I move—

In moving, I may say it is a very simple measure arising out of the unsatisfactory condition of the Natal Act, No. 43 of 1899, which was repealed by the Precious Stones Act which came into operation last November. The position is this, that anybody crossing the border into Natal would be immune even if he is in possession of illicit diamonds.

Happy country!

And unfortunately I find that that was the state of the law even before the Precious Stones Bill repealed it, because section 135 says that any person found unlawfully in possession of native gold or precious stones shall be liable to summary arrest, and a penalty is indicated. But there is no section in the law which makes the possession of uncut diamonds an offence, and in fact the law is so absurd that it simply says “precious stones.” Therefore, apparently, according to this law in Natal it is intended to make it an offence to be in possession even of a cut or polished diamond. Now we have a Diamond Trading Act in the Transvaal, Ordinance No. 63 of 1903, which has answered very well up to now, and the whole object of this Bill is to render any such portions of the Transvaal Ordinance, the Diamond Trading Act, as may be desirable, applicable from time to time to Natal. It is, of course, a very urgent matter, and I hope that the House will pass the second reading to-day.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee on the Bill to-morrow.

On Monday night in committee I made certain statements with regard to the state of drunkenness which one sees in the Western Province generally and in Cape Town in particular. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) challenged me to put the figures and proofs before the committee. I have a certain amount of pleasure in doing so, and I would ask hon. members who have the report to turn to page 939 and question No. 6672, where some questions were put by Mr. Nicholls to Col. Trew, who gave evidence on behalf of the police as to the state of affairs in the western police district, which includes the Cape Peninsula.

And then, further down the page, question 6686 reads—

If hon. members will turn to the schedule given at the end of this report, they will find on page 101 the progressive figures of the increase of drunkenness throughout the Union since 1919. They are as follows (I am reading the convictions for drunkenness): 1921, 19,985; 1922. 17,679; 1923, 22,952; 1924, 25,953; 1925, 26,185; and 1926—I got this from the last police report—28,504, so that in five years, from 1922 to 1926, there was an increase in the number of actual convictions throughout the Union from 17,000 up to 28,000.

What was the increase in population?

This represents a 50 per cent. increase in five years and I suppose that the increase in population is about 5 per cent., if that. I have the figures for Johannesburg and for the Cape, but let me first read the last annual report of the Commissioner of Police for 1926. He says that in 1921 the number of persons convicted for breaches of the liquor law was 38,000, and in 1926 it was 68,000, He goes on to say that in regard to drunkenness the number of cases of drunkenness coming to the notice of the police during 1926 was 29,356, an increase of 2,215 over the 1925 figures. Yet we had the Minister telling us that drunkenness was on the decrease. The convictions of Europeans show a slight increase compared with the previous year, but the convictions of non-Europeans increased in one month by 10 per cent. He goes on to say—

If hon. members will now turn to page 106 of this schedule, they will see the convictions for the different provinces. You will find if you turn to the non-European section that in the Cape Province there were 10,510 convictions and in the Transvaal 7,915. Now turn to the drunkenness figures on the next page: Cape Western Division, 7,689 convictions.

We can all get that for ourselves. Why read it.

I wonder how many members have read it. I take no notice of interruptions by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik). The Witwatersrand, 7,788 convictions. These two together represent nearly 16,000 convictions for drunkenness out of a total of 26,000. If you want to analyse the figures, you will see that in the Cape the overwhelming majority of convictions is amongst the coloured, but in the Transvaal amongst the natives.

The hon. member has discussed figures which by themselves are appalling; but the increased percentage gives no indication amongst which part of the community it has taken place. The figures are of no significance whatsoever; if anything at all, they are misleading. The clause deals with coloured people and Asiatics.

They are here.

The hon. member wants to apply prohibition in the Cape Province when, if there is any conclusion to be drawn from the Transvaal, it must be that prohibition has had no effect there. Why insist on the application to the Cape Province of a measure which has proved useless in the Transvaal, when you can deal with the same problem or disease in a different way? I wish, with the leave of the committee, to withdraw my amendment, and propose another one with a slight alteration of the wording.

With leave of committee, amendment proposed by Dr Stals withdrawn.

I move—

1. (1) Subject to any restrictions which a licensing board may impose and to the provisions of section 76 and 94—
   1. (a) the holder of an on-consumption licence in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope or the Province of Natal may supply liquor in accordance with the terms of his liquor licence to an Asiatic or a coloured person;
   2. (b) the holder of a bottle liquor licence in either of the said provinces may supply liquor to any adult coloured male who possesses the educational qualifications required for registration as a parliamentary voter and who has not been convicted twice or more often under any law relating to the sale or supply of liquor.

I believe I am precluded by the rules of the House from moving my amendment now, and I can move it only after Clause 96 is deleted.

The hon. member may discuss it now.

If Clause 96 is deleted, and I shall vote for its deletion, I will move—

1. 96. Save as is otherwise provided in this Act no person shall supply any liquor in the Provinces of the Transvaal or Orange Free State to any person to whom under the law in force in these provinces at the commencement of this Act the supply of liquor is prohibited and no such person shall in these provinces obtain or be in possession of any liquor: Provided that in the Provinces of the Transvaal and Orange Free State an Asiatic or coloured person may be supplied with liquor in a shop established under the provisions of section 143.

That will leave the Transvaal and the Orange Free State in exactly the same position as at the moment.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has rather changed his ground. Last time he was attacking Cape Town, and said it was the most drunken city in the world.

No, I said “one of the worst.”

The hon. member did not say that; he said the most drunken city in the world. The hon. member makes an attack and runs away from it.

On a point of explanation, Mr. Chairman—

Will the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) give way to the hon. member?

Yes, if it is on a point of order. This is in committee, and the hon. member can speak as often as he likes, and as long as the committee is willing to listen to him. He is only making his case worse by this silly ebullition of temper. I will take it in its amended form—“One of the most drunken cities of the world”—and the only man to support him was the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) who repeated the mistake.

made an interjection.

If the hon. member had voted with me on that occasion in connection with the matter of Sunday drinking in clubs it might have been different, but he was away. He makes a serious attack on the parliamentary capital of the Union, and he should have something more than frothy interjection to support the attack. The statistics annexed to the report of the select committee blow the hon. member’s arguments out of the water. He carefully avoided referring to white drunkenness. Let me compare the figures for Cape Town with those for that very sober community in the Transvaal which my hon. friend represents. As a matter of fact the statistics show that the Transvaal is very much worse than the Cape. The figures are given on page cxi, and for the year 1924 show that per thousand of the European population over 15 years the convictions were: The Cape, 3.72; the Transvaal, 5.36; Natal, 8.46, while the Free State comes out best. Why does not the hon. member sweep his own doorstep?

It is the peach brandy.

I will now give the figures for the non-European population: Cape, 7.66 per thousand; Transvaal, 8.10; Natal, 3.18: the Free State again coming out best of the lot. On page cvi the figures are given for 1925 and show that the convictions for drunkenness per thousand Europeans over 15 were: Cape, 3.68; Transvaal, 5.02; Natal, 9.35; and for non-Europeans, Cape, 7.84; Transvaal, 7.88; Natal, 3.12.

They are importations.

If they are importations Natal is very glad to have their services.

Importations by the Pact Government.

Most of us originally were importations. The Free State figures are very low. What I have quoted shows that this charge against the Cape is absolutely inconsistent with the facts—which are that drunkenness among both Europeans and non-Europeans is less in the Cape than it is in the Transvaal.

I cannot compliment the hon. member (Mr. Alexander) on his controversial methods. He attributes to me a statement which I told him I did not make. I desired him to give me an opportunity of explaining, but with extreme discourtesy he refused to allow me the opportunity. What I did say was that Cape Town in particular, and the Western Province in general, is one of the most drunken places in the whole world. No amount of diatribe will divert me from my purpose. He said he was accused by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) of never having made a suggestion in this committee to promote the cause of temperance. That was a true accusation, and the only way in which the hon. member could refute it was to point to a suggestion he made that when liquor was served in clubs the hours should be cut down to the same as those which obtained in hotels. That, however, was not suggested in the interests of temperance, but in the special interests which the hon. member is so able to voice. Let me get back to facts. I proved my point by quoting textually the evidence of Col. Trew, Commissioner of Police for the Cape Western districts. The Commissioner of Police made two statements. He said that having served on the Rand and in Pretoria he came to the Cape and found more drunkenness than he found up there; and, secondly, he said that though a drunken native was always run in in Johannesburg a coloured drunken man was left alone here unless he misbehaved himself, in which case he got run in. We are discussing the case of coloured drunkenness in the Cape, and this clause has no application to white people. I made my remark in reference to coloured drunkenness, and I offered to take the hon. member (Mr. Alexander) round the town any night and show him what is occurring. I would like to take him round his own constituency on a Friday night, and he will find as many coloured drunken men as he had majority in the last election. Let me quote the figures showing the drunkenness amongst coloured people:—European: males, 829; females, 41. Natives: males, 310; females, 3. Asiatics: males, 19. Other non-Europeans: males, 2,443: females, 256. These figures are for the Cape Peninsula. Finally, I will quote the evidence given by the late Dr. van der Merwe, moderator of the Dutch Reformed Church. On page 170 he says—

I do not see that anything is gained by quoting the figures to show there is more drunkenness in the Transvaal than in the Cape, or more drunkenness in the Cape than in the Transvaal. The fact remains that there is drunkenness, and we want to discover the best way to reduce it. My friend’s argument is that you must take away facilities for getting drink from these people, and it will make them more sober. If it is said that they would not like it my hon. friend would reply that it is good for them, and therefore they must put up with it. That is a very rough and ready method of settling the question. Even if allowance is made for the probability that the convictions are not so readily obtained in the Cape as in the Transvaal, further allowance must be made for the fact that the Transvaal is dealing with natives, and the Cape with coloured people. Even so it cannot be argued that the method adopted in the Transvaal with the object of promoting temperance, namely, total prohibition, has served that purpose. I do not see that my friend’s proposals are going to lead to any very satisfactory results. If we attempt to force upon the coloured people down here anything like total prohibition I am certain we should fail, because the respectable people who now drink moderately would have to go without, and, being respectable people, they would not complain very much. They would complain, however, at having a certain amount of slur cast upon them. Those who get drink in greater quantities than they should would complain about the absence of facilities, and the great majority of them would get the drink anyhow. Having regard to local habits which have gone on for many years, there is not the slightest doubt that these people would pay for drink, and if they are prepared to pay there will always be people prepared to find it for them, and we should not achieve our object in that way. We would only succeed in creating a crowd of white people who will pander to those who will have drink, and the last state of affairs will be worse than the first. We must leave a good deal to the discretion of the licensing court. The amendment which the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) had on the paper, and which I understand he intends again to move, will meet the case to a great extent. The licensing board would have the power to withdraw facilities from certain classes of people in certain localities, districts or areas, and if we had that principle it would allow the licensing authorities who have the knowledge of local conditions to use their discretion, and it would avoid putting us in the position of casting a slur on people who would deeply resent it, and also of creating an industry that would supply illicit liquor. I think such a procedure would he more effective than total prohibition.

I have always had a suspicion that, generally speaking, the men of Natal were able to take their fair share in the gentle art of froth-blowing, and I am now pleased to have confirmation of that from the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander). I know little about the drinking habits of the coloured people of Cape Town. I do not go near the De Waal Drive at nighttime, and I know not what takes place there; but I certainly can speak with some authority regarding the coloured people in my own constituency. They are a very respectable class indeed, and are much concerned about the effect of Clause 96 of this Bill. They contend that it will create a distinction between the European and the coloured with respect to obtaining liquor. They are also of the opinion that it will encourage illicit traffic in the supply of alcohol by Europeans to coloured people. They have never abused the privileges extended to them in Natal, which are exactly similar to those obtaining in the Cape. Many of the coloured people who at present are able to obtain liquor from the bottle store and take it to their own homes will be obliged, if this clause is passed, to go to the canteen, and the conditions there, as most of us are aware, are not at all conducive to moderate drinking. There are many temptations at the open counter of the canteen. I would, therefore, ask the House to consider well before it deprives the respectable coloured man of the privilege of obtaining liquor from a bottle store.

I think every member of the House has the greatest respect for the real zeal and enthusiasm of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) in connection with the passage of this Bill, but I do think, if I may say so, that he made a very great mistake in introducing these provincial comparisons, local comparisons between the different parts of the Union, and he has made it difficult for a number of people in this House to cope with the situation he has created. I am one of the members of the House who has consistently and publicly admitted my own personal shame for the state of affairs that prevails here in the Western Province, but the moment you enter into a comparison about the Cape Peninsula and other parts of the Union—

I did not say of the Union, I said of the world.

The moment you do that you get the whole of these provincial rivalries and jealousies. I do hope that the House will not be misled by following the currents of comparison between the respective purity and the respective evil of the various provinces of the Union.

I did not institute any comparison between the Transvaal and the Cape.

It boils down to that. The result is perfectly obvious. It is perfectly clear that the hon. member did not intend to introduce that element into the discussion, which is now, as a matter of fact, tending to smother the very thing we are trying to get at. Clause 96 is one of the forms in which it is clear that the Minister proposes to deal with evils such as may be found in the Cape, or wherever it may be, amongst one particular section of the people. I maintain that the main cause of the unhappy state of affairs that we are familiar with is the facilities for obtaining drink under the Cloete Act, and the facilities for getting drink under the tot system. You get a third evil, and that is the evil of drink in the canteens. The evil of the Cloete Act has been largely modified under this Bill. The evil of the tot system will at least be modified, even if we cannot get the tot abolished altogether. The evil of the canteens depends very largely upon the form that Clause 63 takes when the Minister introduces it afterwards. One of the great causes of the evil here, to my mind, is the taking away of bottles after hours and the drinking from bottles in lanes and other places in the neighbourhood. If Clause 63 enables the bar licence or canteen licence to cover the taking away of bottles or the bottle licence allows the supplying in the same room or another room of the same premises and also the taking away of bottles, then the Minister will not have dealt with that particular form of evil. To my mind it is essential for the cure of the evil we know of that that system of taking away bottles after hours by a particular section of the people should be stopped if possible. To a certain extent that can be dealt with under these powers in Clause 81, etc., which enable the licensing board to impose restrictions for particular classes of people, but it boils down to this in the end, how are we going to deal with the bottle off-consumption? I dislike Section 96 very much as it stands. I dislike it for the reasons given by the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), whose activities we rejoice to see today. For the present, I am prepared to vote with the right hon. gentleman for the deletion of this clause, and the substitution of the other clause that he has proposed. My ultimate attitude on this clause will depend very largely upon the provision that the Minister of Justice makes in section 63, in regard to the taking away of bottles for off-consumption. I have considered this clause a good deal, and the thing that is weighing with me very largely is this, are we not in the other provisions of the Bill going so far to cope with the admitted evils among an important section of the people as to make it unfair to put a stigma in. If we have gone far enough to make the particular evil practically either very greatly diminished or one that ceases to exist, then I am not going to vote for Clause 96 as it stands. If, on the other hand, in the ultimate form the Bill takes I am not satisfied of that position, then, in spite of having been in my whole political career opposed to the colour bar, I reserve the right to vote for Clause 96 as it stands or in a modified form.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Black, well) raised this question in the way he did, and I agree with the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) that it would have been better to have left that kind of odious comparison alone. If some of us described some of the scenes witnessed by us in the town from which the hon. member comes, it would be felt that legislation should be directed to protecting young white girls rather than coloured people. But I think we had better leave that. What is said of our places can be applied to other places. However, we will leave it there. The hon. member takes every opportunity of saying something detrimental to the Cape, and we are getting somewhat tired of it. I want to draw the Minister’s attention particularly to Clause 81. If the provisions of Clause 81 are put into force, you have all the remedies you require under this Act. You have the remedies there which will assist you in doing all you want to do under Clause 96. Clause 81 provides that the Licensing Courts can legislate in regard to persons of a particular class, and as the minister explained, the definition of “class” is wide enough to embrace all and every section. It seems to me we have gone quite far enough in regard to that. I said on a previous occasion, and I repeat, that we are out to assist the Minister as far as we possibly can in his endeavour to minimise drunkenness in this country, but we are not prepared to allow legislation against certain sections of the community merely on account of their colour. If the Minister would meet us there I think he will appreciate it would give him every advantage he now desires. We who know something of the coloured people, know that according to class the majority of coloured people are on a higher social status than the majority of white people in the same class. A coloured man usually is better behaved than a white man of the same status. It may be a sweeping statement, in the opinion of some, but it is perfectly true. The coloured man is constantly trying to rise, while the white man, when he gets to a certain stage, usually is on the down grade. I strongly object to this colour distinction being made. There are coloured men here as well-behaved as any in any other section of the community. Why should we, to get our own way with regard to a few unworthy men, brand the whole coloured community? There is no necessity for it to my mind. Section 81 gives the Minister all the power he requires, and added to that there is the definition of class. What more does he want than that? I do not think he is getting any further by attempting to force this clause through. If he wants to put the Bill on the Statute Book with the least possible delay, he must seriously consider the matter and do away with colour distinctions altogether.

I want to explain my position in regard to this matter. I am going to support the amendment of the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). The Minister stated the other day that he thought the difficulty could be got over with respect to the coloured men by permits and so forth. But that is not good enough. He ought to know there are eminently respectable people among the coloured. I know a man who does contract work, putting up houses and so forth. That is a man of standing, surely. I knew men earning the same wages as white men. These men are on the increase, because they are getting more education now than ever before. To provide for such men by way of permits is not good enough. They will think it is a slur upon them, and it is, to some extent. Why cannot the Minister accept this amendment? It is a rough division, it is true, but it is the best you can find. When a man is on the register you can take it for granted he is rather above the general run of coloured people, therefore you take that as a guide and you draw the line there. At any rate, so far as the Cape Province is concerned that would be the way it would work out. I think it is quite a fair thing, and you get away from any statement about the coloured people entirely. I do not take the same view as the hon. member for Harbour (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has taken about the white man, but you must recognize you have a certain class of people, eminently respectable people, in this part of the world, and especially in Stellenbosch, and the position of these people should be recognized. You cannot meet the case by permits. It is not fair. It is infra dig. Take a man like Abdurahman. For a man like him to have to go to the police and ask for a permit—it is monstrous. There are other men, doctors and chemists and respectable tradesmen. They should be treated as respectable men, and not subjected to the insult, certainly the annoyance and the reflection, of having to go to a magistrate for a permit.

The hon. members for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) have made certain rash statements, and I think we ought to be very careful in this connection. The object of the Bill is to stop drunkenness. If the clause as drafted is best, let us pass it, and if the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) will be best, let us pass that. Everybody is surely out to get the best possible clause. My experience in the Western Province is that there is a great improvement noticeable among the coloured people compared with the past. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout judges from what He sees as a visitor on Friday afternoon or Saturday, but I have lived here, and I notice a great improvement since 1906. What has caused it? Closing the canteens on Saturday afternoon; in my days they were opened, and I admit it was then almost impossible to walk in some of the streets on account of the drunken people. The position is greatly improved. We must not forget that there are coloured people in the Western Province who are very respectable, who have houses just as neat and clean as any. What does Col. Trew say about the matter? I quote question 6682 in the select committee. [Question and answer read.] He emphasizes that the largest percentage of convictions in the Western Province was amongst natives. It was no less than 65.42 per thousand convictions. For the whites it was 6.90, and for other non-whites 25.12 per thousand. He emphasizes that the largest percentage was amongst natives, and therefore not amongst other people. The convictions for drunkenness amongst natives were therefore much larger than among coloured people in the Cape. I further think that we ought not to make statements about the most drunken city, etc., and that we should try to put the best possible clause into the Act.

I do think we ought to be very careful before we impose another form of partial prohibition in this country. I was very glad to hear from the speech of the hon. member who preceded me that drunkenness among the coloured people in this part of the country is on the decrease; and I personally believe that it is so. It is a serious thing to condemn a section of the people, because of their colour, to a position of inferiority, and say that they are not allowed to buy a bottle of any kind of liquor without a permit from a magistrate. If we can by some other way diminish this drunkenness which exists, we should rather do that, and only in the last resort should we be driven to a remedy which is going to be a slur on a large number of people who lead as respectable lives as many of us do. It is possible, if we could impose total prohibition in this country, that drunkenness might be diminished; I think the cure is worse than the disease; but partial prohibition has been far from successful. We have it on the Rand, and we must have it there because we have thousands of raw natives who must not have drink. Can anybody say it is a success? Our gaols are filled with white persons, whose crime is that they have sold liquor to natives. Now we are proposing to have partial prohibition in a wine making country. Have we any hope of enforcing it? We are going to fill our gaols here. I think if we carry out the restrictions in this Bill—the restrictions with regard to the supply of liquor by the wine farmers under the Cloete Act in open vessels—and stop the off-consumption sales by canteens, these two measures will reduce drunkenness amongst the coloured people here.

My objection to this clause is the same as to Clause 82. It is quite unnecessary. Under Clauses 56 and 81, we have ample powers to deal with local evils; the Minister dropped Clause 82 for that very reason, and if he was prepared to do that, exactly the same principle holds good with regard to Clause 96. There is no earthly need to impose this discrimination when we have the powers in Clauses 56 and 81. I endorse every word the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has said. You will simply fill our gaols, and you will not be able to carry it out. I would be glad if the Minister will show me any right in Clause 96 which under this amendment he will not have in Clause 81. It casts a stigma, and a serious one, on a large section of the population, not on account of their misdeeds, but on account of their colour, and that is what every sensible man will deplore.

I must say that the argument of some members opposite against a colour line under this clause seems somewhat hollow after the same member for political reasons voted in favour of a colour line a few days ago in connection with the women’s franchise. I want to remind hon. members that we are concerned here with the greatest trouble in the Western Province, namely, the sale by bottle, or paraffin tin, formerly such a great evil, and the cause of our finding the streets full of drunken people on Saturday afternoon. There is no question of total prohibition. I agree to a great extent with the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) that it is practically impossible to impose total prohibition on a section of the population. If we restrict one or other section, we must allow them to get a certain amount of drink under proper supervision. There is no question here of total prohibition for the coloured man, because he will still have an opportunity of going to licensed places and getting liquor under police supervision. The great difficulty is the sale by bottle, or wholesale, which in the past created so many evils. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) recently said that the wine farmers, who surely know conditions in the Western Province, wanted to suggest that liquor should not be sold by the bottle to coloured people without a police permit, A certain section of the coloured people may possibly feel that this casts a reproach on them, but that is not intended; we only want to improve the condition of the coloured people, and there is a special clause in the Bill to provide for the case of the educated man. It may be a little degrading to go to the police for a permit, but we are engaged here in solving the special problem of a certain class of the population, and most coloured people will certainly be prepared to agree to this clause because its object is to save their own people.

I cannot allow to go uncontradicted the allegation by the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) that prohibition amongst the natives in the Transvaal has been “utterly useless.” I have lived in the Transvaal for about 40 years. I remember in the early days when natives could get drink freely, then murder, manslaughter and all other sorts of crimes were rampant. This from the sociological side, whilst on the economic side 50 and often more per cent. of the natives on the mines were incapacitated for work through drink. The drunken orgies on Saturdays and Sundays incapacitated many natives from work on Mondays, aye, even on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. That state of affairs has, happily, been entirely swept away, and prohibition amongst the natives has been justified by that alone. As to the argument of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe), I have not heard him use that as far as Europeans are concerned. Why should all the sacrifice and self-denial, if such it be, come from the coloured and natives alone? I have very little sympathy with the illicit liquor dealers.

You are one of those good men.

The hon. member has a gruff voice, and makes rude interruptions. I do not pretend to be a good man, or even better than the hon. gentleman, who is very fond of interpolating remarks which are entirely irrelevant. The ideal condition, as is also stated in the Rooth report, is prohibition, but we shall never attain that ideal until the whites are themselves prepared to make some sacrifice. Until we have prohibition we can never expect that sobriety which everybody would like to see in the interests of social life and efficiency. Prohibition amongst the Transvaal natives has done a tremendous amount of good, and is far more of a success than a failure.

The Natal Asiatics are reasonably temperate, although there are, of course, cases of drunkenness amongst them. Then the Mauritians and other coloured people in Natal are essentially a sober people. As to the statistics which have been quoted, I was a member of the select committee, and I was impressed by the utter unreliability of these figures concerning drunkenness. You have to consider what lies behind them. In one centre the police are more efficient than they are in another: another centre is a large seaport town where people come from all parts of the world, and many of them over-indulge in liquor. The police in Durban are the most efficient in the country, and do not allow drunken people to walk about the streets. In other districts, again, there may be thousands of people drunk for a week without anybody taking any notice of them. So you have to base your arguments on something very much more accurate than these statistics.

I express gratitude to the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) and Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) for what they have said. I have received a letter from the Natal Coloured Welfare Association, stating that at a meeting held at Maritzburg the coloured people passed resolutions stating that they felt humiliated at some of the proposals in the Bill, and they were opposed to the amended Bill, because it differentiates between Europeans and coloured, and at the same time encouraged an illicit liquor trade. They considered the exemption clause a humiliation and a stigma. Whether you think they ought to or not, the coloured people throughout the Union look upon this provision as humiliating. Are you going to cause more temperance or abstention by not letting them take a bottle of liquor home, and by forcing them to go into a bar? The only alternative, unless a man becomes a total abstainer, will be to force him to spend his money in the bar. He would thus be bound to drink far more than he does to-day. Is it better for the sake of a man’s wife and children that he should take his drink at home where his wife can keep an eye on him and see that he does not make a beast of himself, or that he should spend it in a bar? How much wages will he take home if he can only go into a bar? Statistics have been referred to, but I only gave them because of this attack. Take the figure for the Cape, and add to it. Assuming that 10 per cent. of the coloured people misbehave themselves, are you going to deprive the other 90 per cent. of drink? What would happen to the other 90 per cent.? Forty-five per cent. may leave it alone, but the other 45 per cent. will get liquor, and you are going to have a new industry in South Africa—the boot-legging industry. They will get their liquor, and you will create a contempt for the law in South Africa, just as they have bred contempt for the law in America. All for what? Because it is suggested it is going to promote temperance. It is not. It is going to lead to illicit drinking and to more drunkenness. Things have been declared to be bad in the Cape, but my opinion is that, if so, they are going to be ten thousand times worse if this particular measure goes through. It amounts to total prohibition except drinking in bars. I have a note here from the foreman of cabinet works in Maritzburg. There are respectable coloured men belonging to trade unions, and earning in some cases £30 a month. They are working side by side with white men, getting the same wages, they have the same political rights and privileges, and yet they have under this. Bill to get a permit to have wine or beer by the bottle, which does not apply to the Europeans working next to them. That is the wrong way to go about it, and the Minister will be well advised to withdraw this clause, and to substitute something more reasonable on the lines of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt).

I do not believe that the restriction we want to impose in this clause will prevent drunkenness. The drunkenness of the coloured people in the Western Province is not so much caused by the bottle system. In other provinces where they cannot get liquor by the bottle, drunkenness is also found. I grew up in the Western Province, and I, therefore, know everything about drunkenness on Saturday. We do not find many drunken people fifteen miles outside the villages, but inside the villages where the police then arrest them. It is, therefore, not exactly the bottle system, although I agree that it has a good deal to do with it, and I quite agree with the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) when he says that the coloured man will get his liquor even if he may not take it with him. He will then simply drink to excess in the canteens. I do not want us to make a Bill merely for a few extremists. We cannot do so. We must pass an Act which is beneficial to the great majority of society. We must not prevent the respectable coloured person from taking a bottle with him. I cannot see why a decent coloured person cannot take a bottle home. It is a thing which will lead to trouble. A man may possibly obtain a permit to buy liquor and he will then make money out of the liquor he sells, as happens to-day in the Transvaal. Let me give an example. When a man in the Transvaal makes money from illicit liquor selling, he does not in the least mind paying a fine. If in the Transvaal a man is convicted of drunkenness, his relations come in certain cases and get him put on the black list, and officially he can get no drink. It is strange that that sort or person is always drunk. A man who wants to drink too much will always get hold of the liquor. The closing of canteens at 12 o’clock on Saturdays is a very good thing. I agree with the hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) that there are many decent people among the coloured people in the Western Province. This applies especially to the permanent residents. There is, however, a kind of bushman coming from Beaufort West and elsewhere to work for the wine farmers, and they are not accustomed to liquor. There the police can intervene. As to the first-class native, I cannot see why he should not have a tot in the Cape Province, but it seems the intention to prohibit it. But hon. members now want to go a step further and make a distinction as well between coloured persons restricting the sale by bottle. I do not think this is fair to the respectable coloured person. If the Minister will say what exceptions he is prepared to make with regard to bottles in the clause standing over, then it will possibly lessen the difficulty about this clause.

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) asked me a question as to the present condition in Natal. The present law in Natal is that as far as the Asiatic is concerned he may only purchase in a bar for consumption on the premises. As far as the coloured person is concerned, he is in exactly the same position as a European. On the whole scope of the Bill as I am trying to pass it, the coloured person would be able to purchase in a bar and he would be able to purchase under the exemption Clause 103, by the bottle. On page 339 of the Votes and Proceedings will be found a new sub-section which I am going to try to add. This states—

There are certain cases in which it might be granted.

That will not apply to Natal?

No, it is only in the Cape of Good Hope. One would require to put in Natal in that clause. The result of that would be merely that your reputable Asiatic or coloured person would not rely on the occasional exemption issued by a Minister which has been in force for some years, but which is used very sparingly indeed. I fully realize the strength of that argument and, therefore, we have tried to provide for the case of the coloured man or reputable Asiatic obtaining what might be regarded as his licence every year. As far as the Transvaal and the Orange Free State are concerned, of course there is total prohibition to-day. The position of the coloured man and the Asiatic in the Transvaal under this law would be that they would be entitled to be exempted, the ordinary ministerial exemption, the exemptions which apply to the exceptional cases and not to the rule. I think that is quite sufficient for the present needs of the coloured population in the Transvaal. The only point they made when they came to see me was that they wish occasionally at certain times of the year to have the opportunity of obtaining a bottle of liquor. They do not regard it as a slur that they are not able to obtain liquor by the laws of the Transvaal. They do not regard this as a terrible slur, and I must say I have never been able to understand the slur argument. This differentiation which is imposed to assist the coloured community, cannot be regarded as a slur. Of course, people may tell them that it is a slur, and they may be led to believe it, but that it is a slur I deny absolutely.

What about the amendment of the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort?

The amendment would practically leave the position exactly the same in all the provinces. I think that is the intention of the right hon. gentleman.

As it is to-day?

Yes; it would make no change. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) referred to the form which Section 63 may take as being of some importance to the view which he may take of this section. I have just had the draft prepared, and it is in the form which I informed the committee it would take, namely, that we keep the rights of off-consumption as far as hotels are concerned for some length of time and then those rights of sale for off-consumption cease for all time. [Proposed new Clause 63 read.] These proposals may be changed as far as some part of their form is concerned, but it comes to this—that, at the end of five years, the off-consumption sales in on-consumption premises, whether they are bottle stores or hotels in the countryside, will cease.

That means that for five years the canteens will be able to sell by the bottle.

Yes. We are not making them pay any licence fees for those five years for their off-sales. The trouble which the hon. member, I think, is visualizing is this—that there may be small country places so small that they cannot stand both an hotel and a bottle store, although a bottle store can arise in such a place and can be granted a licence. And, therefore, he thinks the policy of increasing your hotel accommodation in the country may receive to a certain extent a setback. There is that difficulty, but I think we have to face this matter that hotels should really be places in which you sell for on-consumption. One could build on to the hotel a place which is not in communication with the hotel, and that place could get a liquor licence, and I can quite understand in a small community that the licensing board would be very careful to see that the same man who had the hotel would also obtain the bottle licence.

They could not pay the high fees.

That is a question that might be adjusted at a later stage. It might be we could deal with licence fees on the population basis.

So the clause maintains the position as far as the canteens are concerned?

Yes, the off-sales are maintained for five years.

Why not make it three?

These questions of period and so on, are other questions. On the question of 103, I think all the legitimate requirements of the coloured people and Asiatics are fully catered for. The only argument that can be raised is that you should not differentiate, but there will be differentiation in any case, because no one would suggest there is going to be any change in the law of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. There is no difference in principle, and I do not see much difference in maintaining something in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, or having it over the whole country. Clause 95 differentiates adversely against the native all over the country.

What will be the position of Clause 63?

The bottle trade is governed by all sections of this Bill dealing with bottle stores, and, therefore, the man who goes on to these premises, if he is a coloured man, would have the right to have his drink on the premises, but would not have the right to buy a bottle of liquor at the end of the day and take it way with him.

Only the white man can?

Yes, only the white man can, but Clause 103 would deal with the whole position efficaciously as far as the coloured man is concerned. The intention of this is to assist the coloured man. If that intention is to assist the coloured man, I do not think he would attach much importance to any question of differentiation or slur, as long as he knows this is not against him, but a section designed for his protection. It may be that there are certain sections which might be affected by the entire omission of the words which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) moved to delete, in line 60 and 61. There are blacklisting provisions and others which might be affected, and I move—

It is a question of principle. If we rely entirely on a section like 81 the licensing board might in one district restrict members of the coloured community from taking liquor, while in the next district the licensing board might decide not to impose any restriction. So, under 81, we cannot deal with the whole of that matter. We can only deal with it by a section of this nature. A section of this nature is of very great importance. Your coloured man is not going to remain the problem—is not to-day in fact—of the Cape Province. We have more and more going to the Free State and the Transvaal, and we must lay down a general policy. This population is going to travel about South Africa as much as other portions of the population and, therefore, there should be a general law applying to the whole of the country. What form that law should take is a question for the committee. I think this is the right form, and, therefore, I am going to stand very strongly by the section as drafted. I am very strongly in favour of this section being accepted and, therefore, at all events, I cannot possibly agree to any withdrawal of this section and I shall be compelled to vote for this section, because I think it is the right thing to do.

I have listened very carefully to the Minister, and I cannot help feeling convinced that the Minister does not understand the psychology of the coloured man or the native man of this country. That I am perfectly convinced of, and I am also perfectly certain the Minister does not understand the feeling of resentment which exists in the minds of a large class of the most respectable of the coloured and native people of this country, and there is no doubt if the Minister will not agree to the deletion of this clause, and is not prepared to accept my amendment, that we are knowingly or unknowingly placing a stigma upon a certain section of the population of this country. I asked the Minister the other evening, and he has never given me any explanation, if he is prepared to define what a coloured man is in this country. There are large numbers of people who, without your knowing their family history, it is impossible to tell whether they are coloured or European, and there are many cases in this country, of which I know myself, of families members of whom are recognized as Europeans, and who are pillars of the church sometimes, in some parts of the country, whereas members of the same family in other parts of the country are recognized as coloured. The Minister may not be so well acquainted with the circumstances in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope as I am and other hon. members are. How is the Minister going to decide in a case of that sort? Surely he must realize, in this province especially, that there are large numbers of coloured people who are only on the border line, and who have only the slightest shade of colour in their composition. Many of these are most respectable, are landowners, and in most responsible positions. Surely the Minister must realize that these people, whom we ought to encourage, must feel that there is a stigma cast on them if you designate them, as in this Bill, Asiatic or coloured, and put them in the undignified position of having to go to a magistrate for a permit. I would like to see this deplorable drunkenness in the Western Province put down as much as the Minister; but you are not going to do it by this clause. You prohibit a particular class of people from having drink. In the minds of a section of the native and coloured people there is the idea that it is not done for their own preservation, but that the European population is prepared and desirous of doing them an injustice; and I am desirous of seeing that that feeling is removed. That that feeling exists a large number of members who know the country will agree. In many cases I go further than the Minister in desiring to strike a blow at the excessive consumption of liquor, but under the existing circumstances of the country, I hope he will agree to delete the clause and substitute the amendment I have moved.

There is one aspect of this question upon which the Minister did not touch—what would be the position if Clause 96 of the Bill was taken out and the amendment of the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) was substituted for it? In my view, if you take Clause 96 out, Natal’s position will be that instead of Asiatics being restricted, as at present, to on-consumption privileges, they will have unrestricted rights and be placed on the same footing as the European. For that reason I am going to strenuously oppose the amendment of the right hon. member. With regard to the definition of “coloured person,” I do not think any person who reads the definition in this Bill can have any serious difficulty in understanding what is meant. A coloured person means any person who is not a native or a European.

What is a European?

It is not necessary to give the definition of a European. I think that coloured people should be restricted in their right to purchase liquor. In deserving cases, there is Clause 103 under which letters of exemption can be granted as the Minister pointed out; I hope the Minister will stand by his clause.

I am afraid I cannot take the same view of “coloured person.” I left that point entirely alone, because I wanted to deal with the main principle. My objection is to specify “coloured person” and “Asiatic.” When it comes down to the crux you are going to have the greatest contention in applying that definition of “coloured person.” What are you going to do with people from other parts of the world, like Mexicans, people from the Argentine, Japan and Brazil? How are you going to exclude them under the definition of “coloured?” They may be people of culture and of the highest breeding and capacity. I foresee the most tremendous difficulties in the application of the clause. The Minister has indicated he is not wedded to the particular drafting of Clause 63 as to the question of time and so on. It is a very long and important clause, and it would be much more satisfactory for the committee if we could study it on the Order Paper, and I hope it will be put there at once. The clause would be much more restrictive than the Minister’s draft seems to indicate. I object to the clause as it stands both on principle, and also on its application. Very great consideration will have to be given to the definition clause. Under another Bill there is to be a local board to decide who is or who is not a coloured person, and under such an arrangement the opportunities for the exhibition of personal malignity and spite will be enormous.

As to the point raised by the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) the most difficult thing in the world to define is a coloured person. This difficulty has been emphasized in the Cape in the matter of school attendance. In one case some children were refused admission to a school, and the case was taken to the highest court, which decided that the children were not of pure European descent. In another instance a man was on the voters’ roll as a non-European. He appealed to the Supreme Court, which decided the point by going into his ancestry, eventually coming to the conclusion that he had a preponderating amount of European blood. But what will be the position of a licence-holder—he will not be able to go into these minute details. There are families in the Cape, half of whose children go to a European school, and the other half to a coloured school, according to the outward appearance of the children. As a matter of fact, you can only decide who is coloured by an exhaustive examination, the carrying out of which for the purposes of this Bill will create enormous difficulties. A coloured man who has the appearance of a European will be able to obtain a bottle of wine to take home with him, but his brother who may look like a coloured man, will be unable to do so. It will be impossible to define coloured unless you trace the family history, because there are so many gradations of colour. It is not right to insist on a clause of this kind, which will be ineffective, and will place a stigma on thousands of people.

One must admire the Minister’s patience with such lengthy speeches and slow progress, and for putting his hand to such a thorny subject to try to get a liquor law that will satisfy everybody. In connection with the drink question, there is of course the phrase, “So many men so many opinions.” The object in this clause honestly is to decrease drunkenness, but the question arises in my mind whether we shall not create conditions in the Cape Province which will be as bad or worse than those prevailing in the Transvaal to-day. We have here a kind of half prohibition, and we feel the danger that very many white persons will be punished as criminals for selling liquor. There will always be the temptation to sell liquor, especially in the parts where it is constantly being worked with What temptation will the foremen or overseers of a neighbour not be put into over against a coloured man who cannot get a permit to buy a bottle of liquor? It will not be possible to control it, even with the best supervision. It is said that we cannot carry out total prohibition, but if I had to choose I should prefer that, for white and coloured persons, to prohibition for a section of the population. The Minister says that it is not intended to cast a reflection on the coloured people in preventing their buying liquor by the bottle without a permit. I do not say it is such a stain, because it is being done with the best intentions, but there can be no doubt that coloured persons will still feel insulted by it. Many of them have reached a high standard of civilization and are extremely respectable. I come into daily contact with them. They are builders, overseers, etc., first-class people. I have some furniture in my house made by a coloured man, and I should like to see any man in the country who can make better. They are highly civilized, and I do not think that we should force them to have a permit when they want to buy a bottle of liquor. They will feel aggrieved at the power of discrimination. I think the Minister should accept the motion of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), or that of the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals), which has the same tendency. It is difficult to draw a line between coloured and white people, but my great grievance is that the civilized and respectable coloured person will be told to get a permit.

I listened with interest to the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson), and his argument seems to be that as the amendment which is going to be moved by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) does not exactly fit the conditions which pertain in Natal, therefore he is going to vote for the original clause as printed. Now I suggest there is another course he can pursue, that is, he can put some proviso in the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort that will meet the Natal position. The hon. member in drafting the amendment probably did not know the whole of the conditions which pertain to Natal, and, therefore, it is up to the Natal members to amend it in such a way as to cover the position. As regards the clause itself, as printed, I think any of us who have acquaintance with the coloured people believe this is an impossible clause. As I read it, it does not attack the drunken man at all. The drunken coloured man is going to get his drink from the shebeen. He is going to be protected. He is going to be supplied out of buckets and will get as much, or even more, than he does now. The only man you are going to attack is the sober coloured man. Every one of us who comes into contact with a great many coloured men and to those of us who know the respectable coloured man, living exactly as a European of a decent class, it seems to us impossible to force such a clause as this upon him. Surely a well-educated coloured man is not going to be turned into a criminal because, for dinner on a Sunday afternoon, he has a glass of beer with his family. Surely a coloured man who is a graduate of a university is not going to be turned into a criminal because he has a bottle of wine with his friends in his own home. It is impossible to think that you are going to penalize every decent coloured man because we all agree there is a considerable number of drunken coloured men who ought to be punished. Punish the drunkard as much as you like. We do not punish him hard enough. We are so keen in preventing the sober man from getting drink that we forget to punish the man who is a curse to the community. I suggest to the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) that instead of venting his wrath on the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), he should amend the clause in a way in which it will work, instead of putting a premium on the shebeens. This clause should be called “the shebeening clause.” It is a godsend to the men who are running shebeens. With regard to the statement of the Rev. Dr. II. P. van der Merwe, who said he had seen truckloads of coloured labourers transported from their farms to the villages in a drunken state, I can only say I have lived a good many years in this country and I have travelled many miles in motor-cars, and I have never seen drunken coloured men going from the farms to the villages. I have seen hundreds of coloured men going from the villages to the farms drunk. Every decent man in the country, coloured men included, would be only too glad if you could stop that traffic which debases the lower class of the community. In our anxiety to hit somebody, don’t hit the innocent coloured man instead of the culprit.

Perhaps it might lead to the termination of the discussion if I make it clear, if the clause is negatived, what I propose to move, and it will meet the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) and Natal. I have no intention to take away from the other provinces conditions which at present exist any more than I wish to put an unnecessary stigma upon anyone. What I propose to move will make it clear that the position shall remain as it is.

But a coloured person is not prohibited in Natal.

A coloured person is a European in Natal.

My amendment makes it clear whatever the law in Natal, Transvaal and the Free State, it remains the law if the amendment is carried. I want to make it clear if Clause 96 is negatived, the amendment I propose to move will leave the conditions as they legally exist to-day in Natal, the Transvaal and the Free State, exactly as they are. I want the hon. members for Natal to understand the position.

It is not so, because I think the word “prohibited” forms part of the amendment in the case of Natal. In Natal the Asiatic is entitled to buy drink in a canteen, but he is not entitled to buy it by the bottle. If that amendment is accepted, he will be entitled to buy it by the bottle. So you see, he can buy it in a restricted form. If the hon. member adds the words “or restricted”, it will meet the point.

If the Minister will tell me where to put them in I will do so.

After the word “prohibited” put in “or restricted”.

I shall be quite prepared, if the clause is negatived, to move my amendment as the Minister now suggests.

The Minister has now conceded a good deal to the prohibitionists. I hope he will now be so friendly and sensible as to yield a bit to the moderate people. Why should prohibition be applied to a class it has never been applied to before? Why should all coloured people be insulted and penalized on account of the bad ones? Will the bad ones be stopped from getting liquor illicitly? The Minister is one of those who made fun of total prohibition in America as a hopeless failure, and now he wants to apply a similar measure here in respect of coloured people, Asiatics and natives. There was prohibition of this kind in the Transvaal, and the result, as appears from the figures quoted by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), was that there were more cases of drunkenness, in Johannesburg alone, among coloured people and natives than there were in the whole of the Western Province where there was no prohibition. All the efforts made in the Transvaal to keep liquor from the coloured and black people failed, and thousands of whites, men and women, were put into gaol owing to those attempts. The Transvaal law once went so far as to provide that the convicted smuggler could only be sentenced to imprisonment, and yet it availed nothing. Now the Minister wants to apply in the Cape Province a system that has failed in the Transvaal. He wants to create criminals of a class of people who have never yet been considered criminals. There are hundreds of teachers among the coloured population. Not one of them will be able to drink a glass of wine, unless he first obtains a magistrate’s special permission. According to the reports of certain inspectors you find a class of white person that comparers unfavourably with his coloured neighbours. Would the Minister regard that aspect as sufficient ground for enforcing total prohibition for the sake of that handful among Europeans? The Government should fight drunkenness, not moderation. Moderation ought to be encouraged. The Minister says it is no affront to provide that liquor should be kept from a certain class without respect of persons. How would the Minister like it if I wanted to provide in the Bill that it would be a punishable offence for a Cabinet Minister to drink a glass of wine. Would such a provision not be notice that all Ministers required protection against themselves? It seems to me that the gentlemen who drafted the Bill did not so much want to reform the liquor laws as to prevent the wine farmers as much as possible from selling their pure produce. I, therefore, move—

I should like a vote to be taken now. I think we have had a very full discussion, and that nothing more can be added to the different views. I think we must have uniformity in the country, and I strongly urge that the clause should be passed as it stands.

Motion put and negatived.

Before we divide I just want to mention one argument which has not yet been used. The clause says. [Clause read.] At present it is lawful for coloured people and Asiatics in the Cape Province to possess liquor. Yet there is no drunkenness on the farms, because the farmer gives them a certain ration of liquor every day, and as they can buy liquor in the villages by the bottle, there is no reason for them to steal liquor or grapes. My argument now is that, if we are going to prohibit the people from buying liquor, we are going to tempt the workman on the farm to steal grapes and make liquor himself. He will then be able to sell that liquor to people who cannot buy it. There are many grape farms in the Cape Province where the coloured person can pick grapes at night to make mos. The position to-day is that most of the vineyards are open. What I am afraid of is that we are creating a great temptation to workers on the farms to make liquor from the grapes. I appeal to the Minister and to the committee to withdraw the clause, or otherwise accept the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), or that of the hon. member for Hope-town (Dr. Stals).

I just want to urge the Minister to assist us. I also represent many coloured people, and there are many respectable ones amongst them. I do not see my way to telling them that they may not buy by the bottle. They are not people who drink too much. Another point is the difficulty of saying who is white and who coloured. If I were to introduce some of them to the Minister he would say they were Europeans. The Minister must assist us, and give the respectable coloured person the right of buying by the bottle.

Question put: That sub-section (1) proposed to be omitted by Dr. Stals, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—38.

Allen, J.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Blackwell, L.

Boydell, T.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Coulter, C. W. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Geldenhuys, L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Moll, H. H.

Nathan, E.

Naudé, A. S.

Oost, H.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Sampson, H. W.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Waterston, R. B.

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

Noes—56.

Alexander, M.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Ballantine, R.

Bergh, P. A.

Brink, G. F.

Chaplin, F. D. P

Close, R. W.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Deane, W. A.

De Villiers, W. B.

Duncan, P.

Du Toit, F. J.

Gilson, L. D.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Hugo, D.

Jagger, J. W.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Munnik, J. H.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rockey, W.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Visser, T. C.

Watt, T.

Tellers: de Jager, A. L.; Robinson, C. P.

Question accordingly negatived, and the first part of the amendment proposed by Dr. Stals agreed to.

I did not want to deal with the matter at once, but on this point we must have the same rule all over the country, and I want to make it clear that we in the Free State and the Transvaal have to give us our position and have the same laws as in the Cape and Natal. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If it is a good thing for the Cape and Natal, it must be good in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State; it must be a better thing, because the numbers are so much smaller. Members of this side who voted against me are making the road open to this Bill being dropped, or the same position being created all over the country. I do not know whether these hon. members understand the gravity of the position, but on a matter of this sort we should not have different legislation. I only want to make the position clear.

The big stick!

No, a very small one.

We must compliment the Minister on the way in which he has conducted his Bill through the House; but it is the first time I have seen a Minister of the Crown use his position to intimidate the committee. The Minister has no right, when the committee has come to a decision by a large majority, to turn round and say: “If you do not adopt my views, I shall move that it be the same all over”—

In this portion.

The majority of the committee has taken up a view which, earlier this afternoon, I thought the Minister was prepared to accept, when a large number of his own supporters got up and spoke in favour of this amendment. I was surprised when, at the end, I found the Minister was not prepared, and going to vote on this clause. A large section of the committee has agreed to delete these words, and I appeal to the Minister to leave it to the discretion of the committee. The Minister himself, and I am very glad of it, and hon. members on all sides of the House have acted up to it, said that this is not a party matter, and he has left it to the committee to decide what shape the Bill shall take when it leaves the precincts of this House. Although many of us have not seen eye to eye with the Minister on many of these clauses, we have, irrespective of party consideration, given him every consideration and assistance; and nobody realizes more than I do the tribute of praise that is due to him for the extraordinary patience he has shown in the various stages of the Bill as it has gone through the committee. It is on account of this that I appeal to the Minister not to try to interfere with the deliberate judgment of the majority of the committee.

I have a good deal of sympathy with the attitude the Minister has just now adopted, and it has nothing to do with party at all. We have heard this afternoon why we should depart from the principle laid down by the Minister in this section and allow certain respectable coloured people in the Cape to buy liquor. In the Orange Free State there are a number of respectable coloured people—landowners—and I do not see by what right the committee shall say these people shall not obtain liquor as they do in the Cape. By its vote the committee has laid down that certain classes of coloured people in the Cape can get liquor.

The Minister was not here and does not understand.

Why discriminate against the same class of coloured people in the Free State? What the Minister proposes to do is to open the door to the same class of coloured people in the Free State.

The Minister’s own Bill made a discrimination between coloured people in the Cape and those in the Free State and Transvaal—with regard to off-consumption.

You want to go further now.

Why make such a fuss about this question of uniformity, which has been given up already? It is a simple question of how you are going to apply certain restrictions which everybody thinks are necessary. To try to impose another form of partial prohibition is a dangerous course, and not to be adopted unless as a last possible resort. There are other matters which do not bring about partial prohibition and racial discrimination.

We are trying to secure uniformity. When you talk about people being restricted you know you are referring to Asiatics and coloured men in other parts of the Union. My aim all through has been to steer as far as I can a middle course between extreme opinion, but when I find on one amendment a section of members voting in favour of greater restrictions and on the next amendment the very same members voting for an extension of opportunities for obtaining liquor, it strikes me as being most extraordinary. One outstanding instance was that offered by Free State members who were very much afraid of restaurants, but they voted against us in the last division. I cannot understand that mentality. This is one of the great difficulties I have had over this Bill, and I think it fairer to mention members who generally vote with the Government, so that hon. members will see that I am not trying to prejudice the position. We cannot go on with a measure of this nature in the way we are doing. I am not saying there is any sign of obstruction, but everybody seems to think that every section should be examined through a microscope, but it is impossible to get through a big consolidating measure of this kind if we are going to be so meticulous.

There must be a certain amount of give and take also.

At the report stage I will consider the matter to see in what way we can obtain some uniformity.

We all sympathize with the Minister’s desire to secure uniformity, but in a country with such diverse conditions as South Africa you cannot have entire uniformity. If the Minister had aimed at a desire to secure uniformity on principles and had left out a number of these minor points, which are really matters of administration, we would have made greater progress. We have not spent much time on important clauses, and I do not think we have laid ourselves open to the charge of wasting time.

I sympathize with the Minister in the disappointment he feels over the rejection of the sub section, but it would be a tragedy of the worst description to abandon the age-long tradition that coloured population in the Transvaal and the Free State should not be allowed to obtain liquor. The argument in favour of uniformity can be extended too far. The only other thing is to steer a middle course and to retain the existing state of affairs so far as this section is concerned. But to say that because you have been defeated on this clause you are going to go to the opposite extreme and allow the coloured people in the Cape and Natal to get what liquor they want would be a terrible position to face. I beg the Minister not to carry the clause to that extreme. We must accept the position with the best grace we can.

I also want to appeal to the Minister to reconsider the matter. Our conditions differ greatly from those in the Cape. I am very sorry that we have lost. We have a few coloured people, but thousands and thousands of natives, and if they are permitted, it will mean their absolute ruin. I am, therefore, opposed to it.

I have listened to the orations of the last four or five speakers, but it seems to me they have been reflections on the recent vote. On a point of order, I call attention to the fact that Standing Order 70 says that no member shall speak against or reflect on any motion of the House.

The vote on sub-section 1 has not been completed.

The reason I voted against the clause was because I was satisfied that the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) would meet our needs. The Minister should realize that there are essential differences in different parts of the Union. While we are desirous of helping the Minister to get the Bill through, we have to view the matter in the light of the people who sent us here to represent them.

I have the greatest sympathy with the Minister and how a Free Stater can vote for this I cannot understand. The Minister is right to show the Free Stater the right way.

On a point of order, are not all these speeches a reflection on the last vote?

All the speeches are not, but the last speech is.

I cannot see that it is, but I take no notice of the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) who dare not vote for anything in favour of temperance. I think the Minister is right, and on the next clause they will vote right and come with us. I cannot understand how a man from the Free State can vote for a coloured man getting a bottle of wine or brandy in Colesberg and yet fight like the very devil against him in getting it at Phillipolis. Naturally, the coloured men in the neighbouring towns will ask why they can’t have it, and they will start agitating now. We want to keep the bottle away from these coloured men and the Minister is light. There are quite a number of men in this House who are not following this Bill at all—they are simply asking their pals how they should vote.

I am very sorry that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has been so courageous as to teach me and other members from the Free State a lesson. It comes badly from him to want to teach us how to vote. I know what I have voted about, and if I have to vote on the matter again, I would do so in the same way. I shall not allow myself to be intimidated by him or anyone else. I am prepared to defend my action to my constituents, but he dare not do so.

[Inaudible.] We are not going to apply prohibition to the white people in the Cape Province, and why then should we do so to the coloured people, seeing they have always had the right to buy liquor. If I get the privilege of voting upon local option, I shall always support it. Why should we allow the white people to drink, and prevent the coloured people, who are able to pay for it? In the Free State the coloured people were never permitted to buy drink, and why should we allow it now? We cannot do it. [Inaudible.]

I just want to say that I voted against the clause for the same reason, because I cannot see why we should expose Europeans to liquor and protect coloured persons from it.

That is your excuse is it not?

Won’t the hon. member withdraw the amendment? It is practically the same as that of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort?

Question put: That the words “(2) Subject to any restriction or condition imposed by a licensing board under the authority of section”, proposed to be omitted by Dr. Stals, stand part of the clause.

You might kindly explain to the committee, Mr. Chairman, what the position will be. There are certain members of the committee who are desirous of omitting the whole clause and substituting the proposal which I have suggested afterwards, and they are really not in a position to know how to Vote. I take it that whatever may happen now it would be open to the committee to delete the clause in whatever form it may appear before the committee.

That is so.

Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes-47.

Allen, J.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Blackwell, L.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conroy, E. A.

Coulter, C. W. A.

De Wet, S. D.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hugo, D.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Oost, H.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Sampson, H. W.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—51.

Alexander, M.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Bergh, P. A.

Brink, G. F.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Deane, W. A.

De Villiers, W. B.

Du Toit, F. J.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L D.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pearce, C.

Reitz, D.

Rockey, W.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Niekerk, P, W. le R.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Watt, T.

Tellers: de Jager, A. L.; Robinson, C. P.

Question accordingly negatived, and the second part of the amendment proposed by Dr. Stals agreed to.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Blackwell, Mr. J. P. Louw and the Minister of Justice, in sub-section (2), dropped.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice, to omit sub-section (3), put and agreed to.

All the words of Clause 96 having been omitted,

New Clause 96,

I move—

1. 96. Save as is otherwise provided in this Act no person shall supply any liquor in the Provinces of the Transvaal, Orange Free State or Natal to any person to whom under the law in force in these provinces at the commencement of this Act the supply of liquor is prohibited or restricted and no such person shall in these provinces obtain or be in possession of any liquor.

I want to say this amendment would be a blot upon the law from a drafting point of view. It is very bad drafting to make the position that a law which has been repealed will still remain in force.

That can be put right at the report stage.

I shall certainly vote against that amendment.

Then there will be no clause at all.

If hon. members do not accept the half loaf in the shape of the amendment by the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), the position they will create is this, that in the Transvaal and Natal any coloured person may walk into a bar or bottle store and demand to be served with drink. Seeing we cannot get the whole thing, I intend to vote for the amendment.

There is some contradiction in the terms of this. If you are going to restrict a person so that he cannot obtain liquor, you cannot in the same breath say that no person shall obtain liquor.

Proposed new clause put.

I must point out that after our deleting sub-section (2), I should really have put the amendment of the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals). I understood he was going to withdraw it.

Under those circumstances, I withdraw it.

With the leave of the committee, amendment withdrawn.

Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—57.

Alexander, M.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Bergh, P. A.

Blackwell, L.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie. J. H.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

De Villiers, W. B.

Du Toit, F. J.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Keyter, J. G.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pearce, C.

Reitz, D.

Robinson, C. P.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Stals, A. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, O. S.

Watt, T.

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

Noes—47.

Allen, J.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Wet, S. D.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, M. L.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Oost, H.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Pretorius, N. J.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Steytler, L. J.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Reitz, H.; Sampson, H. W.

Proposed new clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 97,

I move—

I move—

I should like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close). I took up the attitude this afternoon that no distinction of colour should be made, and I am glad that the House also wants to make none.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 98,

I wish to move an amendment—

I see the clause provides that Natal shall be excluded from the spread of the tot, and I wish to press that the Eastern Districts of the Cape Province be also excluded from the tot system.

Business suspended at 6 p.m., and resumed at 8.8 p.m.