date and the quantity and quality, and of some other details of the wine which he sells to the licensed victualler, i.e., the wholesale dealer. If the provision is scrapped, then there can be no abuse because he may not sell less than two gallons. I do not see the necessity for the provision. Why should we compel the farmer to do his bookkeeping? The farmer who sells wine is already under strict control by the State, and therefore, I cannot see the use of this provision.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.7 p.m.