I would be very glad if the Minister would kindly explain why after 18 years of Union, it has been found necessary to introduce a measure to repeal the laws previously existing in Natal.

I can only answer that within the last two years, at any rate, I have discovered that the original Act in Natal was defective, but my predecessors who were in office about 14 years had not discovered it at all.

I want to ask the Minister what is the necessity for this Bill now. Has something been happening recently?

I explained it on the second reading yesterday. I do not know whether the hon. member was here. The position of the law to-day is and was, in fact, under the old Natal Act, even as long as it was in force, that if a man crossed the border with diamonds stolen, say, in the Transvaal, directly he crossed the border into Natal he was immune.

These things never happened under the late Government.

The Minister must not take away these privileges.

We have repealed the old Natal Act, as I indicated yesterday, in the Precious Stones Act, but the old Natal Act originally was defective. I referred yesterday to section 135 of the Natal Act, which says that any person found unlawfully in possession of precious stones shall be liable to summary arrest, and then prescribes a penalty. The hon. member will see that that meant that where a man was found in possession of uncut stones or of cut and polished diamonds, he was equally liable to a penalty. That is one point in the old Natal legislation. I think I should ask the hon. member why that legislation was so defective.

Because Natal is above suspicion.

The second point is this, the Act itself did not constitute the possession of cut or uncut diamonds an offence. Contrast that with the first section of the Ordinance of the Transvaal which I propose taking power in this Bill to apply to Natal in whole or in part—

That creates it an offence.

May I ask the Minister why he has taken power to apply this Transvaal ordinance by proclamation to Natal, and why he is taking power, also by proclamation, to withdraw it. That is the sort of legislation appropriate to the native territories perhaps but hardly appropriate for a place like Natal.

I may remind the hon. member for Zululand that there has actually been a case recently before the magistrate in Natal where it was alleged that a man was in unlawful possession of diamonds on the 1st of November. The new Act operated on the 16th of November. The man was therefore brought before the court later than the operation of the Act and the prosecution could not prove that the diamonds he was then in possession of were identical with the diamonds alleged to have been in his possession on the 1st of November. The magistrate therefore ruled that the Natal Act having been repealed by the Precious Stones Act there was no case against the accused, but the magistrate had not discovered evidently the defect in the Natal Act itself. The man could not have been convicted under the Natal Act itself even if the Precious Stones Act had not repealed it, for the simple reason that there is no provision in the Natal Act which makes the possession of cut or uncut diamonds an offence. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) it is simply this: Strictly speaking it would be advisable for us to revise the diamond trade legislation of the Transvaal and the Cape, but it would be a very big measure to introduce during this session. In the same way therefore to introduce a measure for Natal alone in the meantime would give rise very likely to a lot of discussion and considerable delay, and it is very urgent that this matter should be remedied. It is only the operation of the Precious Stones Act that has drawn attention to the fact that when a person passes the border he is immune. In these circumstances, although I quite agree with the hon. member that it is inadvisable to apply legislation by proclamation, we thought it the simplest way out of the difficulty. It is really a very urgent thing and I think the hon. member should possess his soul in patience until one of these years, I hope comparatively soon, we can introduce a Bill consolidating diamond trading in the, whole Union and pass a measure that will be satisfactory to all four provinces. Another reason why the Transvaal ordinance has been selected is that we find in practice it has answered the best in the administration of the diamond trade. I frankly admit it is not the most ideal or most satisfactory way of dealing with the problem, but it is a very urgent problem and I hope the House will deal with the matter in that light and in that spirit.

If it is so urgent as the Minister has explained and he proposes ultimately to introduce permanent legislation, why cannot he make this a part of the ordinary law? This making the law by proclamation is a most objectionable thing. It is another form of bureaucratic government in which power to make laws is left in the hands of a Minister of the Crown. There is no reason whatever why this thing should not be introduced as a permanent piece of legislation considering the fact that the Minister intends to introduce consolidating legislation later on. The result is, all we can do now is to discuss the principle of whether this should be introduced in Natal for a period absolutely in the discretion of the Minister. I object most strongly to this form.

According to the Minister’s statement it appears that a serious error was made by the Minister when introducing the Precious Stones Act. From what I can gather this Natal Act is repealed by the Precious Stones Act. The fault really was the Government’s fault. Instead of making provision at that time they neglected to do so, and Natal was not considered at all. The Minister is taking power to himself to proclaim in Natal a law of which we know nothing. That seems to me a very unfair way of legislating. There may be conditions in that law to which we may take the strongest exception. I think the procedure the Minister seeks to adopt is one which the House should not confirm. I think the Minister is going very far in asking the House to say that a law shall be applied to a province simply by proclamation, a law which this House has not had an opportunity of discussing or seeing at all. It seems to me the minister is taking upon himself the most autocratic power. The Minister is known as one of the greatest autocrats in South Africa. Here he is seeking to carry out his principle of autocracy as far as Natal is concerned. I object very strongly to the Minister taking to himself this power. May I ask the Minister what is the meaning of the next clause in regard to the definition of the word “claim”? There must be some reason for that.

No, I am not one of the greatest autocrats of South Africa; I am one of its humblest servants. The hon. member, who is a lawyer, ought to know, if he looks up the Act—I have cited Section 113 (5)—that even if it had not been repealed there would have been no offence, and an acquittal would have had to take place. Surely I have made that plain. The repeal of the Act had nothing to do with the difficulty in which we are. It would have been a difficulty in any case as far as Natal is concerned. The hon. member says: did I not commit a mistake in omitting it from the Precious Stones Bill? No, certainly not. If he knows anything about diamond legislation he will know that diamond trade legislation is kept strictly apart from the Precious Stones Act. It was never the intention of that Act to deal with the matter, nor is it the intention now. His next question was: How are they going to know in Natal what is going to be applied? Ordinance 63 of 1903 is specifically mentioned in the Bill and is on the statute book—and every citizen of the Union is presumed to know the law; so he has a very concrete idea, by simply referring to that clause, to know to what extent the Government can apply it, either wholly or partially. The third question he put to me is: Why is “claim” not defined? The reason is we are safeguarding vested rights in Natal and including the claims which existed, prior to Act 43 of 1899 of Natal, because every Act before that date was repealed by that Act; any claim that had arisen under previous legislation in Natal is safeguarded and we further safeguard a claim that had become a vested right under Act 43 of 1899. That is the only reason for this definition.

Brushing aside the technicalities introduced on this side of the House, let me state at once that this little Bill is a measure to protect the honest digger from the wholesale theft of diamonds, and to protect the State’s revenue. Hon. members not connected with the diamond industry have not the slightest idea of the enormous value of diamonds stolen during the year. It is not that we are suspicious of Natal, but the people who take diamonds to Natal and are immune from the law are not above suspicion. I hope there will be no frivolous objections to this measure, because it is to the interest of the honest digger and the mines. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) accused the Minister of being the biggest autocrat in the Ministry; I thought another Minister had that reputation.

I do not think my hon. friend behind me exactly grasps the objections to this Bill, which are not to its principles, but to the introduction of a system which is foreign to our legislation outside the native territories, and placing in the hands of any government the power of legislating by proclamation. I believe that what my hon. friend desires to secure can be secured without departing from the principles of legislating directly. I move as an amendment—

If you agree to that you have everything my hon. friend opposite and my hon. friend behind me want, and you get rid of the very objectionable practice of legislating by proclamation for any of the provinces.

The Minister has pointed out that the urgency arises from the fact that it has been discovered that Natal is a sort of no-man’s-land, and if it is the desire of the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) that Natal should be put into this invidious position he is not entitled to the sympathy of this committee. It states definitely it is not a question of dealing with a proclamation enforcing any particular measure which the Government wishes or desires, but the object is a proclamation enforcing a known Act—the Transvaal Act—as applying to Natal. Whatever amendment the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has introduced, it is exactly what the Minister aims at in Clause 1. What more does the right hon. member want than to leave Natal out of the purview of the Illicit Diamond Trading Act? The hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) has acknowledged the dangers of the illicit diamond trade. The Minister has brought forward the shortest and most expeditious manner in which that object can be attained. I think the committee is wasting its time if we do not get down to business and accept this principle.

I am not opposed to the creation of the powers which the Minister acquires here; I am opposed to his method, and I hope the Minister will accept that from me.

I am desirous of giving all the powers the Minister asks for and will move—

The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) does not realize that no one wants Natal to be an Alsatia, but nobody desires the Union to be a Russia.

Will the committee be at liberty to discuss clause by clause the Ordinance which was passed when the Transvaal was under Crown Colony Government, for the Ordinance may contain clauses to which the House may object? Are we to swallow the 45 clauses of the Ordinance without seeing them? The Ordinance may be quite in order, but we have had no time to study it, and we have not heard whether it works well or not.

I certainly think the main points should have been dealt with on the second reading yesterday. It seems to me that some hon. members have only tumbled to the main import of the Bill to-day. However, better late than never. As to what the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) suggests, I think the Chairman will rule him out of order if he attempts to discuss the Ordinance clause by clause. That is the difficulty. If the House prefers that I should withdraw the measure and start legislation de novo for Natal, and bring in an elaborate Bill which will, perhaps, be discussed ad nauseam, well and good. We have to deal with a special problem which is very insistent and urgent. I am willing to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) because I think the difference between the amendment and the clause is no more than the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, for in effect it would still be legislation by proclamation. The amendment does not eliminate the objectionable principle which has been referred to, and I admit it is a very unsatisfactory way of dealing with the matter, but you have either to solve the problem or run the risk.

If the House accepts the amendment the whole of the Ordinance will automatically become applicable to Natal, but under the Bill the Governor-General can use his discretion and apply certain sections of the Ordinance only according to the circumstances of Natal. We ought to accept the Minister’s proposals.

What the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) has just stated is quite correct. It will not matter very much in practice, but it will certainly be more convenient for the Governor-General to choose the section of the Ordinance which will meet the circumstances of Natal. If, however, it is felt that the whole of the Ordinance must be automatically applied, that will also solve the difficulty.

I do not agree with the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). We are all anxious to avoid the trouble which the Minister has pointed out. As I read the Bill, the Governor-General can, by proclamation, apply such provisions of the Transvaal Ordinance as are necessary, but if the whole of the Ordinance is to be applied then there is great force in what the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) says, that we should be at liberty to discuss the whole of the Ordinance. There may be clauses in the Ordinance which we in Natal do not want applied there. There is, however, no objection at all to the arrest in Natal of persons in the illegal possession of diamonds.

I don’t suppose any of us like this form of legislation, but there is one aspect of the matter which has not been pointed out. That is, we are passing a measure referring to an ordinance which is not available to the ordinary members of the public. In the past it has been the custom to publish other legislation as a schedule to the Bill. We did it in the Patents, Designs, Trade Marks and Copyright Act and in the Naturalization Act of 1926. If you pass a law let the public know what the law is. It would only have been reasonable if the Minister had incorporated as a schedule to this Bill the provisions of this Transvaal Ordinance of 1903 so that anybody reading the Bill would know exactly what the Government was going to apply. It is a pre-Union ordinance and only lawyers can understand it.

I am prepared to do this. When the proclamation is issued I will embody in the proclamation all the sections which apply. I forgot to move an amendment—

In view of the difference of opinion I think it will be better to leave the Bill as it is. In the proclamation I will see the sections of the ordinance are embodied.

If representatives of Natal would sooner have the Bill in the manner introduced by the Minister, I am not going to make any objection. If there are certain sections of the ordinance of the Transvaal which should not apply to Natal, then I think the Bill should have been brought in in another direction embodying the sections that will apply to Natal. I do not agree with the principle of legislating by proclamation for any of the four provinces. It should have been embodied in a Bill and should have been laid before the House and passed in the ordinary way. However, I am certainly not going to stand in the way of the people who represent Natal, and I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.

I agree with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) that the Minister should have embodied the information as to what we are legislating for. I am not raising any further objection to this Bill, but I would like to ask the Minister in connection with the legislation on claims whether there has been any recent discovery of diamonds in Natal.

Not that I am aware of.

There seems to be a difference of opinion between colonial members and Natal members on that side. The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) seems to find fault with a law passed in the Transvaal under the Colonial Government, yet the hon. member sitting beside him was the one big man at that time. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) seems to think the law is right because his hon. friend drew it up.

The hon. member who has just sat down has missed the point, as he generally does. The point is that we do not know what is in the law that is to be applied to Natal. The Minister comes before us and tells us he finds himself in an impasse, and he wants to find a way of getting out of it and so he suggests the right to govern by proclamation. Now legislation by proclamation is wrong and should never be applied to a white community.

It is sloppy legislation of the worst character.

The Minister should attach to this measure the section of the Transvaal law which he intends to apply to Natal, in the form of a schedule. This I.D.B. Act was a trouble we had 45 years ago. In the early days of Kimberley when the I.D.B. Act was passed we refused to have it in Natal because we objected to being placed under grave disabilities. If the Minister accepts the suggestion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) it will meet the position.

In order to remove any apprehension from the mind of the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) that the law was drafted by me, let me tell him it was not. It was drafted by a man who rendered great service to Natal, Sir Richard Solomon.

The Ordinance of 1903 consists of 45 clauses. This Bill has been before the House for some time now and those concerned with the Bill might have studied it. Under the circumstances I ask the committee to proceed, as we have more important work to do. We are told the people in Natal are all honest. This is not intended to deal with the people of Natal, but with the people who come from the Cape and elsewhere who, it is said, are not honest.

I would like the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) to tell us of any schedule that does not apply to Natal, and which would be objectionable to Natal.

I am personally very sorry the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has undertaken to withdraw his amendment.

I did not understand the hon. member had withdrawn it.

Yes, he asked permission to withdraw it. I am surprised at the members for Natal. They say they do not know what the 1903 Ordinance is, but it is important that they should know, if they are going to be embodied in the Act as a whole. My objection to this is that I think this Bill is setting a thoroughly bad and a thoroughly dangerous precedent and one that is sure to be followed. It sets a precedent of enabling the members of the Ministry to determine what law shall be applied to any one of the provinces of the Union. That is autocratic Government in another form. The bureaucratic tendency of legislation nowadays is a thing we have got to fight against, I think, as hard as we possibly can. What is the position? People are going to be left with the utmost uncertainty as to what the law is at any given time. I think the Bill as it stands is a thoroughly bad, a thoroughly vicious and a thoroughly dangerous form of legislation.

I would like to withdraw my amendment. At the same time I would like to say I hope the Minister will not make a practice of legislation of this sort.

With leave of committee, amendments proposed by Sir Thomas Smartt withdrawn.

I would like to embody my suggestion in the form of an amendment. I would, therefore, move—

Does not the hon. member (Mr. Alexander) appreciate that if we attach that schedule embodying, for instance, out of the 47 sections of the Transvaal ordinance 30 or 35, the effect would be as if I had a Bill embodying all those sections? It is the loss of time that I wish to avoid.

I do not see what loss of time there would be. All that the Minister would have to do would be to attach a schedule containing the provisions of the ordinance, as was done in the case of other Bills I mentioned. It simply means attaching a copy of the ordinance of 1903 to this Bill to let everybody know what the law is.

Before this Bill is put and the committee decides upon it I do hope my honourable friends from Natal will realise what they are doing in accepting the application of this Ordinance to Natal. I suppose there is no enactment on our statute book that is such a blot upon it as this I.D.B. law. It is a total reversal of the very basis of British justice. It throws upon the individual accused the onus of proof that he is entitled to what he has. He can be deemed a thief; he can have a rough diamond put in his pocket, and if he cannot show how he got it he can be sent to the breakwater to serve time. This I.D.B. Act has been a blot on South Africa for years and years. It was passed to please directors of companies at Kimberley, who, having great influence with the Government, were able to do what nobody else would have been allowed to do. I will read the very first clause of that crime-creating ordinance and put it frankly to members whether they are anxious to endorse, continue and extend it (Clause 1 of the ordinance read): The penalties prescribed are such as to deprive a man of his liberty, and it places in the hands of those who are paid to trap a man or woman the most terrible weapon that one could possibly give to anybody, and “traps” are semi-criminals. I am amazed at lawyers, even judges, men who are brought up in the high principles of justice, not standing up boldly and saying “Let us go back to the fair, honest common-law the Britishers have established and that is if a man calls me a thief it is he who has to prove that I am one. If he accuses me of having property which is not mine he has to prove that it is not mine.” Under this law the whole onus is thrown on the accused who may be entirely innocent. We are spending £20,000 a year in getting people “trapped” into prison when all that is really necessary is that there should be a sufficient police force and an efficient detective department. It is indeed high time that we looked back and see that we have already gone far enough, even too far! but no, it is not human life and liberty that is protected but “sacred property” must be protected at the expense of departing from the great foundation principles of British justice.

How about Roberts Victor Company?

There was nothing dishonest in the Roberts Victor Company. It was honestly run, and when I was connected with it I was just as much opposed to this ordinance as I am now. Temptation is deliberately placed in the way of people. We inflict terrible penalties; we send people to gaol for years, and now you are asked to extend this inequity to Natal. I ask Natal members to remember that they are invited to introduce into Natal what has proved a curse in this country, and had I time I could show how injustices have been done that one could almost weep over. Families have been ruined because of this unfair and unjust principle of placing the onus of proof on the accused. May I express the hope that my Natal friends will pause before they allow this Bill to be accepted without a protest. I beg the House not to extend but even to take away this blot on our statutes, and restore the common and just law.

The Minister has accused us of ignorance on this side. I should like to apply a very simple test to the Minister’s knowledge of the subject. Will he tell the House now what particular clauses in the Transvaal Ordinance he intends applying in Natal? Can he do this or can he not?

If the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) is not much more careful he will gain the championship or the record for making misstatements in this House.

I won’t take it away from you.

Ho said this Diamond Trade Act was made by the De Beers Company. The Diamond Trade Act was passed in Kimberley in the time of the individual diggers and it had nothing whatever to do with De Beers, but the hon. member just takes that to suit his purpose at the moment. I hope the hon. member will make that statement with regard to Mr. Brink outside the House that he made inside the House a day or two ago. If a man has in his possession a stone which he came by honestly, he can easily give an account. I say a man was never convicted of illicit diamond buying unless he was guilty and many guilty people have got off scot free. I cannot understand the objections from Natal at all. They have no diamond mines in Natal. I have been in Parliament 17 years since Union and the diamond mining industry has not received any help from this side of the House. A little Bill comes before the House simply to protect the industry against wholesale theft, and yet there are these objections from this side of the House. Surely members from Natal do not want Natal to be made a happy hunting ground for illicit diamond buyers. I hope this Bill will pass in the interests of the Government and the honest digger, and the country despite the sympathy of the hon. member for Pretoria West for the illicit diamond dealers.

The hon. member for Pretoria West forgets we have just put through the House a Bill which has the very same principle—the Stock Theft Bill. Anyone found in possession of meat and so on, had to prove where he got it from. It was accepted by the Natal people with the greatest pleasure. If an unfortunate native is found to-day with a fowl in his possession, he has to prove to the magistrate where he got that fowl from.

There has to be suspicion that it has been stolen.

Of course there has to be suspicion. There is always suspicion in Natal if a man has got a bit of meat.

The hon. member (Mr. Hay) is not a happy exponent of the principles of British justice. Has he ever heard of the doctrine of peculiar knowledge under the law of ignorance? Let me give him a few homely instances. He kills a man and he pleads justification. Is not on moral grounds the onus on him to satisfy the jury he had justification? Say he makes a criminal libel and he is prosecuted and he pleads justification?

No, he pleads privilege in this case.

Surely the onus is upon him on all moral grounds to prove that he is privileged. So, in the same way it is a well-known thing in South Africa and has been for generations that possession of uncut diamonds is an offence prima facie and therefore the man in possession is morally and legally required to explain his possession. There is nothing immoral or inconsistent about it. In answer to the hon. member opposite, the very gist of this Bill shows we have not yet determined what sections are to be embodied, but if the hon. member is particularly curious, I promise him, if he wants to ask for it, an advance copy of the sections I intend to apply or that we may decide afterwards to apply.

I have never heard a weaker argument put up by the Minister. He previously told us that this Bill is most urgently needed in order to deal with certain cases which have occurred in Natal. It is therefore to be rushed through the House. Yet he is unable to tell us what portion of the Act of the Transvaal he wishes to apply to Natal. Where, then, can be the urgency? I think the Minister owes it to the House that he should specify the particular section of the Act which he seeks to enforce in Natal. That is what we are asking for.

I am glad to have this lecture on justice and law. This is not murder or libel but simply a question of property. Whatever the apostle of truth and defender of rectitude from Beaconsfield tells us, I know perfectly well it is a lie—not his lie—to say that they only trap the guilty. I can instance cases beyond all question where this Act has been used for purposes of revenge or injuring people, and all this camouflage, put up for years, is absolute fabrication, one of those fabrications which emanate from the great producers of diamonds. It looks as if those who control diamonds in quantity were devoid of the first principles of rectitude and truth. If you are found in possession of any rough or uncut diamonds it is a crime. If “He shall be unable to account satisfactorily or prove his right to such stones” he can be sent to gaol. How is it if you are staying at an hotel and enclosed in your soap a rough and uncut diamond is found, you may be called upon to explain satisfactorily how that diamond came into your possession? I have known of men afraid to hang up their great coats for fear of a diamond being found in the pocket. The sooner this law is abandoned the better. No other country has anything of this sort. I can find no single instance of a country where they have trapping for the protection of property like this. It is not a question of human life, but the “sacred rights of property.” I make a final protest, but I do not think it will be of the slightest use. I object to anything on the statute book throwing the onus of proof on the accused.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Mines and Industries put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 2 and the Title having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment which was considered and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

I move—

I do not think we should take the third reading now, but on Monday.

Third reading on 27th February.

As far as I understand the amendments the principal are by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), which, if adopted, will have the effect of stopping the tot system altogether. Then we have the amendment of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie), who wishes to confine that system to the Cape Province. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben), on the other hand, wants to prevent the tot system being extended to the eastern portion of the Cape Province. On the other hand, if the clause, as before the committee, is passed, it would mean that the tot system would continue in the Cape, with certain restrictions, and be extended to the Transvaal.

Not the tot system; we have never had it; it is a different thing to what obtains in the Free State.

In the Free State it is legal, I believe, to give tots, but is practically a dead letter.

It is used occasionally.

Leaving the Free State out of account just now, it seems to me that the circumstances in the Transvaal, with a large body of tribal natives, living in a semi-barbarous state, is much the same as in Natal; and if it is a reasonable thing to prevent the tot system from being applied to Natal, a very good case can be made out to prevent its extension to the Transvaal. I think there is a good deal in the argument used by the hon. member for Worcester to the effect that where native labourers are in the habit of working with wine it is almost impossible to keep wine from them, and they will get it by fair means or foul. The objection I have to the tot system is such that I do not see my way to vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Worcester. It is the fashion at the present time, and the correct thing, amongst coloured labourers to take their tot, and there is no doubt that if a man drinks a bottle of wine daily for months and years he gets a taste for liquor, and there is a section of the coloured people who drink too much.

In Natal?

I have never seen in Natal anything like the same scenes as I have seen in the neighbourhood of Cape Town. I had occasion, on a Saturday and Sunday, to visit a friend in Stellenbosch, and, although I know Natal very well, both the coast and uplands, I have never seen anything there like the drunken men and women one sees between here and Stellenbosch on Saturday and Sunday afternoons.

Not on Sunday afternoons.

We have a duty to these people—to try to save them from this—and if we do not take this opportunity of dealing with the matter, we will be wanting in our duty. It is not necessary, according to the evidence, for fruit growers and wine farmers to bribe their labourers with this inducement, and progressive farmers can get all the labour they want without it

I should like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie). We hear so much from the supporters of the abolition of the tot system, but they are mostly members who do not know what takes place on the countryside. I ask hon. members who want to abolish it what the economic result thereof would be. The labour conditions in the Western Province are very difficult. We hear the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) saying that the tot system is pernicious, but I challenge hon. members to point out where it is so, and I challenge the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) to prove that the health of the workmen on the countryside is worse than that of other workmen as a result of the tot system. I go so far as to say that the health of the coloured workmen in the town is worse than that of those in the country. Hon. members think it will be such an easy matter to get rid of the tot system. I think it is absolutely impossible. The tot system has existed in the Western Province for two and a half centuries, and how shall we be able to uproot it all at once? It is just as impossible to get rid of all the natives in one day, as to get rid of the tot system by a stroke of the pen. The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) has proposed a fair amendment. If hon. members are convinced that the tot system is pernicious let them then commence the long job of curtailing it, but not all at once. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), who is so much opposed to the system, must not forget that even he is dependent on the development of the countryside. If we are going to abolish the tot system suddenly, it will cause confusion. The hon. member must not forget that labour is scarce on the countryside. He will probably say that it is not so on his property, but his ground practically adjoins the canteen, and the men can go and drink there. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) quoted what Mr. Charles Leonard said. I can, however, tell him from experience that the labourers on Mr. Leonard’s farm, after their work is finished, indulged in drunkenness. In my opinion there is nothing fairer than the amendment of the hon. member for Worcester. It concedes the acknowledgment of certain restrictions as to the supply of liquor. The other proposal is that one pint of wine may be given to a man after 4 o’clock. Do hon. members realize what the result of that is? If we give a man a pint of wine at 4 o’clock he has not yet got to the end of his day, he will be unfit for further work. Another point which has already been referred to is, who is to measure the wine? I must say the Minister has put in a very sensible stipulation, namely, that a workman under 18 shall not get any liquor. I think that is very good. In my constituency we also disapprove of giving liquor to coloured women. We can accept the amendment of the hon. member for Worcester, and be certain that no drunkenness will be caused by the tot system.

There is another aspect of the case. Walking down the street this morning, I saw a distinguished looking Japanese officer and his wife, and, judging from the way they were going, they were presumably living at the Mount Nelson Hotel. From the insignia of his rank I should say that he was at least a lieut-commander. When this Bill comes into operation we may be faced with this extraordinary position; we may have an Indian Cabinet Minister and a Japanese admiral visiting Cape Town and staying at the Mount Nelson Hotel. When they ask for a drink, the waiter will reply that he is very sorry, but they will have to wait until 4 o’clock. Then they will be lined up and will have to drink their whisky and soda in the presence of the waiter, or the Japanese admiral will have to go to the Minister or a police officer and ask for a permit for a drink. The next time the Minister goes to dinner with Mr. Sastri he will have to take a permit with him to enable his host to have a drink at dinner. That is going to be the result of this legislation.

May I point out to the hon. member he should not discuss it under this section. This section has to do with something else.

I was discussing the principle of this clause—Clause 98 (1), which we are now on. It says no person shall supply liquor to any Asiatic.

“In his employment”.

The context of the clause, the hon. member will notice from the marginal note, is different to the matter the hon. member is discussing. It says—

Although confined to employers for the time being, the principle is a bar against Asiatics, and I repeat the ludicrous situation I have imagined may come to pass. I ask, therefore, why it is necessary to pass a pitiful clause like this. We should take some pride in our work and turn out a finished article rather than a clause like this. In any case, how does this come to be embodied in the law at all? I have looked up all the evidence in the select committee, and I have not found a single witness who gave evidence in favour of it.

The wine farmers.

The hon. member gave me all the papers.

He deceived you.

Oh. It will not be the first time then. I have failed to find a single witness in favour of it. If there are such, they must have been very few, because I have looked all through and, so far, I have found none of them. That being so, there was not a great demand for this clause.

Without the clause the tot system goes on unchecked.

It reminds me of the story of Mr. Bloemfeldt, who, year after year, applied to Sir Goold Adams for a liquor licence, and when Sir Goold Adams asked him for a single reason why he should have a liquor licence, Mr. Bloemfeldt replied: “I am so sick of supplying liquor without a licence that I think I should have it.” The Minister’s argument as to why we should pass this clause has been that we are giving tots. He admitted himself he gave tots.

No, I never make admissions against myself.

He said the system existed in the case of the Transvaal, so let us legalize it.

I said it was very common.

That is a poor argument. No section of the community has asked for it, and as the Minister is not wedded to it, we shall save a lot of time and dissatisfaction by withdrawing the amendment. I am not at one with the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). He proposes to abolish the tot system in the Cape in one fell swoop. That is far too drastic. It has been entrenched in the Cape for two and a half centuries and you cannot do it in the way suggested by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central). We have seen the results of hasty legislation of this character in America. It leads to bootlegging and illicit liquor selling. I am strongly opposed to extending it to the Transvaal for the reasons I have given, and those I gave yesterday, and for the reasons the Minister himself gave yesterday when he said he was not wedded to the clause. I suggest he should withdraw the clause.

I may say the hon. member’s fears regarding Mr. Sastri are unfounded. Such a case is fully provided for in another clause.

What about the admiral?

I propose to deal with the admiral in an amendment I have put on the paper to define Asiatics, that one can exclude races by proclamation, and that was chiefly on representations made by the Japanese Government. You cannot deal with the whole of a matter like this because there are exceptional cases.

You will find the admiral could not have Dr. Abdurahman as his guest.

We should delete all reference to Asiatics and coloured. If differentiation can be used in regard to the sale of liquor in the Cape, it must be used in connection with the supply of liquor to Asiatics and coloured persons in the Cape. That differentiation should equally disappear in this section and the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) have taken up quite the right attitude. Other members have not taken up the right attitude. Other members want to introduce this in the Cape and you can only prevent them in the Cape from obtaining liquor by differentiation. It is a strange thing that this is accepted by members who voted against differentiation in section 96. It is a very curious thing that they argue in favour of differentiation in this section.

Uniformity has been a favourite word with you and we want to apply it here.

Entire uniformity is impossible, but we must have a little uniformity. We decided in Section 96 that it was differentiation to mention Asiatics and coloured and I suggest it is equally differentiation here to say they cannot get it as a gift. There is no difference in principle. There may be a difference as far as members in the Cape Province are concerned, but I cannot see it. In the Cape we must avoid all reference to Asiatics and coloured and I will certainly support that. I am personally in favour of this principle of no differentiation, but I say if that other policy is followed in Clause 96, we should follow that same policy in Clause 98. That is the only point I make. I think it is a perfectly fair and legitimate point to make. We have heard a great deal of the Transvaal law preventing the sale and supply of liquor to natives, but hon. members have to consider what the real basis of that law is. The need of including the supply of drink as well as the sale of drink has been shown by the fact that in every case where a man has been prosecuted who makes it a business to sell to natives, he will take up the position that he was supplying it free of charge. That is the real reason why in your legislation you must prevent the supply as well as the sale, otherwise you can never secure a conviction. Morally, as far as the Transvaal is concerned, if a man gives a drink occasionally to his native servant he never feels that he is sinning against the spirit of that Act.

What about the man who gives a daily tot?

I do not know of any place where that happens. If he did that he would be going against, I think, the principle of the Act. The intention of that Act was to prevent the debauching of the native by the sale of liquor to him. In no part of the Transvaal is it regarded as a moral crime to give a native in a person’s employ a drink.

There have been prosecutions for that.

I should imagine there would be very few prosecutions, because nobody would know where people arrogate to themselves the right to give occasionally a drink, and it would never fall within the purview of the police, except accidentally. The police would never be watching every householder in the Transvaal and everybody in the country and preventing them from giving this occasional drink.

That is one of the objections to the tot system, too, this matter of police supervision.

Whether we abolish it or whether we allow it, your police supervision is impossible. It may be possible in a town area in the Cape Province where there are small farms which are part of the town area, but where you deal with the ordinary farm it is impossible. Farmers in the Transvaal have told me over and over again that they have got work out of their natives by the solatium of a drink which they would never have got out of them by the payment of additional money. I think any man of the most unimpeachable rectitude if he cannot get the work on his farm done under the most exceptional circumstances would give that occasional drink to the natives there. I am not going to blame the man who under those circumstances uses the tot in the same way that it is used in the Free State, occasionally in times of stress as a special gift to the natives, in his employ, handing over that liquor. If he gave the daily tot it would lose all the purpose for which it it intended, namely for a time of exertion and as an extraordinary reward for what is being done on the farm.

Then you put labour up to auction?

I do not see how that follows. You do not do that. You do not do it in the Free State. The system has been tried out in the Free State. The hon. members from the Free State have asked me why I exclude the town areas from that leave to supply drink. For this reason that in the town areas, especially the town areas in the Transvaal, the moment that you allow that under this cloak you would assist the illicit liquor dealer a good deal. In the country areas there is not that temptation.

What about liquor on the alluvial diggings?

I would like all the power that this Bill gives to prevent any liquor from going up to the diggings at all. The position there has become worse every day. There are certain hotels which keep as many as 20 or more depots for liquor in different parts. After it is placed in the depot, it is in many cases got by people who have never ordered the liquor at all. In making a law of this kind we are providing for the ordinary law-abiding individual and I say that your ordinary law-abiding individual in the countryside of the Transvaal is going to make a fair use of that provision. There will never be a systematic giving of the daily tot in that part of the world. Take all our experience in the Transvaal even in the towns. In Pretoria, where the native in my employ wishes to go and get a drink on a Sunday, he can do it on any Sunday he wants. Many of them do it as a matter of fact. You never find out where it comes from. Total prohibition in the towns has not led to total prohibition in any way whatever. The whole idea underlying this is that the man in the countryside may at times be able to keep his native from going long distances to beer parties. The hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. Grobler) has referred to his district. I have seen over and over again natives riding about and walking about in a drunken condition, and the reason for that is that they have been to some beer party. On the other hand, take a district like Lichtenburg, as it was in the olden days, I never saw a single native drunk in that district, but I do know as a fact that a considerable number of the farmers there do occasionally, as a reward for diligence, give a drink in the way proposed, to their natives. I must say that I do not see how one can say that that is a wrong thing to do, but I do trust that hon. members will not speak of this as being an extension of the tot system to the Transvaal. Your tot system is this special system which has grown up on the wine farms where they deal in that particular article and where you would expect your employees to see more of that article than they do anywhere else. You can never have the tot system in any other part of the country. Take a man who farms oranges. The boys on that farm would eat many more oranges than they would on a farm where there are no oranges. That, I think, is obvious. Therefore, there is an enormous amount of force in the argument that as far as the Western Province is concerned, the boys on a farm would get just as much drink without the tot system as they would with, because that is the article which is being produced there. Take the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). I have no doubt he gives his coloured boys a larger wage than other farmers who give them drink.

I doubt it.

In that case where the extra payment is given, that extra payment will go to the wine shops and canteens in the neighbourhood. Will the hon. member tell me his natives never frequent the bars in Somerset West.

Of course, I can’t tell you that.

They go there and they have greater means of spending, because they have a larger salary, and so they drink more when they go than they otherwise would.

Even that is better than a daily soak of six tots.

A daily soak of six tots is, of course, a bad thing, but would that take place or not take place, if the tot system were abolished in the Cape Province? It would take place just as much with the abolition of the system in the Cape Province, where they are working with that article. The natives in the Transvaal have always been able to find something else to drink. Surely the coloured people here are going to be even more inventive.

Then why are you bothering about a Liquor Bill?

I do not for a single moment think that a Liquor Bill is going to be a panacea for all human ills. We can only hope that it is going to make the supply of liquor somewhat more difficult than it was before, but the supply of liquor is not difficult where you have a wine producing part of the country. I think, probably, the best way of dealing with this section is to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) as far as the position in the Cape is concerned, and then as far as the Free State and the Transvaal are concerned, to keep them in the position in which the Free State is to-day, except that I am doing away with part of the rights of the Free State, because I want to cut out the urban areas of the Free State.

They are perfectly sober.

They are quite sober, but it is quite possible that when it gets as unprosperous as other parts of the country, they may also wish to sell drink. In the urban areas drink sales are really more abused than they are in the country areas.

They are not abused in the country at all.

No, there are no sales in the country, but if you allow them to supply, it will always be a cloak for the illicit sale of drink. Probably there will be exceptional cases in which this will be abused, but in your ordinary case—and we are legislating for the ordinary case—it will be used in exactly the same way in the Transvaal as it is being used to-day in contravention of the words of the statute, although not in contravention of the spirit of the statute.

There seems to be a general fear of something which does not exist in the Transvaal to-day. The tot system exists in the Free State, it has existed there all the time, as well as in the municipalities, and I cannot see why it should be abused in the Transvaal. I should, however, like to add something to my amendment in order to make it suit the Free State better.

With leave of committee, amendment proposed by Mr. Hugo withdrawn.

I move—

1. (2) In the provinces of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State any bona fide employer may to his male employee of eighteen years or above that age supply gratis one single drink of intoxicating liquor per day in quantity not exceeding one quarter of a pint in the case of spirituous liquor or not exceeding one pint in the case of liquor of any other kind, to be consumed when received in the presence of such employer.

The object is to prevent a native taking away the drink given to him by his master and to prevent the smuggling of liquor. If it is not possible to carry a tot outside a municipality, then I see no danger in giving a tot to the workers.

I do not actually want to say any more, because I think enough has already been said, but new amendments have been proposed more particularly by the hon. members for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) and Wepener (Mr. Hugo) about which I must say something. What is now proposed is to give employers in municipalities, that is also big towns, the right to give liquor to natives. The House cannot pass that. There are thousands and thousands of natives on the Witwatersrand, and I cannot understand how the hon. member for Lydenburg, who represents a section of the gold fields, can make such a proposal. There are compounds with no less than 16,000 natives, and if we give people the right of selling liquor to them, then they will have the whole of the liquor traffic in their hands. I am glad the Minister spoke very clearly on that point, because I do not believe the House can accept such a thing. It is one of the points in the amendments, but I am sorry the Minister wants to give something to the Transvaal which they have not asked for. I want again to remind the Minister that he has received a petition from his own constituency with no less than 700 signatures of people who object to the tot system. They did not ask for it. The hon. member for Lydenburg, who is an old friend of mine, will not object to my quoting that he said that the people who were sent as a deputation to the Minister were under a wrong impression. The hon. member said that the people thought that they were obliged to give their workers wine if the tot system was applied in the Transvaal. No. I do not agree with that. I know those people and the hon. member for Lydenburg is clearly under a slight misapprehension.

The petition was made up.

The Minister knows that the first Bill provided that wine was to be given to the natives. It has been taken out of this one. I hope the Free State will help us to prevent the system being enforced in the Transvaal. I want to ask the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) why we should give something to the natives they do not ask for. I want to read out to the hon. members for Lydenburg and for Waterberg a resolution passed by natives.

Where was it passed?

It is a telegram sent when the churches had seen the Minister about the Liquor Bill. It is from 22 natives on behalf of 1,900 members and thousands of heathen in the neighbourhood, and they ask the church deputation to ask also on their behalf that the tot system should please not be extended to them. I want to ask the hon. member for Waterberg to assist in getting this matter put right, because if he does not do so, he will be neglecting his duty. I feel it is a shame to the white population if we give the native what he does not want. I hope the Minister will give up that attitude, because there are thousands and thousands of people who are opposed to it. The natives are opposed, the church also is opposed, and it is in conflict with Christian principles.

I really do not know on whose behalf hon. members, who protest so much against the extension of the Free State tot system to the Transvaal, are actually speaking. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) has now openly come out and says that he speaks for the natives of the Transvaal. He probably would make a good native commissioner. He quotes a resolution stated to have been passed by 1,900 heathen against the extension of the tot system to the Transvaal. The hon. member is possibly always in Johannesburg (North) and never gets out to the countryside, but I should like to ask him, if he, as everyone on the countryside will admit, does not know that the natives on the countryside in the Transvaal get liquor notwithstanding the fact that prohibition is in force and that a tot is given, although the system does not exist. It is a fact that the natives on the Transvaal countryside actually drink more than the coloured people in the Cape Province. One merely does not see it. Moreover, there are no statistics, because the police cannot ascertain how much drunkenness there is as the force is inadequate. In places such as Barberton and Lydenburg there are possibly one or two white constables for the district, but thousands of natives, 50 per cent. of whom at week-ends are drunk. They are drunk from Saturday afternoon to Monday morning. They get, in the first place, kaffir beer from wheat, mealies and various kinds of fruit, amongst which the chief is the maroela—a large tree as big as the largest oak in the Cape Province. They can make a lot of liquor, and, notwithstanding prohibition, the natives are drunk from Saturday to Monday morning, and no farmer has an idea how much work he will be able to start on Monday, because he does not know how many of his ploughing natives will be able to work by ten or twelve.

How are you going to stop it?

We are not going to stop it, but we want to obviate the immorality for the white population in doing something which is illegal, and which is permissible in the adjoining province, but with us is subject to heavy punishment. What is quite justifiable in the Cape Province is an offence in the Transvaal. Hon. members who plead in that way for the natives ought rather to think of the white people as well. The illicit liquor traffic in the Transvaal has caused more misery to the white people than any liquor selling will ever cause to the natives. The natives have their kaffir beer from wheat and fruit, and it is much stronger than a drink of light wine. The Minister rightly said that no farmer would use the right of giving liquor to his workpeople every day. It would not pay economically, and no farmer would be so foolish as to give so much liquor to his workers on the distant farms where his wife is often left alone at home, that they can become drunk. But at shearing time when the work is very strenuous the farmers want the right to reward their workers with a tot. It is not only their own workpeople, but it is the practice to-day with many farmers to hire gangs of good shearers, and if they have had a hard day’s work, possibly to give them a tot.

I am astonished to hear an advocacy of the tot system by any Free Stater or Transvaaler.

It is not the tot system I advocated.

I cannot think the hon. members for Waterberg and Hoopstad are farmers of any experience—they must be novices at the game. I have been farming for 40 years. I doubt whether they would get any support among the farmers in their constituencies in their advocacy of the tot system. If they want to ruin the Transvaal and Free State labour, let them introduce the tot system, for they have not the tame stuff to deal with that they have in the Western Province in the shape of coloured people, but Zulus and Basutos, who, when they acquire a taste for liquor, become bloodthirsty. You dare not keep a store of liquor on a farm in the north if the natives have acquired a taste for it. I cannot understand farmers from the north not taking into consideration the experience of the unfortunate farmers in the Western Province where, when driving a motor-car on a Saturday afternoon, you have to take great care not to commit murder as you pass people lying drunk by the roadside.

That is nonsense.

I know a farmer who pays his men 3d. a day in lieu of a tot. The tot consists of 1½ bottles of wine. I am told the wine, which contains 18 per cent. of alcohol, costs 2d. a bottle. Is it any wonder that when a Western Province farmer sends his produce to the nearest village things go wrong, and the farmer has to go after his men, who may have capsized the wagon or damaged it? No one can compute the loss to the Western Province in the shape of shortage of labour due to the tot system. Thirty per cent. of the unskilled labour in the Cape is absent from work on Monday morning. On the other hand, no more efficient work is done in South Africa than in the Natal mealie fields, and the last thing in the world we would think of giving the natives would be a tot. The greatest drawback to farming in the Western Province is the tot system, and I hope hon. members will have the courage to support the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), which will be a blessing to South Africa.

I am surprised that hon. members are so concerned about the tot system being extended to the Transvaal. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) in particular is terribly concerned about the natives. He particularly wishes liquor to be withheld from them, but he has not said a single word showing concern about the Europeans in the Transvaal. Are the natives, and not the Europeans to be protected? His attitude is inexplicable to me. Are the white people to go to gaol for the sake of the natives? In the Cape Province, and in the Free State we are allowed to give a tot. Just compare the position in the Transvaal with those two provinces. The Transvaal gaols are full, owing to the illicit liquor traffic, but there is no such thing in the Cape Province and the Free State. Much has been said about what the majority in the Transvaal want. Will the hon. members really deny that the majority of the farming population in the Transvaal want the tot system, the right to give a native a tot: In my constituency the farmers almost unanimously favour giving the native a drink if they wish. I cannot see the great difficulty of the hon. members. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) mentioned the thousands of natives on the mines, but what mine manager now going to make all the natives drunk? It surely is an impossibility to give all the natives so much liquor. What would it benefit them? But the native does get liquor today, even though the employer does not give it. Why then should the employer not be free to issue a tot, and thus reduce the desire to get liquor by other methods? Why should we not in that way assist the native not to spend his money on getting drink by other methods, and cause the white man and woman to go to gaol? Let us legalize what is done illegally, because it is unavoidable.

I have not intervened in this debate before for the reason that my constituency was specially exempted from the Act, and that I think is one of the strongest arguments to be used against the tot system. It is clear the Prime Minister, who is in charge of Native Affairs, considered that any extension to these areas was not right, and therefore I take it he gave instructions, or expressed a desire, to the Minister of Justice, that it should not be extended there. It seems to me there is a flaw in the argument of the Minister of Justice. He said it was customary for the farmers, after a hard day’s work in the fields, to give their natives a tot of liquor. That is done all over the country. In the Eastern Province we do not give tots, but it is done occasionally. The boys appreciate it, and I agree they work better if they have hope of an occasional reward of that kind, but once you put in the law of the land that the native is entitled to it, and once the native realises that it has been adopted as a principle that they are entitled to a tot of liquor, in a few years’ time they will come and demand it as a right. And what is going to happen? Your farmer who is well off, but who cannot secure enough liquor, will give it regularly, but the unfortunate farmer who is not so well off will not be able to do it and will be frozen out. The tot system in the Free State may have existed as a custom in the past, but the natives did not know they were entitled to it as a right. As far as the Cape Province and the Eastern Province are concerned, the natives have never thought they were entitled to it as a right. We may look forward to the time under this law when, if you have ten labourers, you will have to give ten tots at night, a whole bottle of liquor to the natives. Irrespective of the ill effect on the natives, can the farmers bear the cost if the system becomes universal? I further appeal to the sense of justice of the House. We have laid it down as a principle not to introduce legislation affecting the natives without consultation with the natives, and the natives as a whole are opposed to any extension of liquor privileges. In the select committee Maj. Herbst was asked if there had been any demand on the part of the natives in the Transvaal for this system, and in reply he said he did not know of any such demand. He added that the natives had opposed it and had referred to it in uncomplimentary terms, saying that the white man wanted to force liquor down the native’s throat. That is also what they are saying in my part of the country. They say the white man is afraid of the progress the native is making, and we must consider the native point of view. Is it right to allow the natives to have such a point of view? I say the natives, without hesitation, will say that the white man is beginning to fear them and for that reason was giving these so-called privileges. They give kaffir beer on the mines, and I think that is right, but in a few years’ time you will have a clamour to give them a tot of spirits, on the ground that if it is good for the labourers in the field it is therefore good for them in the mines. No one in this country requires an extension of this tot system, and I cannot see why it should be extended. I cannot understand how the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) agreed to an extension of the tot system. I understood him to say that in order to cure a great evil down here he thought it better to distribute the crime which goes on down here right through the whole of the province. The Natal members say much the same thing about the Asiatics. They say spread them through the whole Union and we shall not have the same trouble with them. These gentlemen who advocate the tot system now say spread this curse through the Union and we shall not feel it so much. I sympathise with the Western Province farmers and I do not think it possible in one day to sweep away a system which you have had for so many years. The farmer cannot say to his boys that they must be teetotal. That is impossible. It would be better to say that in five years’ time this system or custom must cease, and give the wine farmers an opportunity of meeting their employees and explain the position so that they can agree amongst themselves. I do not believe legislation of this kind will succeed. I see the House appears to want the Minister to accept the motion of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie). We have prohibited the native voter from obtaining liquor under previous sections of this Bill. Your highest type of native, say Professor Jabavu, your registered voter, cannot get a drink, but under this system you are going to force a tot a day down the throats of the aboriginal natives who cannot take care of themselves. I say that if the House has accepted this principle that the native should not be allowed to get liquor under any circumstances—and the policy of the other side is to differentiate between native and coloured right through—then if it is going to accept the motion of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) the natives should, at any rate, be erased from that clause. The hon. member proposed that the tot system should be allowed to native, Asiatic and coloured, and I hold that if this House is of the view that the native should be a prohibited person, then he should not be allowed to get the tot. I ask for the support of the House in the amendment which I propose, as an amendment to the new sub-section (1) proposed by Mr. Heatlie—

That means that the tot system will be limited to those people who have grown up with it. I refer to the coloured men in this part of the Cape Province. In the Eastern Province we have never known the tot system, and it has never been allowed, and I do say that we should not put anything in any Act of Parliament which is going to give the native the impression that he has, by the law of this country, the right to demand a drink at four o’clock each day.

The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Wepener (Mr. Hugo) follows closely the Free State Act, but of course that allows the supply of this drink in urban areas as well as in country areas, and as I said before, I do not like that extension to the Transvaal. I want to propose, as an amendment to the new subsection (2) proposed by Mr. Hugo—

Does this amendment apply both to the Transvaal and the Free State?

As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Wepener is concerned, what I was aiming at was the large urban areas of the Transvaal. I know that as far as those areas are concerned, this would be a cloak for the illicit liquor traffic. I do not know whether that would be the case as far as the Free State is concerned, and so I am only applying this to the Transvaal.

So much has been said on the Bill that the feeling exists that we should end the debate. I usually come at the tail end, and I do not detain the House long. I want to say that in the first place we cannot deny that the chief aristocrats of South Africa are among the farming class. They have absolutely the best civil status in South Africa, particularly in the Western Province where the farmers have done more for church, State and civilization than anyone else in South Africa. Now we are here concerned with a custom of those patriarchs who, from the old days when the Huguenot planted the vines, were accustomed, as employers, to give their employees a certain amount of wine at certain times. Those Good Templars want nothing else but ice cream and such like to be supplied. I can assure hon. members that a glass of wine of the quality that the majority of farmers give is much more healthy than ice cream or other things that the Good Templars drink. I had the honour of being a member of the select committee and asked a question of the Rev. Mr. Meiring, who used to be incumbent at Paarl, whether he had any objections to anyone with experience of wine farming giving his workers four tots a day. His answer was that it would do no harm, but it depended on the quality of the wine. What he meant probably was that no fortified wine should be given, but then I ask what farmer in the Western Province would be so foolish as to buy spirits and add it to the wine he was giving his workers. No, the wine which is given to them is absolutely natural wine and does no harm. If it did harm it would be foolish to give it to them. This clause was probably drafted by the three Transvaal members who formed the commission. I doubt whether they ever got further than the drawing room on a wine farm. They know nothing about the conditions and the tot system. The proposal is to give a pint of wine, nearly a bottle, all at once to the coloured boy. I do not say that it will make him drunk, because the wine farmers do not give their servants a glass of wine which intoxicates them, but they will he unfit for work for the rest of the day. The wine will make them sleepy and tipsy. It is a wrong principle to give the wine in bulk at 4 o’clock, but it will not necessarily intoxicate the boy. I see another difficulty, if a boy is hostile to his master, and goes and reports him, with the result that the magistrate prohibits the master from giving any further tots to his men. He can indeed go to the magistrate and defend himself, but possibly a few coloured people who are ill-disposed will band together and the man, a good master, may be convicted. Much has been said about the cultivation of a taste for drink through the tot system and of the causing of drunkenness. It is untrue to state that drunkenness is caused on farms by the tot system, but the workers get the liquor that intoxicates them in the canteens. The bar loafers sit in the canteens and wait until the men come from the farms in order to drink with them. I am glad that Clause 21 is being maintained, because it gives enough power to the licensing board to restrict drunkenness in canteens. References have also been made to the cheque-book farmer, the late Mr. Charles Leonard. He was only able to carry on a little while, and then sold the farm because he saw that it would not pay. If money were given to the workers instead of the tots, then they would use it to buy liquor. I hope the Minister will delete the clause and will leave the law as it now is in the provinces. The Cape wine farmers know what is in their own interests and that of the workers. In consequence of the restrictions on the canteen drunkenness will decrease a great deal, and will not longer be seen in the streets. We did not ask for the extension of the tot system to the Transvaal. Let the Free State and the Transvaal do what they have been accustomed to. Then there is the provision that a man under 18 years may not get liquor. We are prepared to agree to it. I drank light wine from my youth, my father allowed me to do so, as he was himself a wine farmer. The sons of wine farmers are the soberest community in the Western Province because they have come into touch with drink from their youth. Per haps the Minister can introduce a clause that where a farmer is caught giving too much liquor to a worker, and is convicted he may be punished, but why should we make criminals of the farmers on a large scale. There are enough laws making criminals of other people. Is the same thing to be done now in the case of the farmers? Then it is said that light wine creates a taste for brandy. It is strange then surely that drunkenness is much greater in the Transvaal than in the Western Province, where we have no prohibition. There is no abuse amongst the workpeople of the wine farmers in the Western Province.

The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) has said he has wondered very often how I could have agreed to this clause as printed in the Bill. That wonder I sometimes share myself, because I appended to the report of the commission a personal statement in which I said I was against the tot system in any shape or form, and I thought the greatest reform we could have would be to abolish that system. I was convinced it was impossible, at any rate in the Western Province, at that time, and by one stroke of the pen, entirely to abolish the tot system, though I would do it if I had the power. It was because I thought that the best way to remedy the whole matter would be to agree upon a compromise such as set out in this section that I agreed, and if necessary I am prepared to stick to that compromise, though I have never been particularly in love with it. I want to deal with the Minister’s apologia for the introduction of the system into the Transvaal. May I criticize him on two grounds? First, his speech shows a complete absence of any reference to the effect of that system on the natives. He concerned himself only with the farmers. He said it might bring into legal operation what was to-day a de facto system, and it was convenient for many farmers, he said, to be allowed to give a tot. I do put it to him, his argument is entirely one-sided. There are two parties to the tot system, the persons who give and the persons who receive. He did not adduce any evidence to show that the natives, at any rate, either wanted or would benefit from it, if it were introduced in the Transvaal. Not only was there no evidence, but all the evidence from the native side, in so far as it was articulate at all, roundly condemned its introduction into the Transvaal.

If they don’t want it, they won’t have it.

I am speaking of its desirability. The Minister is not going to be childish enough to think that if the average native is offered a drink by his employer he would have sufficient strength of mind to resist it. The Secretary for Native Affairs and the members of the Native Affairs Commission who gave evidence were all very definite it was not in the interests of the natives themselves. In so far as the natives have been articulate, they have expressed their condemnation of this tot system. That is the first criticism I have of his argument. The second is this, no evidence at all was laid before the select committee that even the farmers wanted the extension of this system into the Transvaal, except one little bit, which I will read. It is found on page 2 of the appendix, and it is this letter—

To the extent that this may be called evidence, this is the evidence, and it is the only evidence. Against that there is the fact that the Farmers’ Union have actually passed resolutions against this. I represent a number of smallholders on the fringe of Johannesburg who, if the Minister’s suggestion is adopted, would be allowed to give the tot. They live within two miles of the populated portion of Johannesburg. This is what they have wired to me—

Whatever be the fate of this particular clause, the Minister should give us an assurance that he will use the powers conferred in sub-section (4), if that remains, to eliminate all these semi-urban areas on the fringe of Johannesburg and Pretoria.

Yes, and other places too, I think.

I think so, too. These are the two points I have to bring against the Minister—firstly, that he has entirely ignored the native point of view, and, secondly, he has ignored the fact that whatever may be said in this House, no evidence was led by or on behalf of the farmers of the Transvaal before that committee that they wanted the introduction of this system. The Rooth report has nothing to do with the tot system—speaking from my recollection of it. On this Bill not a single Transvaal farmer or representative of the Transvaal farmers came forward through their recognized association and said that they desired the tot system in the Transvaal. To get down to practical politics, will the Minister not consider that he is not justified, in the absence of proof, that the overwhelming mass of public opinion is in favour of introducing the tot system in the Transvaal, in introducing it there. If it can be shown that the farmers as a body want it, he may be more successful in introducing it there; therefore, I beg him to eliminate the Transvaal. As to the Free State, let them keep the system there if the Free Staters want it. The amendment of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) I consider a considerable improvement on what is laid down in this clause. What is more valuable to me is that the hon. member speaks in this House with the authority of the wine farmers, and he says that the wine farmers of the Western Province are prepared to cut down the tot system, which, in many cases, is being abused. Cannot we settle it on those lines? I thoroughly agree with the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) that you cannot leave the natives in. The Minister of Justice yesterday twitted members of the Free State with inconsistency. I put it to him, how can he in the teeth of Section 95, which lays down total prohibition for all the natives in South Africa—[Time limit].

I am sorry that I omitted something when I introduced my amendments last night, and I should like to add it now. I move, as a further amendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. Heatlie—

As a Transvaal representative I think it is only right to state the attitude of my constituents. As for the Cape Province, I can say nothing, because this position has existed for hundreds of years, and it possibly is not right to abolish it. There is no doubt that the farmers on the countryside in the Transvaal are in favour of the tot system. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) said that what we were wanting to introduce was an evil. A kind of tot system, however, already exists. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) said that he never gave tots, and I do not doubt his word, but I can assure hon. members that there are few farmers in the Transvaal to-day who do not give a tot to their workers when they deserve it.

You, as well?

Yes, I admit it, and I think that he is a very unreasonable master who, after a hard day’s work, himself drinks a bottle at night and does not give it to his work-people. I hope that the Minister will maintain his attitude. The matter simply is one of legalizing an illicit proceeding. With reference to the stipulation about 4 o’clock, I must say I have no objection to it. When I say that, I am not speaking for the Cape Province, but for the Transvaal, where we only give the men a tot after work at night. Therefore, I have no objection to the provision that no tot may be given before 4 o’clock.

The hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Brits) told the committee that the “boere op die platteland” want the tot system extended there.

He did not say that.

He did say so, and I have no evidence to that effect; in fact, it is in the opposite direction. Suppose it is carried in the Transvaal, where are the farmers going to get their supplies from? Will they give peach brandy or import from the Cape Province? The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) told us yesterday he was in the habit of giving his employees peach brandy. Where does he get it from? He admitted that he was breaking the law. I call upon the Minister of Justice to prosecute the hon. member. Then the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) says he is entirely in favour of bringing in a reform, but he has made no suggestion to that effect, and this attitude is retrogressive.

Your action yesterday has made that practically impossible.

The Transvaal says if you wish to preserve the rotten system in the Cape, we will not interfere with you, but don’t interfere with us. What will be the position of the women in the Transvaal if you extend the tot system; their lives are in danger even as it is. There have been many crimes, the perpetrators of which have not been discovered. I do not know why the Minister presses for the extension of the tot system to the Transvaal.

I gave the reasons very fully.

I endorse every word of what the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) said yesterday in regard to the state of affairs on the Rand.

That exists because of the sale of liquor.

I have a very strong document in support of what I have said, and I ask hon. members opposite not to forget their bible, “Die Burger.” On the 8th instant in a leading article “Die Burger” said—

I must ask the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Gel-denhuys) not to make so many interjections as it is very disturbing.

That shows there is no danger; the law does not compel them to give a drink every day.

If they did the results would be harmful.

They do carry it into effect, for they do occasionally give a tot. I have seen it done.

What does the “Cape Times” say?

I read the “Cape Times” every day.

I hope it does you good.

The “Cape Times” has been very good to the Minister recently. I intend to persist in my amendment, in which I have the church with me. While I do not wish to interfere with people who have had rights for a hundred years, for heaven’s sake do not force on the people of the Transvaal that which they don’t desire.

Nobody need do it.

It is no good talking any more because we cannot convince anyone, but last night the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) made an accusation against me, and I want to reply. The hon. member said that at a Dingaan’s Day festival in my constituency a resolution was passed by 1,500 to 15 votes protesting against the introduction of the tot system into the Transvaal. I denied it yesterday. He said that he did not accept the denial, because he had read the report in “Die Kerkbode.” Well, I have investigated the matter and sent a telegram to the chairman of the Dingaan’s festival in my constituency, asking whether the statement of “Die Kerkbode” referred to was correct. His answer was that the matter was only brought forward, but not discussed and was referred to a meeting which, however, was not held It was decided by 500 to 15 votes not to discuss the matter. That is what occurred, and if the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) makes allegations of that kind he should first make enquiries.

I have “Die Kerkbode” as authority.

“Die Kerkbode” was badly informed.

Wait a bit, “Die Kerkbode” will settle with you.

The hon. member also said that as a member of the Native Affairs Commission, I should know what the view of the native was about the introduction of the tot system. A wrong impression, however, is created by representing us in the Transvaal as wanting to introduce the Western Province tot system. That is not at all the case. In the Cape the people are in the habit of giving their servants from four to six tots per day, sometimes as part of their wages. That is not the system we want to introduce into the Transvaal. We want to have the right, when we feel inclined, to give the natives a drink. We do so to-day, but we want to have the right of doing so, a right we do not possess to-day. The evasion of the law undermines the morals of the public, and has a bad effect on the native who gets the impression that one can contravene the law with impunity. He sees the white man doing so and not being prosecuted. There will be no question of abusing the system in the Transvaal. The farmer only gives the tot in exceptional cases, and there is no danger of abuse, because the stuff is too expensive. One must import it from the Cape, and, therefore, I only give my natives the tot in extraordinary circumstances. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) asked me whether my colleagues on the Native Affairs Commission agreed with me on the matter. There is more than one point about which we differ, but there is absolutely no difference of opinion about the good treatment of the native on the Transvaal farms.

I want to provide that the eastern districts of the Cape shall be excluded from the provisions of this clause, if it is passed, and my only course, therefore, is to move, as a further amendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. Heatlie—

I want the aboriginal native excluded from the operation of this clause. If the amendment is not accepted, I hope I shall have the opportunity of moving it in the same place as I did the other day.

I feel that practically everything that can be said on this clause has been said for and against the tot system, and I hope the members of this House who are against the tot system are not going to allow anything that has been said or done in this House to influence them in connection with the vote on this matter. I think one party in the House made a grave mistake, the temperance members of that party, made a grave mistake when they made a party question of any clause in this Bill. That sort of thing leads to a great deal of suspicion. Hon. members on that side of the House did not deny it when they were asked whether they had discussed it in caucus.

We are all gentlemen.

I do not doubt it for a moment that you are all gentlemen, but I think a mistake was made for any party in this House to discuss any clause in caucus when it is being dealt with as a non-party measure. I understand hon. members discussed the question of natives. Speaking from the point of view of those in this House who have been acting together irrespective of party, I say it is a big mistake to caucus on this question at all. One of the most disquieting things was that the caucus was on a question where natives are concerned. That is not a happy augury for the hope of having the native Bills discussed in a non-party way. I believe another mistake was made in connection with the temperance community of South Africa, in compromising the position when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) sat on that commission. In spite of the good work done by Mr. Cook outside the House, the temperance movement has been let down inside the House. No one can get away from the fact that there has been no demand in the Transvaal or up-country for this particular system, and one cannot get away from the fact in spite of the statement that they give the wine for nothing, that no employer in this or any other country gives anything for nothing. The tot given must count as part of the wages or salary. It is not only a disastrous thing for South Africa, but an infringement of the principles of the Truck Act. It gives wages in the form of wine. Hon. members who fight to give the natives something that will demoralize them cannot say that they are friends of the natives. They are fighting to give something which the white community would be better without. If you want to injure the natives and coloured people of South Africa give them an unlimited supply of intoxicating liquor. So far as the natives of other countries are concerned, for instance, Australia, they were allowed to have unlimited supplies of rum, and they are vanishing there, and the natives would vanish in South Africa if it had not been for the fact that liquor has always been difficult to get. We know there has been a great deal of illicit liquor drinking in the Transvaal, but if we are allowed to supply the natives on the Witwatersrand the conditions would be hundreds of times worse than they are to-day. We know we have not succeeded in the Transvaal in making prohibition successful amongst the natives, but were it not for the fact that it was illegal to supply liquor the position would be hundreds of times worse. The community there, I feel sure, would be wholeheartedly in favour of eliminating liquor from the natives entirely. I hope that members of this House who are strong supporters of the temperance movement will not be influenced by any feeling at all in connection with any party action that has taken place in this matter, but that everyone will do their utmost as members of this House to see that this particular iniquitous system is not further extended in South Africa. I believe it would be “or the good of South Africa if we could keep intoxicating liquor away from every section of the community and, most of all, the coloured and native people of this country.

I have not yet spoken on this Bill. After listening to the speeches I cannot deny that there are quite a number of members who are in favour of totally abolishing the sale of liquor or of so restricting it, that its use becomes almost impossible. There is another section who are in favour of leaving the liquor free, but I believe that the whole House is opposed to drunkenness, only what seems so strange to me in the debate is that merely coloured people and natives are referred to. Now, I ask, what about the whites who drink too much, and sink into unhappiness? Is the native to be protected, and the white man left to his fate? The House makes all kinds of trouble for the wine farmer and people concerned in the production of wine, but in my opinion the man who commits the offence ought to be punished. The drunken man is punished, but the man who causes his drunkenness ought to be sent to gaol. People talk here about liquor without knowing anything about it. They do most of the speaking in the House. There is, for instance, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), who no doubt is a great advocate, but understands nothing about viticulture. There are practical farmers in the House like the hon. members for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie), Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw), and Paarl (Dr. de Jager), people with years of experience. Let us be led by them. I am convinced that drunkenness is not caused by the tot system, but by the canteens. As far as I can see at present, the best thing is to keep things as they are in the Cape Province. I am convinced that no farmer intoxicates his workmen in that way, and the other sections ought to allow the farmer to give a tot, but there should be no compulsion. Now I come to the Free State. You have e.g. the hon. member for Wepener (Mr. Hugo). He belongs to the class of people who spend their lives in the Free State and who know that the man has the right of giving a tot whenever he wishes. There is, however, no drunkenness in the Free State. It has always been a model state, and why should we make a change there? As for the Transvaal, no one will deny that for about 30 years there has been a kind of prohibition there. That system was an ungodly shame. The white people were ruined in order to keep the natives from drink. Is it worth the price that is being paid there? The native is just the same as before. The hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) has rightly shown from statistics that there is more drunkenness in the Transvaal than in the Cape Province. Do not let us be hypocritical. I do not want liquor to be freely supplied to natives, because there are thousands of them and it would cause trouble. But experience in other parts is striking. In Kimberley, for instance, there are thousands of natives at De Beers, there are canteens there as well, and yet we never hear of murder or homicide. There are other places like it. Why should we now turn an innocent matter into a crime? I am very glad that the Minister said he would change imprisonment into a fine. Give the man on the countryside the right to give a native a tot if he thinks it is necessary. He must not be compelled to do so, but he should have the option. Hon. members need not be frightened of the farmer giving too much because wine is expensive in the Transvaal. I am not in favour of giving liquor to workpeople in the towns, because it may lead to abuse. What are we to do in the Transvaal? Are we to allow the people to be ruined? Must the white people go under for the sake of the man who has a coloured skin? Prohibition is impossible, but I am in favour of restriction. Restrictions must be very carefully made because otherwise the proverb might be realized: If you fight with the wrong weapons you wound yourself. I want to support the amendments of the hon. members for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) and Wepener (Mr. Hugo), and I also want to vote for the Minister’s amendment, providing that the resident on the countryside shall have an opportunity of giving his servants a tot when he wishes.

I move, as an amendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. Hugo—

Amendment put proposed by Mr. Struben to the amendment by Mr. Heatlie,

Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—37.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Brown, G.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Fordham, A. C.

Geldenhuys, L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

O’Brien, W. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pegrce, C.

Reyburn, G.

Richards, G. R.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Snow, W. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Waterston, R. B.

Tellers: Blackwell, Leslie; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—53.

Alexander, M.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

Duncan, P.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Grobler, H. S.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Heatlie, C. B.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, J. P.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Oost, H.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, H.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Stals, A. J.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, O. S.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Watt, T.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: de Jager, A. L.: Hugo, D.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Business suspended at 6 p.m., and resumed at 8.6 p.m.