And childish.

…and childish. I quite expected that would come from some members who have not thought about the matter. It is not a new thing. During the sittings of the select committee we took evidence which it would be a good thing to read. I do not wish to quote all the evidence but merely certain parts. I especially refer to the evidence of Mr. Koenig on pages 782 and 783 of the report of the select committee. It commences with question No. 5450. But before I quote it I want to enlighten the House a little who that gentleman was who gave the evidence. I am sorry that the hon. member for North East Rand cannot move this clause himself because some members will at once say that this is another proposal of the extreme teetotalers. Here, however, we have the evidence of a person who is certainly not a teetotaler. Mr. Koenig manages six hotels in Cape Town. He was trained in the management of hotels in Germany, Switzerland, France and England. He has had thirty years’ experience in South Africa and still manages hotels to-day. The question reads—

And the reply reads—

The next question was—

The answer was—

And further—

In England they abolished the system shortly after the commencement of the world war. It is a purely English institution which was taken over here. It certainly comes from England. There are numerous proofs that even in England they regard it as an English custom. I do not say this because I disapprove of it, because it is an English custom, but I have a book here by an English writer, Mr. Hakwood, called “Inns, Ills and Drinking Customs of Old England.” He says that the custom is characteristically foolish. He is not a teetotaler, but a moderate drinker and says that it leads to much unnecessary drinking Friends, he says, meet, and the more the friends the more the drinking. It is all apparently unnecessary, he says further in his book, except the first. He condemns the system in very forceful terms. [Time limit.]

I want to support the clause moved by the hon. member, which was drafted by the Commission of which I was a member, put into the Bill, and rejected, I am sorry to say, by the Minister. The hon. member read from the evidence in Afrikaans, and I will read from it in English. Question No. 5450 is the evidence of Mr. Koenig, who probably has as wide an experience of the licensed victuallers’ trade as any man in South Africa, and is the chairman of the Cape Peninsula Hotels [evidence quoted]. He goes on to say that from his considerable experience—30 years in this country—as a licensed victualler, a great proportion of the evils arising from excessive drinking arise from this treating system. I do not need to elaborate it. The difficulty the Minister felt, and he told us so on the second reading, was enforcement. I admit that if we pass this we would be striking out a new line in regard to the liquor laws of this country.

Of any country.

It was enforced quite successfully in England during the war time under the D.O.R.A. regulations, and it had strong influence for the making of temperance there. The question is, can we enforce it here in peace times? Is the Minister sure he can enforce the prohibition against hotel keepers selling by the bottle? He is proposing to impose another number of restrictions—with regard to hours, the quantity and quality of the liquor they may sell; in fact, they are tied up with numerous restrictions, and he would not impose them if he did not think they could be enforced; he has laid down strong criminal penalties to ensure that they are observed. Wherein does this differ from any other restriction that is sought to be imposed? You will by this clause make it wrong for a man behind a bar to allow two or three men to walk up and stand drinks all round. Surely the barkeeper knows that that is being done. A man does not mind ordering and paying for drinks all round, but he will certainly draw the line at giving another man money with which to buy a drink. The Minister would not do so. As the law stands to-day, the Minister might stand rounds of drinks. The minute any person goes into a bar and orders drinks all round it is apparent to his friends, and particularly to the bar-keeper, that this restriction is being infringed—if this be agreed to. If this is infringed, sooner or later he will be caught, just as he will be if he infringes any other restriction. Let us lay down that there shall he no treating, because of the evils to which it leads. The result is that one gets perhaps five times as much liquor as he needs, wants, or is good for him—if five young men enter a bar and there is treating all round.

During the debate of this Bill it has come out clearly that the whole House agrees that drunkenness must be stopped, and this proposed new clause I shall heartily support because I feel that more than one person has become a drunkard through this system. We know what happens. A man asks a friend to have a drink. When they get there they meet five more friends, and out of courtesy each one of them thinks he must stand treat, not that the person wants or desires all the drink, but out of politeness, one wants when you have had a drink to stand one to the other person, with the result that when the people leave they have often had too much, and eventually a man who is dragged into it like that becomes a drunkard. It is our duty to guard against that. Take the working class, a man who works every day for a small wage, goes home at the end of the week with his wages. He goes home with the best intentions of buying necessaries. On the way, however, he thinks he will have a drink, and when he goes to do so he meets a friend or friends and the treating starts and in the end he possibly goes home drunk without any money for the family. Whether it is characterised as childish or whatnot, I shall vote for it as long as we can stop drunkenness a little, and I reckon that one of the best ways of reducing drunkenness in future will be by this amendment. The evidence of Mr. Koenig, an expert, was, as I understand, against the treating system, although it was strongly against his financial interests. He thinks it best to abolish it because it has done much harm in the past. With evidence of that kind we are, I think, doing the right thing in abolishing treating, and I hope that the majority of the House will vote for the new clause.

I was present on one occasion when a man was asked to have a drink, and he refused, saying, “I don’t drink. It is food I want, so I will take the money instead.” He was a wise man. It requires courage to bring an amendment of this nature before the committee. We have had only the evidence of Mr. Koenig, and I am glad the Minister does not support this amendment. I admit that on some occasions people occasionally have too much drink, as a result of the treating habit, but why should you punish the whole of the community because some persons are so weak as to over-indulge in liquor? What would be the position of a magistrate who is asked to have a drink—would he have to have his own written authority? I take it that under this proposal sub-section 2 (a) you will be able to stand a woman as much drink as you like, but not a man. That is a most extraordinary provision. The amendment is really frivilous. I can well understand treating being prohibited in England during the great war, but that was done under martial law. The introducer of this amendment must expect it to be treated with scorn and ridicule.

I hope the committee will not accept the clause. We have heard a good deal about the D.O.R.A. regulations in England, but the non-treating rule was an absolute dead-letter. Even as a war measure it was a failure. Why should we, in a free country like South Africa, impose absurd restrictions like these? Bishop Gaul, giving evidence before the select committee, said he was against a non-treating clause, and did not think it would lead to less drunkenness. Col. Trew gave similar evidence, and added that it would be frightfully difficult to enforce. From that point of view the suggestion is a hopeless one, but my main objection is one of principle. It is incorrect to say that there is a non-treating law in Germany. The position there is that it is an unwritten law among the students that they should each pay for their own drinks, because one man might want an expensive cocktail, and another a beer. The rule is based upon the desire to do away with class distinctions among the students. During the war there was a similar practice in officers’ messes. It was a voluntary unwritten code and was based on a totally different principle, that the wealthy officer should not have an advantage over the poorer officer. I know of no country in the world where there is a no-treating law. If the country wants to go dry let it go dry, but this will only annoy people. It reminds me of the story of the American who went to England and outside the three-mile limit he called for a steward who, in reply to his question, told him he could have any drink he wanted. Said the American, “Oh, then bring me a lemonade.” I say to the hon. member let him move an amendment and say this shall apply to the working classes and let us see what will happen. I say the working man is able to control his craving as well as the rest of us. If the hon. member says it should be a class distinction to be applied to the working man, I should like to see him move an amendment to that effect and see what would happen. I think this clause is wrong in principle, and never can be carried out. It will give rise to this spirit of lawlessnes which we have in the States where so any people feel the restriction to be offensive to the individual. Years ago when a man offered you a drink and yon refused it, it was looked upon as an insult. To-day nothing is said about it. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) who has never been in a bar in his life—

Oh yes, I have.

Then you should not have been. He draws lurid pictures of the pernicious habits of to-day, but people who go into bars don’t always feel called upon to stand each other drinks. I hope the common sense of the House will turn this clause down.

I also wish to support the amendment. It has been argued that none will drink more because another is treating him. We heard the evidence of a person who is specially able to judge, one who has been in touch all his life with the working of the treating system and has seen what the effect is, and he gives evidence, not in his own interests, but against his own financial interests and, therefore, it might to be more authoritative. When a young man goes into a bar to buy a drink, he is in almost every case already a drinker. I do not say that he is a drunkard. People do not begin to drink in that way, but the boys learn drinking because one stands the other treat. I know from my own experience that I never go and have a drink by myself and alone, but if, as often occurs, Ï happen to be invited by a friend, then I take something. We have a drink, wait a little, and then in my turn I ask my friend to have something. So it happens that if a man has not sufficient will-power the treating goes so far that in the long run they have too many tots. Someone has said that one ought to know when one has had too much. You never know where that stage commences. A man who drinks too much always denies that he has had too much. He never knows it. The sadness of the position is that the best of our young men learn to drink in this way. The boys that are a little retiring, who keep more on themselves and have not the genial nature, are not so much in danger, but the popular boys that everyone likes associating with are dragged to bars and treated. So boys that are popular, that are clever and of a friendly nature go wrong. If we abolish this treating it will be very strange at the start, but they will very quickly get accustomed to everyone paying for himself.

How are you going to punish it?

There are many ways. The barman will have to see that no treating takes place. I certainly feel that drunkenness will be checked by this means.

I am in favour of letting the country go dry if it wants to go dry, but there is no reason why it should go mad. I agree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) that you cannot carry out this law. It is impossible. You cannot have a policeman following every man who wants to stand his friend a drink. It is a negation of freedom. If you want to stop everybody having a drink, all right, but are you going to stop me asking my friend in a club to have a drink? This system broke down hopelessly during the war.

It was a dead-letter from the very start in England.

I want to say this. The man who drinks the most is the man who drinks alone, and you are going to teach the people to drink alone. My hon. friend with a fairy wand is going to say that because a man does not stand Tom Brown a drink Tom Brown will not drink at all. That is not so. He will drink alone. The ordinary man does not want to drink alone. He wants to drink with his friends and he wants to be a hospitable South African. All the gentlemen who have made speeches on this thing I have never known to have a drink at an hotel or a bar or anywhere else. They do not belong to that particular set. They do not stand drinks; they do not accept drinks. I would like to ask the Minister or his friend sitting alongside him (Dr. Steyn). I think we might laugh this out of the House. South Africa, I feel sure, does not want it.

If I were at all sure that if the amendment were passed it could be carried out, or that drunkenness would thereby be reduced, I would vote for it, but I am convinced of neither. In practice it will ordinarily not be practicable. We have here to do with a custom, a certain practice. In Germany the practice exists that students do not treat each other; it is a good custom. In parts of America it also happens that when young fellows take out ladies, the ladies, when the students are not well off, say that when they go out on one occasion or another, they will pay for themselves. It is a god practice, because quite a number of students are possibly not able to pay. The chief reason why I am against the amendment is that we shall be creating crime. I am no lawyer, but I should say that we are possibly making too many laws and that people contravene the law in all ways. The drinking habit has decreased in the Union during the last year. I can recommend hon. members to drink the best orange juice that is made in Barberton. It is the best in the Union and has a big sale. When friends meet and treating takes place half of them possibly say that they want something soft—orange juice or something else. People have no longer that false pride that makes them think they must drink something stronger, like whisky or brandy. That view is gradually disappearing, and we must assist in getting rid of it. My greatest objection is that we shall only be creating more criminals.

This non treating ordinance was introduced during the war in England for a special purpose, namely, to prevent four or five people gathering round a bar and standing each other drinks. When the soldiers came to England on leave from the front, there were a large number of sympathetic English people who were inclined to stand them drinks, as many drinks, in fact, as they would take, and some of these soldiers were unable to resist the temptation. That is the reason why this non-treating ordinance was proclaimed in England. Now I think this clause, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) said, is interfering with the liberty of the subject. Mr. Rhodes, whom I knew very well, never carried any money in his pockets, and if this non-treating clause had been law thirty years ago, had Mr. Rhodes been inclined for a drink nobody could have stood him one. We do not want laws of that kind in this country. There are a lot of faddists outside this House—very many—and a few faddists find their way into all Parliaments and these faddists are never satisfied until they see some of their fads embodied in some Act of Parliament. We do not want to legislate for fads, and I certainly oppose the amendment of the hon. member sitting on the cross-benches.

The amendment is both childish and impracticable. Must the Minister put a detective in every bar to see that no drinks are stood? We are engaged in drafting a good Liquor Bill to limit drunkenness and to obtain good control over the use of liquor, but do not let us include a childish provision. People must surely have the right of controlling their own purses. The more laws, the more contraventions, and this proposal is impracticable. Who will see whether a man pays for his own drink? I cannot understand how the select committee got it into its head to restrict people in this way. I am not a drinker, but I do not want to restrict the freedom of the people in this way. Not five per cent. of the population are drunkards. Why should the rest of the population be so burdened and restricted? Every man can do what he likes with his money. I also agree with the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) that the drunkard usually drinks alone, but the people who usually stand each other drinks are usually moderate people. Do not let us subject them to punishment.

I think that one of the principal objections, apart from a good many that I very much agree with which have been raised in the House, is that this crime that we are establishing in this clause will never be regarded by the people of this country as a moral offence. Nobody would feel that morally there is anything wrong in either standing a drink or being stood a drink. All the matters referred to by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) are all moral offences. It is not a moral offence to stand a person a drink. If it is a moral offence after the Bill is passed, it was equally morally wrong before, but none of us considered that we were guilty of a great sin if we stood a friend a drink. There is no moral obliquity as far as the man is concerned who is standing his friend a drink, and yet if you place the offence upon the bar-keeper’s shoulders it is equally an offence for the man who is standing his friend a drink, because they are assisting the barman in carrying out an offence. It is in much the same position as the man who, if his native does work in the rain, gives ham a drink. Although it is a legal offence in the Transvaal, not a single man would regard it as a moral offence. If you are going to divorce entirely your legislation from moral safeguards, if you are going to make legal crimes different from moral crimes, you cannot expect your legislation to be carried out. The only argument used in favour of this clause is that this system was introduced under the D.O.R.A. regulations in England during the war, and a considerable amount of weight should be attached to the opinion of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), who gives us the information that even in a state of war in England these regulations were a dead letter from the start. I had a sort of feeling that should be the position, and that seems to have been the actual position. I do not think any hon. member here has given evidence to the contrary on that point. If any other member who is in the same position to speak gives contrary information to us, I have no doubt we will attach importance to it. But that struck me as being what was likely to happen with regulations of this kind. I am not prepared to admit that this is entirely something that is introduced from England. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) has quoted these rather scathing remarks, but I say it is part of the hospitality which is part of the character of South Africa, and as much South African as it can be English. This standing of drinks takes away at least three-quarters of the grossness in the drink habit in people who have the habit. Surely it is much less gross to go into a bar, have a conversation with friends and stand them a drink, than to go into a bar, standing alone, and throwing down your shilling and having a drink. You become a penny-in-the-slot machine in those circumstances. Surely we do not want to convert the people of this country into penny in-the-slot machines. That hospitality of South Africa is part of the characteristic hospitality of South Africa, and you are not going to kill that by legislation with regard to drink, or anything else. I think those who have spoken most bitterly about this are those who have nothing to do with it. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan) does not go into these places, nor does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. They are men who are speaking out of the wealth of their lack of experience in this matter, whilst we, who are speaking from the other point of view, are speaking from experience. I do not say that the arguments in favour of this clause are ridiculous, but I say that rightly or wrongly, the country will regard this Parliament as a ridiculous institution if we pass this clause. I do not say the country would be right in doing so, but they will have that feeling, and even if it is wrong, I think Parliament should try and avoid the country having that feeling, because, after all, we should try and hide these things as long as possible.

I will always vote for measures to reduce the consumption of liquor, but I must honestly say that I object to vote for this amendment.

The hon. member is running away.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan) himself ran away when the proposal to give drink to natives was before the House.

I did not make the remark

It seems to me that hon. members who so strongly support this amendment are a little conscience stricken in connection with the vote in favour of the tot system in the Transvaal. I want to say at once that I am not in favour of taking away the liberty of people in the way here proposed, so I, e.g., may not offer another man anything. We cannot take away that liberty. I am, however, still a little afraid of the Minister with regard to the tot system. I see from the newspapers that he says he would again propose the introduction of the tot system into the Transvaal. I think the Minister is there going too far, but to-day I want to help him. The hon. member for North East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) is not here to move his own amendment, but has left it to the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) to do. The latter made a mistake the other day in connection with the tot system and now wants to rectify it in this way.

What mistake did I make? I voted with you.

That was the mistake.

I do not often agree with the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius) with regard to childishness, but here I agree with him. It is ridiculous for anyone not to be able to offer his friends something. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) now so strongly supports the amendment. I admit it has sometimes happened that young people went wrong as a result of treating, but we must surely not curtail grown-up people too much. If it is laid down that something may not be offered to the native, coloured person or a child, it is another matter. Accordingly, I voted in favour of drink not being supplied to natives, but to prevent anyone offering a drink to an adult white person is a thing I cannot approve of. I shall vote against the amendment.

I do not wish to say much, because all the details have already been dealt with, but I just want to tell the Minister that I will vote for the amendment even if I stand alone. What is the object of the Bill? Surely to try and lessen drunkenness. The non-treating system is one of the best methods of lessening it. We are not thinking so much of full-grown people, but of young lads. I agree that the people who drink too much usually drink alone. But usually people learn to drink by their companions taking them to bars, and their standing each other rounds. I also think it would be difficult to carry out the provision, but let us make an attempt to do something to improve the position. It will be difficult at the commencement, but later on we shall no longer notice that the custom has been abolished and drunkenness will diminish a great deal. The sons of rich farmers who have inherited wealth, have, in many cases, lost everything through drink. I know of a case where a son succeeded to property worth £30,000, but to-day he is a poor white and ruined, because he went to the bar and started to stand drinks. That is the beginning, and it continues from step to step. There are people who have not sufficient will-power, and if they have once made a start like that they continue. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) referred to the tot system. There is much less danger in that than in the principle now being proposed. A farmer supervises the giving of the tot. I heartily support the amendment, and if an attempt is made to carry it out there will be good results.

I think we are all agreed that what the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) calls “the liberty of the subject” is going to be interfered with by a Bill of this kind, but I must say I am in entire agreement with what the Minister has said about this proposed clause, which is going much too far. It is contrary to the general sentiment of the people, contrary to the love of hospitality dear to the heart of the people, and, further than that, it seems to me it is quite impracticable to carry out. After all, one has only to consider what the state of affairs would be, and see how impracticable it is. Two people go to play a game of golf, come back to the club, and want a drink. Under this clause it would be legal for both to order the same drinks and each to pay for their own drink, but if each also pays for the other’s drink, they and the barman commit a crime, and both would be liable to a penalty. One has only to state the thing in that way to see how absurd it is. “The more opportunities for drinking, the more will be drunk,” but the logical result of that would be to close all bars and have total prohibition, and we all agree that that is impracticable. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has told us of the terrible things which happen where people stand each other rounds of drinks. I do not know personally whether these things happen—they may—but the fact remains, as the Minister has said, it is contrary to the general opinion of the public—everybody except the extremists—and, therefore, people will not think the worse of anyone who has committed an offence of this kind. In practice it will be found practically impossible to carry out the law. It seems to me that the advocates of temperance are defeating their own object in bringing forward clauses of this kind which are in advance of public opinion, and if they do so they will not get that support for their more moderate proposals which they might otherwise get.

I am very sorry that the amendment is getting so little support. What particularly disappoints me is the attitude of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys). He says, in the first place, that the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) had made a mistake in connection with the tot system, but that hon. member voted against it. Then I am astonished that he is so much concerned about the coloured people and natives, and less about his own people. He reproaches us for voting in favour of the tot system, yet he will not protect the European.

The native has to be treated like a child, not like a grown-up person.

The hon. member always wants to be among the big people and treat others as children. The position is that the tot system gives protection to the natives and not to the Europeans. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) is opposed to a farmer giving a tot to a native, but he does not want his own people to be protected against the abuse of drink. It is an unfair attitude towards his own race when he actually wants to protect the other races.

I think enough of the Europeans to believe that they can look after themselves.

Then this Bill is not necessary. I hope the amendment will be passed. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. J. S. Pretorius) is the only member with the experience that the man who is treated does not become a drinker. I think the experience of the world is just the opposite, and everyone who keeps his eyes open will admit it, namely, that the treating system is the cause of young people taking to drink. I am not talking about moderate drinkers, but of the perniciousness of this system for young people. I know cases where the treating system was the cause of young farmers taking to drink and losing everything. The one drags the other with him to the bar, and then the treating begins. We all want to restrict the abuse of drink as much as possible, and I still hope the amendment will be passed.

I am glad to have an opportunity of saying a few words. We have heard that the proposal is childish, ridiculous and mad. I wonder how much we are progressing? I want to say at once that I support the motion, even if it deserves those epithets. We know that even the late Gen. de Wet was said to be mad, but he showed that he was everything but mad, in fact that he was a genius, and too much for all the English generals, and this also applies to this clause. I cannot understand hon. members who are in favour of prohibition and local option not voting for this clause. It is incomprehensible to me. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) said “what a terrible thing it would be if I could not stand a man a drink.” I cannot understand it in one who favours total abstinence as he does. The hon. member, as a teetotaler, was not willing to allow a coloured person to buy liquor in a bottle, and he further wants the liberty to stand a friend a drink. What an example of steadfastness of principle. Let us try to see the actual state of affairs. It has been said that the system was a failure in England. What is the evidence of Col. Trew? He says that if it can be carried out, it will undoubtedly have good results. With regard to the success in England, he answered a question that it was practicable during the war, but that the politicians thought that it would not be practicable in normal times. He therefore pointed out that most of the officers’ clubs in the army respect the non-treaty system, and that it works well. That is the evidence of an expert, and it conflicts entirely with the statement of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). My hon. friend wants to prevent drunkenness, and here they have something which will greatly assist in that. It is said that this is a custom in South Africa. I admit it, a very bad custom; but let hon. members just go to Germany. It was mentioned here that whisky and soda are not drunk in Germany. I think that is very lucky, but they drink beer and go to the beer-halls, and there they do not pay for each other. It is not the custom to treat each other. In Pretoria, where there are a good many Germans, when I go with them, whether they drink coffee or beer, each one pays for his own drink. The result of that wrong “hospitality” in a bar is that young people drink so much that they can no longer stand. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) said that it was a wrong principle. What principle? It is a very good principle to lead no one into temptation. It is a fact that no one ever drinks alone. No principle is at stake in treating anyone. What the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) said is quite right. When someone drinks alone he has learnt previously to drink. If a friend asks him to have a drink he learns to drink, and I, who associate much with young people and have worked amongst them, know that that treating is the cause of people going wrong. Another person invites them to go in, and there they learn to drink. It is just in company where too much is taken. It is two, three and more rounds, and so they have too much. Therefore I am in favour of the idea that we should not treat each other in bars. This does not refer to the club or a home, but only to bars, and our object in South Africa is to abolish the bars.

Then the provision is unnecessary.

It is necessary to put a stop to it before they are abolished.

What about hotels?

Liquor can only be taken at mealtimes. There is a further argument. We know the bar loafers who stand and wait until a man comes in and stands them a drink. They go from the one to the other to be treated. We want to make an end of those bar loafers. I further say that 90 per cent. of the people who go into bars do not pay for their own drinks. It is friends who treat them. I am not in favour of local option and prohibition, but I want to stop drunkenness, and the non-treating clause will help us a great deal. I should just like to see the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) go to a bar for a bit to see what happens there. Then he will find out that the most drunkenness is caused by treating. I cannot understand the hon. member favouring prohibition and yet here he wants to assist drunkenness. Talk of restricting freedom. What restriction of freedom would not prohibition be? That the hon. member supports! What liberty is here being taken away? I hope the hon. member will return to the right path and be true to his principles. We have the evidence that the system could be carried out in England, and why should it not be able to be applied here? I appeal to the Minister to change his attitude and accept the amendment.

I am quite in favour of temperance and local option, but, if we pass this Bill, I should like it to be as perfect as possible. I agree with hon. members who have spoken in favour of this amendment, and in my experience I have found that treating was the cause of many young men sinking to the level of poor whites. I want to quote the instance of a lad who sank so low that everyone lost his respect for him. I asked him what the cause was, and he replied, “This man persuaded me to go and have a drink with him.” He inherited a good farm, but it, so to say, disappeared down his throat. I also am a man who does not drink, but, when my children ask me to join with them in a drink, I cannot always refuse, and when I go with them I feel that out of politeness I must also offer something. If we prohibit this custom we shall be doing the whole people of South Africa a benefit in future. I appeal to the House and to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys), an hon. member whom I respect, although we differ on some points and sit on opposite sides of the House. In daily life I take off my hat to him. I cannot understand him reproaching us for voting in favour of the tot system in the Transvaal. My attitude is that drink is the downfall of the Europeans. If it rested with me, no liquor would be sold in South Africa, but I know we are powerless. It is the root of all our troubles. There are other members who do not agree with me, and they are thinking of the wine farmers of the Western Province or of other things. I know that my standpoint cannot be carried out, but let us at any rate try in this Bill to stop the abuse as much as possible. Why should we only protect the native and the coloured man against that danger? If we do not want to protect the population, then we must not protect one class of society. If we allow drink to ruin the people, then let all be ruined. That is my attitude as well as of many members on this side of the House. If the question ever comes up again, I shall vote for it again. I hope the amendment will be passed.

The answer to question No. 6757 of Lt.-Col. Trew, that you would require a policeman in every bar, is a very complete answer to this proposal, which, it seems to me, has been taken very seriously by hon. members over there. If you follow out the principles of this amendment, you will have to start a new set of laws in this country, “How to make people moral” for instance, you might deal with the case of a man, when paying his account in an hotel, finds the servants lined up in a row to receive a tip. Now some people give more than they can afford, and therefore you should have a law to stop tipping. Then you have the case of a young man who asks a young lady to have a cup of tea, and the young lady eats three or four cakes, but the young man has only made provision to pay for one; what happens to that young man who cannot afford to pay? You ought to deal with it, and I suggest hon. members over there ought to take this matter up. There are some people who give too much to charitable institutions, more than they can afford, and obviously you ought to have a Bill limiting the amount to be given to charitable institutions. If you are going on in this way, attempting to protect people against themselves, you will build up an anaemic race instead of a robust race. You must go further, you must protect them against smoking. Don’t let them have more than one cigar a day, and limit the number of cigarettes they smoke; in fact, you ought to provide by law that a man should be wrapped in cotton wool from the time that he leaves his bed in the morning to the time that he goes back to it at night. This treating question is not such a universal disease as you think. Then, why dry up the springs of human generosity and reduce us to a condition of mean, stingy human beings? Instead of doing good, it will do a lot of harm, and you will not have a robust race of human beings growing up under such laws as these.

I am sorry that the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) is not present, because my experience of him is that nothing gives him greater pleasure than to treat one to something. I speak from experience. I have quite often come into close touch with him, and it is always a pleasure for him to offer you something. He is not here, and has deputed the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) to move the amendment. He will not be very successful with it. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) tried to explain that the poor whites were due to abuse of drink. Surely this goes too far. I know many poor people who have never taken liquor, and we cannot say that drink is the cause of people being poor.

I did not say that every poor man was poor through drink, but there are nevertheless many of them. Do you not know of cases where people have squandered their all in drink?

There are cases where people have put their possessions down their throats, but it goes too far to say what the hon. member says. It is said that treating leads people to drink. What is to prevent young people to say “Come along, let us go and have a drink in the bar and each pay for himself.” Thereafter they can decide that each shall pay for another drink. What is to prevent them taking quite a number of drinks? And on whom will the burden of proof lie? On the barman. He must see that every man pays for himself. How can that he established? If it said that the man who stood another a drink would be punished, but here it merely says that the bar-owners must supervize.

That is exactly what the amendment says.

The whole Bill, from Clause 1 to the end, is full of provisions which can be contravened, and people will constantly be getting into difficulties. Why should we insert another clause which will cause more trouble?

The Minister mentioned a few things which weighed more particularly with him. One was that such a provision would have no moral influence on the people, that they would see no moral wrong in contravening it. I admit that possibly they will not regard it not to treat as a very strong moral obligation, but if we only say that it will be punishable by the Court, many people will give it up. There are many laws in the public interest in connection with which the public do not feel any moral obligation. Take smuggling itself. I have often heard people say that they are secret transactions, and they see nothing wrong in them. If we go into it, we find that there are many things, such as the contravention of traffic regulations, which people do not regard as morally wrong. That argument amounts to nothing. The second point which weighs with him is the evidence of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), who said that this thing was a dead letter in England. I do not know what experience the hon. member has had of English conditions. I thought he was at the front in Flanders, but perhaps he was a long time in London.

That is an unworthy imputation.

It is not an imputation, but the question is how long the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) was in England. If he bases his judgment only on hearsay, and on the fact that he has studied the question, then I also have evidences which go in a different direction. I have here the figures, e.g., in connection with drunkenness in London during that time, and they show that the prosecutions for drunkenness for 11 weeks after the introduction of the prohibition of treating were 26 per cent. less. I am only quoting for the first 11 weeks, because thereafter further restrictions on the sale of drink were imposed. Lord Dabury, a member of the Board of Control, says in his report that it had a good effect, and that during the last three years of the war it was of great importance, and that he hoped the terrible treating system will not be reintroduced, because friendship is not shown by offering a drink. That is evidence of which we might take notice, and which the figures supported. Some hon. members will say that that was in war time, and that it is impracticable in time of peace. I want, however, to point out that the prohibition did not apply at the front, but in England. Subsequently further provisions were introduced with reference to service in the army and navy. This prohibition, however, only applied to civilians. I admit that it is not so easy to carry out this provision practically, but there are so many regulations in this Bill, and, in those cases also, the Minister will not be able to appoint a policeman everywhere to see that they are carried out. The value of this prohibition will be that it will assist in breaking that reprehensible custom. If it is contained in the Act, people who come, e.g., from England to South Africa will not continue the practice. I am certain that thousands of persons who go to bars would be thankful the treating system was abolished. They go to a bar to-day and find three or four of their friends there who offer them a drink, and then they in turn have also to offer one. In that way they drink more than they want to. In conclusion, I want to emphasize the fact that this is not a proposal by a member of the temperance societies, but by the chairman of the Select Committee on the Liquor Bill. I am sorry that the hon. member could not move it himself. I hope the House will show, if there is a division, that it appreciates the seriousness of the amendment, and not, as the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) does, regard it as a farce.

New clause put, and the committee divided:

Ayes—21.

Boshoff, L. J.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Jagger, J. W.

Keyter, J. G.

Malan, M. L.

Marwick, J. S.

Naudé, A. S.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Sampson, H. W.

Steytler, L. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Tellers: Blackwell, L.; van der Merwe, N. J.

Noes—50.

Alexander, M.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Boydell, T.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Christie, J.

Deane, W. A.

De Villiers, W. B.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gibaud, F.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Heyns, J. D.

Kentridge, M.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw. J. P

Macintosh, W.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Munnik, J. H.

Nathan, E.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Rider, W. W.

Robinson, C. P.

Rockey, W.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smuts, J. C.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, C. F.

Strachan, T. G.

Stuttaford, R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Zyl, G. B.

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

Proposed new clause accordingly negatived.

On Clause 104.

I would like this clause to be voted down by the House. The reason is not that I regard it so much as an infringement upon any agreement entered into, but the arguments raised upon the merits of the case have been of such a nature that I think the best course is to allow this clause to be dropped. I think that probably one of the strongest arguments that could be advanced for the dropping of this clause is that it is really a question of conditions of labour, which might more fittingly find a place in other legislation. But, of course, as far as the labour legislation of this country is concerned, matters of this kind could be dealt with by means rather of the question of laying down what your terms of employment should be, and the minimum salaries and wages which are paid in any particular industry. We would then be able to have a system of work, proper employees paid a proper rate of wages. At all events, the arguments against a clause of this nature in this Bill are so strong that the Government decided to drop the clause. That decision has been communicated to other interested Governments and so I certainly hope that this House will assist in voting against Clause 104. It may, of course, be that at some subsequent stage, legislation of that nature may be laid down generally, but as far as this is concerned, it is well that it should disappear. I therefore commend to the House the deletion of this clause.

I am very sorry the Minister should at this stage have decided to recommend the dropping of this clause. The provisions contained in this clause have been before the country since 1905. After the select committee a commission was appointed. That commission again recommended the clause and the clause was continued in the new Bill. So it is rather late in the day for the Minister to tell us that reasons have been adduced which are not sound enough to support the continuance of the clause. I think perhaps the Minister is trying to let us down very gently. I am not inclined to blame him for the action he has taken, because we know that in the first instance this clause was introduced at the instance of the South African Labour party. I realize the Minister is in a difficult position, and therefore is leaving the matter. Those of us who went on the select committee went on it with instructions to see that the principles contained in this clause should be carried out. In regard to the arguments against this clause, there is first the colour bar argument, that it is wrong to introduce a colour bar into this legislation. The whole legislation not only of the Union, but of the provinces which now constitute the Union, is littered with colour bar legislation. The political basis of this House is a colour bar basis, so I think it is wrong to come along now at this stage with this argument. One must further remember that for a number of years we have had an economic colour bar against the white section in South Africa. The conditions of labour and the wages in certain industries have been such as to exclude the white population from employment in those avenues. The Minister says that will be dealt with by a Wage Act or a Wage Board. That is not the case. It is a case of self-deception. Recommendations made from time to time by a wage board make it impossible for a large proportion of white persons to get employment. There are to-day tens of thousands of people who are unemployed, or only very partially employed. I submit that unless something is done by which not only temporary but permanent avenues of employment are opened up to them, you are not going to solve the problem of unemployment in South Africa. Here is an opportunity of throwing open thousands of jobs of a permanent nature to white persons. The trade is a monopoly, and competition is restricted. We are told it is a hardship to the Asiatic and native sections. The clause as it stands says that the coloured man shall have the same opportunity as the white man. As far as Asiatics are concerned, there are only about 3,000 involved at the maximum. The licensing board in Natal may continue this class of labour, subject to slight penalties.

How long?

As long as they like.

No.

There is always wastage in the trade, and that could be filled up by white labour. Taking this into consideration, also the Natal position and the repatriation of Asiatics, only a small number of Asiatics will be affected. We know there is a shortage of Asiatic labour in Natal, and the sugar industry is clamouring for more labour. I do not think there would be any difficulty for the Asiatics to adjust themselves, and to find themselves other occupations. As far as the natives are concerned, we know perfectly well that the mining industry is clamouring for thousands and thousands more natives, and one of the arguments advanced for doing away with prohibition of the importation of native labour beyond latitude 22 degrees is not only that there is a shortage of native labour on the mines, but that competition for that labour is depriving the farming population of a large number of native labourers. That being the case, the application of this clause would not prejudice native workers in any way, and it would probably ease the situation as far as the mining and the agricultural industries are concerned. As to the ability of white people to adapt themselves to this work, experience has shown us that in the past white labour was looked upon as entirely inefficient in other directions, yet it has been proved to be a success—on the railways, a great success. White men and women would be a great success also in this trade. Unless you accept this principle you have one of two alternatives, either to apply the principle of a national minimum wage in South Africa—and I would very much favour that—based on white standards of life, so that everybody who works must be paid a wage based on a civilized standard of life; or if the House is not prepared to accept that, the other alternative that stares South Africa in the face is the experience of the West Indies. [Time limit.]

The remedy, or rather cure, of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) for unemployment is to throw a certain number out of work and to find employment for a like number absolutely unsuited for that class of work. I belong to a race that has suffered persecution, outrages, intolerance and massacre, and who have been deprived of their means of making an honest living in mid-Europe, and legislators in that part of Europe who are in favour of that policy are using specious arguments, the same as the hon. member for Troyeville, for oppressing that class of people and depriving them of the means of making an honest living. There is no real reason given that I can see, for depriving Indians of the opportunity of choosing an outlet for an employment for which their nature is fitted. It has been their profession. It takes a man years before he becomes proficient. The indians are sober, silent, civil, and are ideal waiters. I have never heard any complaints against the Indians. I am staying at an hotel where Indian waiters are employed, and they are most efficient and obliging. I can see no reason why we should deprive people born in this country of an opportunity of making an honest living, or why we should close an avenue of employment to those who have followed it for many years. We have enough poor whites without creating a class of poor Indians. I am very pleased that the Minister of Justice has withdrawn this clause. I felt from the very start that he would ultimately do so, because its retention would create an act of injustice to a deserving body of men. I could never support such a clause, which would be a great sin. It is the function of Parliament to help the weak against the strong. If there is a weak class and a strong class and the latter wishes to deprive the former of its means of living, then it is the duty of Parliament to put its foot down. I was present at the Indian congress at Kimberley, and the delegates—from all over South Africa—included men of culture and education. They expressed the greatest indignation at Clause 104, which they considered a breach of the Indo-African agreement, and Mr. Sastri, the distinguished representative of India, quite agreed with the feelings expressed by the delegates. South Africa must keep faith with the Indians and not shake their confidence in her. No harm will be done by eliminating the clause; its retention, even in a modified form, would be a bitter pill which the Indians would never swallow.

I am very sorry the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) raised the matter in the way he did, for after debate on the second reading it is surprising that any one should wish this obnoxious clause to remain in the Bill. Is there any other Labour party in the world which would propose to discriminate against people, purely on account of their race and colour? The hon. member has talked in flowery language about the allocation of trades, which seems to me to amount to this—that every man who is not white is to remain a hewer of wood and drawer of water. Don’t let us use high-sounding words, for allocation of trades means the keeping of anything worth having to the Europeans irrespective of skill or character. It will be a blot on the statute book to allow a clause like this to go through. The whole foundation of the hon. member’s case has been knocked out, for white men who wish to enter the liquor trade can do so. There is an agreement between the European employees and the employers in the liquor trade. I pointed out on the second reading that there is at Johannesburg a school of catering, but only one white boy desired to enter it, when six were wanted. There is no want of employment in the hotel trade for those who are skilled. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) is under a misapprehension about the Industrial Conciliation Act, and he seems to be under the impression that a pass bearing native comes under the Act as it now is.

The hon. member cannot discuss that now.

The hon. member has referred to the native, and I am pointing out that the native is excluded from the operation of the Industrial Conciliation Act and cannot protect himself. The hon. member for Troyeville overlooks the fact that the native cannot join any organization in order to protect himself. I think the clause we are now discussing is a breach of the Cape Town agreement, and we are very glad that the Minister has statesmanship enough not to proceed with it. I hope there will be an overwhelming majority against the proposal, so as to show the outside world that justice, liberty and freedom to give one’s services where they are required, irrespective of race and colour, still remain in South Africa.

Clause put and negatived.

On Clause 105,

I move—

The licensing court may extend it to other rooms other than the bar, and in certain hotels waitresses would he debarred from employment in a dining-room if the licensing court declare it to be a restricted portion of the hotel. The place in which a woman should not be employed is the bar, and any other extension which the licensing court may order. That would be unfair, because it might throw women out of employment just because they might hand a drink to a diner in the dining-room of an hotel. At all events, bar, or bars, is the place we wish to prevent their being employed. Then the omission of sub-section (3) (b) follows consequentially on the deletion of the previous section, which was voted down. Then, with regard to the alteration of the number of years barmaids are in employment is designed to prevent women from losing employment in an occupation in which they have been earning their living for some time. It is proposed to change it to one year. Assuming this Act commences before the end of this year, barmaids who have been employed for a year up to that stage will be able to keep their employment. There is an amendment to make the period shorter, but that might be a dangerous amendment, because we might find between now and the commencement of the Act a large number of women might be taken on and employed as barmaids. I think one year is a reasonable period, and will recommend itself to the House. The rest of the amendments are more drafting amendments than anything else. If the period of two years is changed to one year, then in line 23 there would be a consequential amendment.

I move—

The intention of the clause is to get a class of people who will be absolutely reliable in the sale of liquor. If anyone has been convicted of adulteration then he is not a suitable person for the sale of it. It is a good provision to prevent people who contravene the law taking part in a sale. I welcome the restriction on the sale, because I think that the trade ought to be in the hands of people whom the State can trust. I asked the Minister of Agriculture recently how many prosecutions had been instituted under the Adulteration Act and he stated there were fifty-eight in one year. Adulteration is very frequent in our licensed houses, and in order to stop it, I hope the Minister will accept my amendment.

I move—

That will allow barmaids to continue their profession. They will not be liable to the abolition of their calling if my amendment is agreed to. I hope hon. members will not think I am a special champion of barmaids, but I am strongly of opinion we should not differentiate between the sexes. Nature has done this more effectively than men. At the present time women are political outcasts, and why close the door to one occupation of the few left to them? Barmaids are not numerous in this country, they are very few. The fewer they are the greater the reason Parliament should protect them and not oppress them. I have never heard of any great movement for the abolition of barmaids except from Good Templars, some of whom prefer music-hall artists, and the certain type of gentlemen who prefer blondes. Why abolish barmaids? Is it on the grounds of morality? If you read the newspapers and see the accounts of the many divorce cases that appear you very seldom see a barmaid as a co-respondent. That is reserved for people living in a very much higher sphere than a barmaid. So it cannot be on grounds of morality. We have now a Minister of Labour with a very big department, spending about £70,000 a year in administration. What do they do for women? They do nothing for women. How many women have secured occupations through this gigantic Department of Labour? Very few. They have no votes, they have no political power. That is one reason why they are not looked after; in fact, they are not concerned about women at the present time. They will be when women get votes. Another reason is that they do not hold mass meetings and threaten withdrawal of support from the party. They suffer in silence. They have no votes, no political influence—weak by nature, and made weaker by man’s inhumanity. Nature has been so unkind to a certain small percentage of women that they cannot attract husbands. Why should they be deprived of the opportunity of making an honest living? Many women prefer a life of single blessedness, because they do not trust men, not even Good Templars. Women in the aggregate are better than men. No average man is good enough for a good woman. In the world there are millions more women than men. They have the right to live. They deserve our sympathy, and not our hostility. By nature they labour under disadvantages. Why increase them? Greater facilities should be afforded them to secure employment. In the published statements of the unemployed women are not included. They don’t count. They suffer and starve in silence. Through harsh laws and low wages certain women are driven on to the streets. Man has a great deal to answer for in this. There may be barmen, but no barmaids. Why this discrimination? What good purpose will it serve? Will the Labour Minister find any other employment for these women when they are out of work? Will legislators do anything for them? They say that if barmaids are employed in canteens and bars, they attract men, who are induced to drink to excess. In my opinion, it is quite the reverse. Man is on his best behaviour in the presence of a pretty woman. I hold no brief for barmaids, but I am opposed on principle to the differentiation of the sexes beyond nature’s distinction which deprives them of many callings, without man adding to them. They labour under nature’s disadvantages; in fact, the natural disadvantages under which they labour are quite enough without being increased by man.

I think the speech which my hon. friend (Col. Sir David Harris) has made has done more credit to his heart than his head. Section 107 lays down a principle which, I think, every member of this House will adhere to, namely, that women should not be allowed to go into bars. My hon. friend may move to delete that, but I venture to say that there will be a very small minority of this committee who will, support a proposal of that sort. South African women do not go into bars, and the law, as far as I know, has never encouraged them to go into bars. Let me start from that standpoint. If that is accepted by this committee, surely the only logical corollary is to say that women should not be allowed to serve in bars. My hon. friend, with his respect for women, would not suggest that it is a good thing for a woman to stand up in an exclusively male atmosphere, serving drink to men only, the only person of her sex in or around that establishment. He has to consider whether, if women are not allowed to go into bars, should women be allowed to serve in bars. I ask him with his chivalry towards women, if he were a poor man and had a daughter, would he like her to be a barmaid? Would that be an occupation that he would like her to follow? Surely not. He would say that he would rather let her engage in any other occupation he could think of than send her into a bar. We have not for some years had barmaids in the Transvaal, except women who have had some interest in the business itself, but I have seen in Lourenco Marques, time after time, women, many of whom who have been recruited in the Transvaal, brought there to serve in bars. I say there is no more sickening or saddening sight that a South African can see than to see these South African women of ours standing in those bars. I am just as keen as my hon. friend is on standing up in the cause of women, and I say this that it is not for the benefit of women, and it is not ennobling women to allow them to serve in bars. Why are they employed there? Why is a pretty woman, as my hon. friend says, employed in a bar? For one purpose, and one purpose only, that by reason of her sex attraction, she may attract a larger number of men and promote the sale of liquor. I do say this, that I believe that if the question were put to the trade, they would say that they would rather not have women serving in bars. Amongst those who have spoken to me, I do not remember one who really made any stand whatever for the continued employment of barmaids. I think that has become obsolete. I repeat that once you accept the principle that women and children should be kept out of bars, then equally should women be kept out of employment there. I want to say a word to the Minister on his amendment. I am sorry he put down this amendment. We have had a loop hole in the law of the Transvaal. We have said: “You may not employ women as barmaids, but if a woman is the owner or part owner of a licence she may herself go into the bar and serve liquor”. What has been the result? A woman is given a nominal share in a licence. It may be one-twentieth or one-tenth, but she becomes a partner recognized by the licensing court as such, and then she becomes de facto a barmaid. In other words the law is got over. We want him to stop that. We want him to say no woman shall be allowed to serve in any bar whatever be her interest. The Minister has gone back on that. In this amendment he makes an exception in this prohibition in the case of a woman who is the owner or part owner of a licence.

That follows on the previous clause.

Nothing of the sort. In the previous clause we say that a woman holding an hotel licence can run the hotel, but we never contemplated that she should be allowed to serve in a bar; otherwise what is the virtue of this clause? In any case the Minister has put it in such general terms that the position will be as bad in the future as it has been in the past. He says: “The owner or part owner”. She may have only a hundredth share in it or a one-fiftieth share. I appeal to the Minister not to press his amendment and I want to assure him it is not consequential on what was passed. Let a woman run an hotel, but a bar is a place reserved exclusively for men. If a woman wants liquor she can get it in the lounge or elsewhere, but the bar is reserved for men only. So it is just as bad and just as pernicious to allow a woman to serve in a bar if she be the owner or part owner of a licence as if she were employed as a barmaid. The Minister should not go as far as he proposes in this amendment, and he should take the clause as printed. I do not mind if he makes it one year instead of two, but otherwise he should take it as printed.

The hon. member who has just spoken stated that all members of this House were agreed that no woman should go into a bar. I do not agree—I take exception to that. Many members, if they happen to be in the lounge of an hotel, would not think it degrading to ask their wives to have a drink with them. The hon. member may have this idea, but he is mistaken, that is ail. I do not see why women who ask to be admitted to full political rights should not be trusted in the same way as men. The hon. member goes so far that he is now suggesting that if a woman happens to own an hotel it is a crime for her to go into the bar. Is not that ridiculous? It is not reducing this thing to an absurd position? What a merry time the employees would have knowing that the woman was prevented by law from ever going into the bar. I think the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) has done the right and logical thing, but the least you can do if you are not going to agree to the proposal in the Bill is to agree to the Minister’s amendment. I would like to ask my hon. friend this. In most houses there is a little cupboard which contains a little whisky or brandy. Who generally has the key of that? It is generally left to the wife. Perhaps the man would like to have it himself, but if you go to most homes in this country you will find the key of the place where these nice little things are kept is usually kept by the wife. She looks after it very well and sees that not too much is used on any occasion. The idea that a woman cannot look after herself in this respect is an absurd exaggeration. I rose for the purpose of moving a couple of amendments which appear on page 382. I quite agree that a man who has proved himself absolutely dishonest in connection with the administration of the liquor law should be debarred from employment, but the Minister has put it in such a way that it might be a purely technical contravention. My amendment is there should be two convictions, and that it should be for a personal contravention, which is what you want. I move—

I have a small amendment to move in sub-section (2) of Section 105. As that is now worded it would have the effect in the Transvaal of prohibiting any Asiatic or native from being a waiter in the dining-room of an hotel during the hours when liquor may be sold or supplied. I do not suppose that is the intention of the Bill, because we have just taken out Clause 104. It seems to me the intention of 105 (2) would be to prohibit persons, who as a class are not allowed to be supplied with drink, to prohibit them from being employed in a bar or any part of the premises from which liquor is supplied, not in which it is supplied. I want to move—

I am afraid that the zeal of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) in regard to total prohibition has led him into some inconsistency, for here he is endeavouring to introduce a barrier which is going to destroy the whole fundamental premises of his argument when we were fighting for women’s suffrage. He now draws a distinction between a female and a male, merely upon and for sex reasons. It has been pointed out very clearly that the success and comfort of the internal management of an hotel depends more largely on the woman than on the male, who may hold the licence in his name. I do not see why women should be restricted from carrying out the essential duties of an hotel, as was very forcibly pointed out by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander). I feel that the amendment of the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) is very reasonable.

I intended to say when I was last on my feet, and in view of the speech of the hon. member who has just spoken, that I am not a prohibitionist, nor am I in favour of many of the proposals that have been made in connection with this Bill for limiting the supply of drink under various circumstances; but I do think the Bill as it stands prohibiting the employment of women in bars is one that should be supported. I am surprised to hear hon. members say that because people stand up for the removal of sex disabilities in regard to citizenship, logically they should be against a clause like this. We have had this provision in force in the Transvaal for 25 years, and I do not think anybody who knew the state of things before that prohibition was introduced, and knows them now, would be in favour of going back. I know in a few cases there is an evasion by a woman becoming interested as owner or part owner—not as an investor—but in regard to the prohibition about barmaids. But there are very few of those cases, and they do not affect the operation of the law as a whole. Nobody who takes a genuine interest in the welfare of women would wish to see an extension of their employment in such an occupation as that of barmaid. They are in an atmosphere which cannot but be harmful to them, and they are there because they serve to a certain extent as an attraction to customers. I think it is degrading to women to serve merely as an attraction to customers for the consumption of liquor.

I should like to say a few words. I want to compliment the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Sir David Harris) on the high level he maintained in defending the female servants in bars. No doubt if the best feelings of South Africa are represented in this House the Minister’s motion will be accepted. Take the countryside. I do not believe that in the best hotels there women are employed in the bars. I am speaking chiefly of my own constituency which contains some of the best hotels in South Africa. The serving by women in bars is opposed to the sentiment of the majority of the people. Unless the House is convinced that the sentiment of the people has weakened on the point, I think we must stand by the Minister. He has made due provision; the women who still have an interest in this kind of business are protected. As for the woman who is not so interested, she will have no opportunity of entering them. That is under the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). Only the locality of the bar is excluded. In all other parts of the hotel girls can work as servants, but where liquor is supplied to the consumer, they may not be present. That is in accordance with the sentiment of the majority of the people. Apart from any other sentiment I heartily support the Minister’s proposal.

If I thought that my support of women’s suffrage logically led me to the result that women should be allowed to enter bars, I should drop women’s suffrage like a hot potato. It is nothing of the sort. Our legislation is full of laws in which we make special provision for women, because of their sex. No one, whether in favour of women’s suffrage or not, would dream of doing away with that. I think the sense of the committee is that we should keep sub-section 1 as printed. On the question of drafting, the Minister moved to omit “restricted portion of” in line 43. If my fellow commissioner, the hon. member for North East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz), were here he would join with me in saying that it is much wiser to keep the wording as published. The word “bar” is not definite, and it was particularly put in in this way. The Minister points out that the definition is wide enough to include not only the bar, but other rooms which would be of the same genus as the bar.

Could the licensing board include the dining-room?

It possibly could legally, but it would never be done. If the Minister departs from the wording of this clause he will find a dozen instances in which he will have to do so. There is not the slightest likelihood of any licensing board doing anything to include a bar, or any premises which are used with the bar. The words “restricted portion” occur in many other places in the Bill. After all, what is a bar—is it a counter, or a particular room in which liquor is served? The hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) seems to think that the Carlton Hotel lounge is a bar. I do not think it is, and there is no intention to keep women out of a lounge. If the court finds a room used as a bar, then it will regard it as a restricted portion of the premises. I do not know whether the Minister is going to retain the words “owner” or “part owner”, but if he does this will be the only clause where we use words implying that there is property in a licence. So far there is no right of property in a licence, which has to be renewed every twelve months, but here we lay it down that a person may be an owner or a part owner of a licence. In other portions of the Bill we use the word “holders.” A part ownership can be to any extent whatever. If the Minister is going to carry the point that the owner or part owner is allowed to go into the bar if she is a women, he should at least see that we do not have repeated in the Cape and Natal the practice that has grown up in the Transvaal after the abolition of barmaids, women being given only a nominal share so that they may be allowed to practise as barmaids.

Only in Johannesburg, not the Transvaal.

At any rate, on the Rand, which is nearly half the Transvaal, as far as bars are concerned, that practice has obtained. These women who are not really partners, but employees, are allowed to act as barmaids. Sometimes you see three young ladies in the court and the board is told that they are partners in the business, whereas really they are barmaids. I move, as an amendment to the new sub-section (5) proposed by the Minister of Justice—

That means that to secure exemption she must be at least a quarter partner.

I hope that the amendment of the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) will have no serious support, for the idea of excluding women from bars, whilst at the same time allowing them to serve in bars is an absurdity. I claim to speak with some authority and knowledge on the subject. I have lived on the Rand as a pioneer. There were a large number of barmaids in the early days, and I have seen what the object and mission of these barmaids were. Barmaids were simply there to lure men to drink as much as possible. The barmaid is frequently invited to joint in the drinking, and as often as not she pours away the drink when the unhappy victim she is fleecing, to enrich the barkeeper, is not looking. They either did this or consumed an inordinate amount of alcohol. These women then lived practically a life of deception or dissipation, and were often the victims of the alcohol habit. As much in the interest of the women themselves as of the deluded customers, I say keep women out of the liquor traffic altogether. I was for some years on the Rand Liquor Licensing Court, and we as a court were satisfied that advantage was taken of a loophole to make barmaids nominal partners so as to retain their services in the bar. It is a dangerous loophole. If a woman has a “bona fide” interest in a bar let her establish it on oath to the satisfaction of the licensing board, and for this reason I will support this reasonable amendment proposed by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

I sincerely hope the amendment of the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Sir David Harris) will not be passed. We feel strongly that the women and not the men must say what they think about the matter. I only want to quote what women have said. Members of the South African Christian Temperance Union urgently asked the Minister to include clauses against the employment of women in bars and they expressed the hope that that would be prohibited in the Bill. They pointed out that it would not be unfair for women who are not yet in the business to be prohibited from going into it. How grateful women generally are for this clause to abolish “barmaids.” That is the feeling of the women and we must bear it in mind. We surely all feel that it is wrong for women to be in bars where men often drink too much. We have the views of the women about it. Miss Solomon, for instance, says that it is demoralising for women to see how men go to excess, to look at it all day long in the bars, that it forces the women to take less care about their conduct and that they thereby lower themselves. I therefore think that the amendment should not be passed. I should, however, like to have an explanation of the third paragraph of Clause 105.

It is being deleted.

It is desirable and I am pleased. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) mentioned something we feel strongly about. But we also sympathise with the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) that if a woman has a share in a business she should also be entitled to go into the business. If her husband, for instance, is dead she should have the right to control the business. She ought to be able to go there and look after it.

If the share is very small?

I see the point. Perhaps it may be moved that the share shall be 25 per cent. or something else. It is difficult to draw the line.

It is in the amendment.

Then I hope the Minister will accept it.

I would like to know if the Minister has accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan).

Yes.

And the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander).

No.

You are going to make it extremely difficult for a person who might be innocent to obtain employment. Here a licensee is liable for any contravention which his agent or servant has committed. You might have a person entirely blameless, convicted for an irregularity committed by one of his servants. That would debar him from employment in an hotel at any time. The amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) is a perfectly reasonable one and I cannot see on what grounds the Minister objects to it. Is the Minister going to accept it?

No.

If this clause goes through as it is now, women will not be allowed to work in restaurants where liquor is sold. Does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) wish to go as far as that.

No.

Well, it does go as far as that, and it means that only men will find employment in restaurants, and it will throw out of employment thousands of women who work as waitresses.

No, it is only the restricted portions of the premises.

Well, I put the point because I am not a lawyer, and I would like it cleared up before we vote.

The last point raised I think will be fully provided for by the amendment I have moved to change “restricted portion” to “bar on.” If they are only prohibited from serving in the bar, they will be able to serve in the restaurant. The restaurant itself cannot be a bar. The bar is what we in ordinary language call bars in South Africa, and if you have a counter in a large room in which people dine, that would not be a bar. I wanted to avoid danger, and that is why I want to change the words “restricted portion” to “bar on.” In the next sub-section the word “bar’ is used as it is used in many places in the Bill. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) is correct in saying the words “in or” should be taken out. That is partly consequential on the previous clause, and partly bears out the true intention of this clause. I am not prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander). That is the question of punishment, that a person convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, within five years, on seeking employment on licensed premises, cannot be so employed. The hon. member wants to make it “two convictions” in five years, and to call it “personal convictions.” All convictions are personal convictions, but I see what the hon. member means. He means for an act not done by the person himself, but an act for which he is liable under the provisions of the Bill. In most cases, although a man can show that he was not anywhere near the place at the time something happened, you have a shrewd suspicion that it happened under his instructions or owing to his negligence. I do not think we should make this distinction between acts that he himself did or acts that were done by somebody under him under the licence that he holds. In regard to the two convictions, that is of course, a question for the House, but where a person is convicted there is no reason why we should have that particular person convicted again. In regard to the amendment that I suggest that females who are owners or part owners of a business should be allowed to serve liquor in the restricted portion of an hotel or a place where you have on-consumption, that, of course, obviously means bona fide owners or bona fide part owners. I personally do not think there are so many evasions of this provision in Johannesburg, because, after all, if there is an obvious evasion your licensing court can act.

I may be part owner and have only a fiftieth share.

The hon. member’s point is that they are part owners to a limited extent. Supposing a person is a genuine part owner to a small extent, that person should be entitled as a right to go to any part of the premises.

They are only part owners in order to become barmaids.

Whatever the purpose may be, I think if we are going to tie up our laws in every possible way and prevent every possible evasion, we shall defeat our own object.

You will never satisfy the Good Templars.

I think we should have some moderation in this matter, too. The remarks of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) show that although there is the right to have barmaids in the Cape Province, as far as a large part of the Cape Province is concerned, you do not even have barmaids. As far as the largest portion of the Transvaal is concerned, you have no evasions of the nature that the hon. member indicates, and the only evasions of which I have heard are the evasions in Johannesburg.

And on the Reef generally.

Why must we change this provision simply because in Johannesburg there are these evasions? I say we should not try to make this Act fit absolutely every part of this country. You cannot do it. Where we have the principle that persons who are part-owners should have the right to go to any part of the premises in which they have an ownership, surely that is a right thing to do. There may be a purpose in it in a few exceptional cases—the purpose of having barmaids—and you give that right by giving them a certain ownership qualification. If this clause passes, I am convinced that you will not find any evasion of that kind in any part of Cape Town, to mention one place. Therefore, I say it is unnecessary for a few exceptions to go and change our legislation to fit those few exceptions that take place. After all, we are making a very big change. We are making a prohibited employment what has always been an allowed employment in South Africa.

In the Cape.

In the Free State, the Cape and Natal. It is only the Transvaal that has prohibited, as far as I know. We are making a big change in South Africa in this regard, and all I say is that we should not make the change of such a nature that it will unnecessarily gall people.

I am really sorry for the poor magistrates who will have to interpret this clause. It seems to me we are getting terribly involved and muddled. I will put this position to the Minister, namely, that of the married woman married in community of property. Will she, under this clause, have an interest in a licence, or will she not? If I give my own opinion, I should think she will. I will put the other case where a man holds a licence, and he is married out of community of property. What is the woman’s position? Has she, or has she not, an interest in that licence? If she has not an interest, will she be entitled to serve drink under this Bill? These are all questions which will arise in the courts of law. For heaven’s sake, let us have a law which is clear and distinct.

107 (a) meets a lot of your objections.

We are trying to consolidate the laws and modify them where possible. I rather support the Transvaal principle of keeping women out of bars, but I am not prepared, and this Bill does not go so far, to deprive those who are already earning their living in this way from continuing to do so. I am sorry I cannot agree with the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris). I have always been opposed to women serving in bars, and I cannot get over that. It is a feeling of resentment I have, and I cannot get away from it.

Amendments proposed by Dr. Stals, Sir David Harris and Mr. Alexander put and negatived.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Duncan and by the Minister of Justice, in lines 43, 65 to 70, on page 70, and lines 10 and 23, on page 72, put and agreed to.

Before you reach the next amendment, Mr. Chairman, I want the Minister’s attention for one moment. By deleting sub-section (b), the hon. member is doing a serious injustice to existing barmaids. We put that section in to protect the position of those women to-day who are virtually barmaids, but have become so as owners or part-owners. If this sub-section is not kept in, they will no longer be allowed to carry on that trade, whereas the barmaids at the Cape will get protection. We put this in to give the ladies in the Transvaal the same protection as in the past.

I think that is correct. I thought that would be met by sub-section (5). I withdraw the amendment and also the amendment in regard to ownership in line 20.

With leave of the committee, amendments proposed by the Minister of Justice, in lines 16 and 17, 20 and 22, withdrawn.

Question put: That the words “a part-owner”, proposed by Mr. Blackwell to be omitted from the new sub-section (5) proposed by the Minister of Justice, stand part of the amendment,

Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—53.

Alexander, M.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Harris, D.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Heatlie, C. B.

Heyns, J. D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Munnik, J. H.

Nathan, E.

Naudé, A. S.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer. I. van W.

Reitz, D.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Tellers: de Jager, A. L.; Pienaar, B. J.

Noes—17.

Close, R. W.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Marwick, J. S.

Nicholls, G. H.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Tellers: Blackwell, L.; van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Question accordingly affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Blackwell dropped.

Business suspended at 6.3 p.m., and resumed at 8.7 p.m.

I move—

1. (3) Nothing in this section contained shall be deemed to prohibit the access to any part of the licensed premises of—
   1. (a) any Asiatic or native for the purpose of the performance by him thereon of any service upon which he may lawfully be employed;
   2. (b) any person for the purpose of the performance by him thereon, at any time during which the licensed premises are closed for the sale of liquor, of any bona fide domestic service.

Does that not contradict sub-section 1? And how are you going to reconcile the two? Sub-section 1 says that you shall not allow a prohibited person to be there. The two contradict each other. I take it the Minister does not want the native to serve in a bar. This new sub-section entirely destroys the value, as far as I can see, of section 106. Section 106 has for its intention the prohibition of the employment of a native or any other prohibited person during the hours of sale in any capacity whatever in a bar. The Minister, with his keen legal brain, will see at once that the word “lawful” is so vague that it may destroy the whole value.

It is in 105 (2).

Yes, but I think this goes too far. The clause, as drafted, was much plainer. That is what we want to make sure of, that during the hours of sale in a bar a native, as a prohibited person, or anyone else, would not be employed in that bar. In some bars they employ natives for rinsing out the glasses. That is a very bad thing. We have laid down in this Act that the native shall be totally prohibited from having liquor, and to put him in an atmosphere of liquor is extremely bad. I would ask the Minister, for the time being at any rate, to accept the clause as printed, and if necessary we can go into it at the report stage. I think this would be a very dangerous amendment.

I think it can be accepted at this stage, and if anything is wrong we can amend it at the report stage, because 105 (2) lays down that the holder of a liquor licence may not employ any person who is prohibited in any bar or any other portion of the premises, from which liquor is supplied.

I am afraid your amendment will destroy that.

No. This is merely a saving clause, that as far as lawful employment is concerned he shall not be left off the premises altogether. I think it is a necessary thing, as far as the native and the Asiatic are concerned. I do not think there is much difference between the two clauses, and I think the amendment could be passed at this stage.

I think if you don’t put in something of the sort you might have a case where a wagon comes along and a native would not be allowed to carry in even a case of soda-water.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 108,

I think the Minister ought to take rather wider powers than he takes in this clause. The intention is good, but I do not know that he is arriving at it in the best way. He is depending entirely on the stock books. I would suggest to him that he takes powers to decide what records are required, and then in conjunction with the men in the trade he can decide what records are necessary to ascertain the position at any time. I think this amendment would meet the case better, to delete “stock book clearly showing” and to insert “such records in the form approved by the Minister as will enable,” and then in line 65, after “stock” to insert “to be accurately ascertained.” I think that will give the Minister very much wider powers in getting a form of accounts kept which will enable the licensed victualler, who intends to do the thing properly and cleanly, to do so, and will enable the Minister to say, by regulation, what the form of accounts will be.

The licensing board has that power, under sub-section (2).

Yes, but it is not clear in this clause. In this clause a stock book has to be kept up to the moment. Anyone who knows anything about keeping stock recognizes that you cannot alter the stock books every time a man comes in and buys a bottle of wine. The stock book, plus the sales record, must be in such a form that at any given moment you can say “at the opening to-day you had so much stock; during the day you sold so many bottles of wine, therefore at this moment you must have so many bottles in stock.” The amendment I suggest would not prevent the Minister from going back and insisting on the stock book being the only form of record. We can make it “any form prescribed by regulation,” if you like, as long as it meets the point. The Minister’s department will consult with people in the trade in order to find out exactly how they do keep their records. I move—

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 110,

I have all through this debate conscientiously tried to take a middle course, and I thoroughly agree with what the Minister said the other day, that you cannot effectively legislate for drunkenness. I have tried to do my best all through this Bill to support any clause which helped to suppress drunkenness. But take a clause like this. We should not adopt the attitude, “Here is the liquor trade, throw half a brick at it.” In my box just now I found the “Presbyterian Churchman.” There is a class of people who think, however unfair a law may be, so long as it is the liquor trade, it does not matter. The “Presbyterian Churchman” says that “from the Minister downwards speakers seem to think there is the drinking man only, and no doubt my action has pleased the licensed victuallers, but will disgust the electors in my constituency.” Here we have a case in point. This is one of those clauses which would not be tolerated in regard to ordinary business; but it is the liquor business, so throw half a brick at it.

They asked for it.

A certain section of the trade may have asked for it. It seems to me that this clause has nothing to do with the suppression of drunkenness, but it is an internal squabble in the liquor trade. Are we here to settle internal rows in the liquor trade? On what principle of equity, justice and morality are we to pass a clause which is so much in restraint of trade? Do we tell the farmer that he must not sell his horse to anyone? If I want to sell a horse, I may think I do not like a buyer’s face, and I can say to him that I will not sell it to him. If the trade is such a pernicious one, do away with it, but if it is in existence legitimately, what right have we to say, “We force you to sell to anyone, whether you like to or not”? Why do you say to the wholesaler, that he must sell to everyone, and that he has no choice? Take a famous brand of champagne, or liqueur; take the case of benedictine. Surely a wholesale may say to one who may bring discredit on a famous mark, “I will not sell to you.” By what principle are we going to say to the wholesaler, “You have to charge the same prices”? One man wants to buy a waggon load, and another one case. Surely it is a business principle all over the world that you are entitled to charge less to a man who takes a large consignment than to the man who takes a small one. In Government contracts on the railways for the catering department they expect to have a reduction when they purchase in large quantities. If it is as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) says—a sort of vendetta and quarrel between two sections of the trade—I say we are not here to adjudicate between them. Any business man should have the right to say, “I shall not sell.” It is his stuff, and he is not forced to sell to everyone, whether he likes it or not. I hope the Minister will enlighten us on the clause before it passes. I think in Act 5 of 1924 we passed a law in which the very opposition principle holds good. Under certain conditions no wine grower in this country or the Cape may sell to anyone else but the Wyn Bouwers Kooperasie.

Only wine brandy.

It is the same principle. The liquor trade means nothing to me; it is just the principle. Why should the wholesale dealer have to sell to anyone who comes along?

I would like to support what has been said by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). This clause seems to me out of place in this Bill. It is definitely in restraint of trade, and the question of restraint of trade is a matter that was referred generally, and not only in regard to liquor, to the Board of Trade. I have their report here, and the Board of Trade is not at all backward in putting in restraint if they think it necessary, but they report definitely against this restraint of trade as not being in the public interest. I put to the Minister that what he said on Clause 104 applies exactly to this clause. He said it could more fittingly find a place in other legislation. That applies to this. Restraint of trade should not, as it were, be put in by a side wind in the Liquor Bill. If Parliament makes up its mind to have restraint it should be general and not apply to one thing only. I hope the Minister will see his way to drop it.

I hope the Minister will not withdraw the clause. Some hon. members seem to forget that these men are licensed and the licence protects them, and it is only right that the public should also be protected.

Any other merchant has a licence to sell.

If a man has a licence to sell he should be forced to sell to anybody who wishes to buy.

On the same principle then you can be forced to take up the case of any client.

It is not the same principle, but if you are called in as notary public you are bound to act. The clause is intended to remove a monopoly. It is iniquitous that if a man does not belong to a ring he is not supplied with any more goods. I have a letter from a well-known firm in England to a well-known firm in this country in which they say—

In another case the writer said that the local association had adopted a very selfish policy and that there was an inclination among some of the leading shippers to ignore this attempt at domination. Because a man would not join the ring he was refused further supplies. Then there is another ring as every tenant of certain licensed houses has to sign an agreement which state that he undertakes during his tenancy of the premises to purchase colonial aerated waters, ginger beers and other non-alcoholic drinks from one particular firm. He also has to undertake not to keep or to bring into or on his premises any colonial aerated waters, ginger beers or other non-alcoholic drinks other than those manufactured or sold by one particular firm. This was an agreement with the brewery. How could a brewery claim protection under such circumstances? The reason for this extraordinary tie is that there is a big firm in Cape Town amalgamated with a large firm in England, and they have a monopoly for the business of the tied houses. Small men in the mineral water line are not allowed to sell their goods to these tied houses.

This is not a sinister device of the temperance people to curtail the sale of liquor. Some years ago what was called the Whisky Shippers Association was formed; it consisted of six or seven men representative of the English export houses of whisky. They formed an importers’ list containing 30 or 40 names. The people on the list were allowed to import whisky at the lowest wholesale price, but if a man’s name were not on the list no matter if he were prepared to purchase as large a quantity as anyone else, he was told that he could not import. Quite arbitrarily and without any appeal, names were taken off the list. One of the largest wholesale liquor merchants in Johannesburg, Mr. Zoccala, did something to offend the controllers of the ring and his name was taken off the importers’ list. He was the holder from the State of a wholesale liquor licence, but the whisky ring told him that they would sell him whisky at the retail price only. This meant that he was put out of business so far as whisky was concerned. This practice has extended to proprietary brands of brandy made in this country. The distillers told the merchants that they must charge a certain price for a bottle of brandy, but if they committed the unspeakable crime of selling it 6d. a bottle cheaper, they would be put on the black list and would be unable to obtain any of the distiller’s brandy in the future. Are these unhealthy conditions to exist in any trade? Should we tolerate it? If you do not pass this clause none but the favoured few in South Africa will be able to buy whisky on the usual import terms and there will be no check on the growth of rings and monopolies in South Africa in the liquor trade. Now the State has a peculiar-right of control of what occurs in the liquor trade and we have the right to say we shall not permit the existence of trusts which entirely control the sale of whisky and brandy.

We have only heard one side of the story up to now, and from that one would assume these men are in business for fun. In the case mentioned by my hon. friend, no doubt they had good and adequate reasons for doing what they did. I am against this clause. You are assuming they act arbitrarily because they dislike a man. I would like to see any man who conducts his busines on those lines. Why you want to interfere with people selling, I cannot understand. I do not favour these rings at all. I believe in selling in a free and open market to anybody who has the cash. If they don’t get liquor from one source they will get.it from another, and I think it is gross interference to interfere with any person selling liquor as he likes.

But I thought my hon. friend’s argument was that there should not be any restraint of trade, but as I read this clause, if I have a retail licence I can buy goods where I like and dispose of them as I like. If a retailer buys his liquor from a firm and pays cash, it is his liquor when it comes into his possession. I am sorry the member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) is not here. Of course, he may be engaged on more important business. We have missed him quite a lot lately. Had he been here, he might have been able to tell us why in other departments there is a restriction. I believe in the chemical business there are definite prices fixed for the retailer. Now I do not think such a thing as that would be in the interests of the wine farmer. Sub-section 2 says distinctly, if I have a retail licence and I buy from certain people, they have no right to insist that I sell it at a certain price.

Where is it?

It is in the clause.

It is not in the clause.

I will read it to you. Clause 110, sub-section (b) says—

I don’t think hon. members have read it. The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) does not appear to have read it. If the wine farmer wants to get an adequate sale for the stuff when it gets into the hands of the retailer, he should be able to sell at any price he desires. He has paid for it and it is his property. I cannot understand the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) supporting the deletion of this clause which I hope my hon. friend will stick to.

I am not concerned with the importation of liquor into this country. This provision ought never to appear in this Bill. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has spoken of rings which exist here. There are no such rings existing in the South African wine trade.

Are there no price-fixing agreements?

No such rings exist here. The right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), along with the wine farmers generally, wishes to put a high-class article on the market. What remedy has the wholesaler got where, instead of these brands being sold, they substitute something else? If a man buys one gallon of a high-class article, but sells 10 gallons of a cheaper sort, what remedy has the wholesaler got? The only remedy is to stop the supplies to this man and to advertise that he is not supplied with particular brands. They want to keep up the quality. And they can only do that by warning the person that if he does not stop the practice, they will stop supplying him. In this clause they will have to continue the supplies. It is a clause which ought not to be in here at all. If they want to put in a general clause, it ought to be in a Bill providing for the restraint of trade, but not in the Liquor Bill.

The select committee carefully enquired into the whisky ring, and it has appeared very clear to us that an injustice is being done to certain people, and that this House should remedy it. I refer to questions 5643, 5644 and 5645 of the report of the select committee. [Extracts read.] There is therefore absolutely no appeal. People who do nothing else but sell whisky cheaper are removed from the list of people to whom it may be delivered, and the people have no appeal. We told Mr. Herring, who answered the question, that it was a kind of inquisition, that the people had no appeal. He admitted it, and the only way of rectifying it was for the Minister to remove the injustice. The people are expelled if they sell cheaper, not because their whisky is adulterated, but only because they sell cheaper. It was very unjust that such a thing could be possible under the law of our country, and it must be put right. When Mr. Zoccala, of the Grand National Hotel, was removed from the list, he made frequent requests after 1920 to be reinstated. All in vain. But he is not the only scapegoat. There are the Italian Warehouse Co. and R. Hitner & Co.

I must say that I am in hearty accord with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) in this matter. I think this paragraph ought to be headed “unfair restraint” instead of “unlawful restraint.” I would point out that this clause contains no protection for the wholesaler, whatever malpractices happen. Anything can be done to his product, any unfair mixing with his product can take place, and he has still to go on selling to this man who, he knows, all the time is humbugging him, because this man comes with his cash in his hand and says “I want more of your stuff, so that I can perform more iniquities with it.” I quite agree that it is very annoying if one finds in his business—I have suffered myself—that certain manufacturers will not supply you, but I would say that during my experience I have never found a case in which one could not get round it. I do not think very much of the big wail put up on behalf of these poor men who cannot get this whisky. They may possibly have to pay a bit more for it, but they will get it, if they want it. This whisky is not sold only in South Africa; it is sold all over the world. That is really apart from the question. What I say is that if this applies to the liquor trade it should apply to every other trade, and it should apply to every other profession. It is quite clear that the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), for instance, is protected by an Act of Parliament in the same way that the liquor man here is protected by an Act of Parliament, and if the liquor man has to supply his product to every man who wants to come and ask for it, the lawyer has to supply his knowledge of the law also to everybody who applies for it. There is no difference in principle, and I do not see any right for us, as a Parliament, to say that a man shall sell his goods to everybody who applies for them. It seems to me that if I have a certain product it is mine to do what I like with. I would like to refer to some of the remarks of the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). The right hon. gentleman said that this man has bought the goods, and therefore he has the right to sell them at any price he likes, but the right hon. gentleman forgets that the basis of the contract of sale was that he should not sell them at any price he wants to get for them.

Is that in the interests of the public?

I am now talking about the equity of the thing. A retailer goes to a man and says “I want your goods.” The many says “I will sell them, provided you retail them at a certain price.” The retailer has two options, either to refrain from buying the goods, or to buy them under the conditions under which the man sells. I would like to point out another thing, and that is that there are hundreds of similar cases of standard prices in every trade in South Africa. There are hundreds of cases in which, if you purchase certain manufacturers’ goods, you have to sell at a certain price. My argument is this, if you want to break down that principle bring in an Act of Parliament to break it down, but do not break it down for one trade only. I would like to reply to the question raised by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort in regard to the wine farmer. His statement was that it was not to the interests of the wine farmer that this should be allowed. It is a curious thing that the manufacturers, in this case the wine farmers, are the people who have instituted this system, and I would like to give him the reason why. Let us take the case of a well-known brand of wine, “Alphen” or “Witzenberg,” for instance. If the retailer can sell it at any price without restriction, if he is a rather clever retailer, he will sell his Alphen” or “Witzenberg,” or whatever it may be, at no profit at all, to show what an exceedingly low price he can sell at and what a cheap man he is to go to. There will be no profit on the sale of “Alphen” wine, or ”Witzenberg” wine. What will be the result? Every other retailer in the country will always recommend any wine rather than Alphen or “Witzenberg,” and that is the reason why the manufacturer is the person who has always insisted that there shall be a reasonable profit made by the retailer on his goods. That is the reason why it is to the interest of the better class wine farmer that there should be this right of insisting on certain definite retail prices. For that reason I am heartily in accord with the member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that this clause ought to be deleted.

This clause, as even the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has admitted, has nothing to do with the suppression of drunkenness, or with the control of the liquor trade. That being the case, let us divest ourselves of the idea that this has anything to do with liquor, and let us look at it from the broad point of view. I admit the liquor trade is a specialized trade, and that the Government has the right to intervene more drastically than in the case of ordinary trade, but only where the object is the suppression of drunkenness and other defects of the trade. Looking at this blue book and looking at the question quoted, it looks to me as if this is a private fight between Mr. Zoccala and the whisky people. Apparently he is the only man who has ever been penalized. It seems to me this association has been penalizing certain men who I suppose our Labour friends would call blacklegs, but let us look at the broad principle, and on that I thoroughly agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) and my hon. friend behind me. Why is this imposed on the liquor trade only? There are large numbers of other trades where exactly the same thing is done. I do not say it should be done, but it is being done. Take the case of tobacco. Take the well-known brand of Horseshoe tobacco. I cannot buy it in this country, in Rhodesia or even in the Belgian Congo under a fixed price. Take Stetson hats, take hole-proof hosiery, take films. There are hundreds of similar articles where exactly the same trade conditions apply. I thoroughly agree that if it is wrong it should not be aimed at one trade only. If you do think it is an evil, pass a general law affecting all trades, but what right have we to single out one trade for unfair discrimination? That is the point I would like to make. It is unfair because it restricts the liberty of the subject. If I have a horse and you want to buy it from me, and I don’t like the look of your face, I can refuse to sell it.

You cannot sell ostriches where you like.

That is owing to the ostrich farmers themselves. That is not the point. The point is that a man who has a product, I do not care whether it is whisky or ostrich eggs, should have the right to say, “I am not going to sell to you.” Take the case of the wholesaler, holding his goods against a rise. He does not want to sell. It may be the wrong season. An unknown man comes along and says, “I am going to buy your whole stock.”

This section does not say that.

He cannot refuse. Ten men may come along and say,” We are going to buy your entire stock, and the Lord help you if you refuse.” Apart from the unfair principle, he has to sell at whatever time they may choose. He may say, “I don’t want to sell in March. This stuff is not properly matured. I am going to hold it until September,” and this law does not allow him to do so. I know nothing about the whisky trade, I did not even know there was a ring, I am arguing on broad principles. What would our farmer friends say if we passed a law applying this principle to mealies, and a farmer did not want to sell now, but wanted to hold for a rise over the winter? There would be an outcry. Let us divest ourselves of the idea that we are dealing with this pernicious liquor trade. We are dealing with broad principles. All legislation should be on broad principles. We have not the right to help in a private fight. This is apparently a private fight between a few disgruntled individuals who have been blacklisted for reasons which I do not know. They may be right, or they may be wrong, but it is not the function of this committee to intervene in what is apparently a purely domestic quarrel within the circles of the liquor trade.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) seems to have missed the whole point of this particular clause. I want to quote from the report of the Board of Trade, who went fully into this question as a result of some remarks made in another place, and they also went further into this question than we have had an opportunity of doing. As a result in dealing with this question, they inquired into unfair competition, restraint of trade or combinations, and monopolistic practices. Dealing with this question, the Board of Trade, in making their report, reported first of all it was very evident that not only in the whisky trade, but also in the wine and brandy trade, the association refused to put them on wholesale prices, while all other manufacturers and suppliers gave them wholesale terms. I am quoting from page 43 of the Board of Trade’s report. They say—[Extract read]. Then they deal with the wine question—

The Board of Trade goes on further, and they quote all the evidence that led up to this trouble with regard to whisky. On the 15th of May my worthy progenitor in another place put a question to the Minister of Justice which led to a resolution being taken on the 18th of May. [Resolution read.] As the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) has stated, it is not a question of merchants being asked to sell by compulsion, but whether they shall not discriminate between certain sections of the community. The Board of Trade quoted certain famous brands with which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is not so well acquainted as I am. [Further extract from report read.] It states the object is to fix either a maximum or minimum selling price and to prevent firms from selling whisky either at high or at low prices. I wonder what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central), who is always so anxious to see prices cut and to see fair prices to the consumer, thinks of these particular objects of the association. It probably accounts for the big prices to be paid for whisky. Nobody complains about it, but what we do complain of is that this association is so strong that it can keep the wholesale requirements out of the market, and I hope the Minister is not going to listen to any arguments for the amelioration or the softening and toning down of this clause. [Recommendations of Board of Trade, page 46, read.] The whole question turns upon whether the Whisky Association and the Wine Growers Association have employed arbitrary methods to see that the distribution of their products has reached the consumer in this country. The Board of Trade says that practically they have no information at their disposal, and if that is so, it is up to the Government to see that this clause protects the consumer against this combination and against illegal restraint. That is summed up in the Board of Trade report which I read. I hope the Minister is not going to allow himself to be swayed. There is no doubt this combination has exercised a fairly unfair restraint of trade, and that these complaints are fairly well grounded. I hope the Minister will keep firmly to this clause, so that these people will get that protection.

I am not going to enter into this interesting discussion whether a person who, or a firm which, has an article should be obliged to sell it or not. I am referring to sub-section (b). In this country, so long as drink is consumed in it, you should do all you possibly can to see that natural wines are consumed. I understand without sub-section (b) at the present moment the wholesaler selling a brand of whisky cannot only make an arrangement with the man who has to buy it with regard to the retail prices, but also the prices at which he shall sell the wines of this country retail. I have travelled a good deal over this country, and I have found in many hotels where wine is sold—in some of the wine-making districts—you get a bottle of wine and you are charged 4s. and 4s. 6d. It is one of the greatest embargoes put on the people of this country against the drinking of wines, and specially natural wines, instead of spirituous liquors. So long as you allow people to consume spirituous liquors it should be the duty of Parliament to do all it possibly can to encourage them to drink the natural wines of the country. When the retailer buys an article he should be allowed to sell it at whatever price he likes. When he has paid for it the ownership has passed into his possession, and he should be allowed to sell at whatever price he likes.

That is the present position.

My hon. friend has not read sub-section (b), with which I am dealing. In many hotels and bars the policy is to sell imported liquors rather than South African wine; that is a very unhealthy state of affairs, and I cannot understand an hon. member maintaining that a man having bought an article should not be allowed to sell it at any price he likes.

I cannot understand the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). For many years he has been a fighter against the shipping ring, but to-day he lifts up his powerful voice in favour of a new ring. I may take this opportunity of saying that I am very sorry to hear that the hon. member is not coming back to the House when the new Parliament meets, for he has done very useful work here. Mr. Young, a Johannesburg magistrate, giving evidence before the select committee, agreed that the wholesale merchant should be compelled to sell to licensees. Then representatives of the clubs told the select committee that they could not break the whisky ring, and they were not allowed to buy whisky overseas. A gentleman who has been in the trade for twenty-one years stated that in the Cape Province a few wholesale merchants and wine producers have four different lists, A, B, C and D with different scales of prices, A being the most favourable. The placing of the name of a wholesale dealer on the list was at the decision of a few dozen of the big merchants. These people are getting a monopoly, but this Government cannot stand for monopolies. One witness informed the select committee that because he bought from Mr. Zoccala, the latter was taken off the list of whisky shippers, his offence being that he sold below the authorized price. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) asks why can’t a man sell to whom he likes. If a firm in Adderley Street shows in its shop window a hat marked at 7s. 6d., and I am foolish enough to say that I wanted it at that price, they cannot under the law refuse to sell it to me.

You won’t get a hat for 7s. 6d.

When a similar question arose in this House not many years ago, the general feeling expressed was that a certain firm of match manufacturers should not withhold their goods to a certain firm of merchants. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) took the matter up and his lieutenant, the hon. member for Harbour (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) pressed it. In those days, the hon. member for Newlands was in the wilderness. I hope the Minister will stick to the clause. We have a ring which says that wholesale merchants can sell wine only to certain persons at a certain price. The other day I bought some Cape wine and the price was higher than that of French wine.

There is one aspect of the matter which has not yet been made plain. It appears, according to the evidence given before the select committee, that the wholesale liquor trade is parcelled out into centres, each of which is controlled by the wholesale liquor association of that particular centre. They restrict supplies from the indenting merchant to members of that association, and they control the admission of people to membership of the association. In other words, they have created a monopoly. Two gentlemen—Mr. G. Hering, chairman, and Mr. E. MacLean, secretary of the Whisky Shippers’ Association—came before the select committee and stated their case. A more damning give away of their case you could not have. Some of the most striking portions of their evidence are recorded on pages 805 and 806 of the select committee’s report. [Extract read.] Then Mr. Hering goes on to say in the next question, over the page. [Extract read.] They exist to protect the rings of wholesale merchants, and if any one of them says that one of their number is undesirable, a blackleg, committing the unspeakable crime of underselling, then the shippers send this man to “Coventry” and they stop his supplies. This clause is intended to put a stop to this. You do not need to take Mr. Zoccala’s word. Just read over, at the top of the next page. [Extract read.] He committed the offence of selling under the ring prices, and some member went to the association and complained that he was underselling, and that he must be struck off. The weight of the punishment inflicted on Mr. Zoccala is stated by Mr. MacLean. The usual profit on the whisky was 11s. 3d., but they said to him: “You will not be allowed to buy from us at that price,” and he was, therefore, only able to buy it at a price which showed a profit of only 5s. 6d. and that put him out of the business. Is it right that a body of eleven men should be able to draw up a list and put “A” on and “B” off with the effect of driving him out of business? The State had said to “B”: “We consider you a fit and proper person to hold a liquor licence”, and then these eleven men come along representing overseas firms, and put him out of business. This system is extending to colonial products. It is a matter which does not touch me personally, but touches South African products, and if you are going to allow this, where are you going to stop? Here is a chance to take action that will stop it.

I must say that I am astonished at my hon. friend behind me. From the moment this Bill came before the House, he tried to get the consumption of drink in our country reduced, and now he comes and insists that drink shall be made cheaper through which the consumption will have of course increased. I cannot understand it. But why does the Minister not express his view? We have had a long debate on the subject and he has said nothing. As for the sale of whisky the Minister of Finance will be able to say that the import has much decreased.

We imposed the duty to assist our wine farmers.

Yes, I know. The circumstance that the importation has decreased shows that there is no great need for this article. Every dealer will do his best to get rid of his whisky because everyone wants to do business. Therefore, I am not so much afraid of the verbal understanding of the sellers. Now the Bill comes and says that if any wine farmer, brandy or liquor dealer has a product and someone comes along with cash, then he must sell the product.

The wine farmer has also to hold a licence.

Quite so, but most of the wine farmers are co-operating to-day and the co-operative society has a wholesale licence for selling wines. The wine farmer is protected to-day by his co-operative society, and if it cannot protect him, who can do so? The right of the wine farmers’ co-operative society is practically being taken away to dispose of its products as they wish, and if a man comes and puts down the money then they must sell a certain class of wine which they have. I think we are in this Bill restricting the whole trade in liquor in South Africa, but now we want to compel the wholesale dealer to sell his produce even against his will. What right have we to do that? What right have we to put this brake on an important industry? Why is it not put on the ordinary general dealer because he carries on trade as much as the wine dealer. I agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that everybody wants to do business and does his best to take his wares to the public. It may occur that here and there a bottle of wine is sold for too large a price, but who is the cause? Will the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) tell me whether the farmer may not take pains to control his own produce. I say that this proposed clause is wrong in principle. We are only going to handicap the wine farmer with the object apparently of breaking the whisky ring. Now I understand that the only objection is that the whisky ring will create a monopoly. I do not think we need bother so much about the whisky ring, the whisky trade will look after itself. I move that—

In the clause which we are now discussing, a very important principle is involved, and that is whether Parliament should make illegal a condition imposed in a sale by a wholesaler that a retailer cannot sell a commodity at less than a certain price. I think the principle which is involved is whether a condition of this sort is against the public interest. We find that a condition of this sort exists not only in regard to the liquor trade, but also in regard to other trades. For instance, I remember not long ago in the Pretoria courts an application was made to prevent a retailer from selling Stetson hats below a certain price. Other commodities have also been mentioned in this House. If it is against the public interest that a condition of that sort should be attached to a sale, then you should have legislation specifically to deal with that aspect of the question, and I do not think it is sound to impose conditions of that kind upon one trade only. If it is against public policy, let it be thrashed out in the House. Apart from my repugnance to interfere with the liberty of an individual disposing of the goods to a purchaser of his own selection, there is this important principle involved, and I say we cannot settle that question unless the Government decides that legislation is necessary and legislation is introduced touching not only this trade, but also other trades and this policy is thoroughly discussed by the House, and Parliament is agreed upon the soundness of the policy.

There are hon. members here who are making a mistake. I do not know whether I am among them or among the others, but I am prepared to regard the matter in the same way as the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). I know of a hotel in this country where a friend of mine ordered a bottle of Witzenberg at a meal. They made him pay 5s. and when he asked why it was so dear, the proprietor told him, in confidence, that a certain firm was supplying him with whisky on condition that he sold light wine for 5s. I myself ordered a glass of Sherry one day. They brought imported, but I said I wanted Cape Sherry. Then they brought Kimberley Club Sherry and made me pay a shilling, the same as they charged for imported Sherry. The Minister now says that when a wholesaler sells to a retailer he may not make such conditions. I am inclined to share the view of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. An importer of whisky should not be able to say that he will only sell whisky if the purchaser sells Witzenberg for 5s. and Sherry for 1s. The purchasers have clients who ask for whisky and they are therefore obliged, as they can only buy whisky from the ring, to agree to such conditions. I understand the clause is meant to prevent the importers making such conditions, and if that is so, it is a very good thing, and I hope it will be passed.

From all the evidence that has been read by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and other evidence which we have heard, this whole thing has arisen through the squabble between Mr. Zoccala and the whisky association.

And the wine growers too.

It has originated from the squabble between Mr. Zoccala and the whisky association. I do not know whether we can look upon those hon. members who have spoken so ardently for the whisky association, in any other way than as wishing to facilitate as much as they possibly can the importation of whisky into this country, and having it here as cheaply as possible. Of course, that is not our interests. Some of the men who have spoken in favour of it were great men for “South Africa first.” I am rather surprised at the doctrine which is preached here to-night. They want cheap whisky imported. The right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has gone entirely astray. I am sorry to say that, as he is my deputy leader. He complains here about the high prices. We have been in touch with the wholesale merchants who have to get their supplies through the Wine Growers’ Association. We have often discussed with them and the retailers’ association the matter of prices. They have absolutely no power to control prices. If they had the power to control prices, then their control would be towards the lowering of prices. By this Bill you are taking away the power to control. Their control cannot even be in the direction of lower prices. If no control is exercised, I must say it would be a serious thing for the quality of your articles. Several good brands of wines and brandies have been mentioned. These merchants, if they find that a faked thing is being sold under their brand, have to refuse supplies. That is the only remedy which they have got, and if they have not got that power to refuse supplies you are going to have a very marked deterioration of the quality of the articles which are being sold. The only remedy they have got, if they find an inferior article is being substituted for their brands, is to say to that person, “We refuse supplies.” What I would like to see, if this thing has to go through, is sub-section (a) out. The best thing would be to have the whole section out, because I do not want to facilitate the importation of whisky and the whole trend of the argument of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has been in favour of the importation of cheap whisky. If this Bill goes through, the only effect it will have on the wine trade will be they will have no power to stop supplies when they find an inferior article is being substituted for a good brand. That is going to be a serious thing for the wine industry.

I do not think there has been any case on the basis that goods have been adulterated and that conditions have been made differentiating on account of goods supplied, so I do not think we should attach importance to that point. Assuming for a moment that all the classes mentioned in this paragraph are acting fairly towards the licensees of this country, I ask how can they be injured by this clause? The first part disposes of the argument that where a distiller or one of these classes wishes his liquor to mature he is forced by this section to sell. He is not. It is only where he has any stock or bond for disposal. He has the ordinary stock for disposal and all the conditions he wants to make are fair conditions? What is he told to do?—

Is he complaining that he gets cash? Would he prefer to have credit? I do not see that that is much of a complaint in South African business. Then in (b)—

We have come to this point that he is selling for a fair price, for cash, goods he has for disposal, and we say he must not seek to impose any discrimination against the buyer. What right has he, having got to that point, to impose discrimination?—

This is in order that when he has sold the article for a fair price for cash that he is not allowed to tell the buyer “I am now going to control the price you charge to the public.” He is getting his price, cash not credit, and all he is told is that he has not to tell the buyer how he is to conduct his business. He must impose no condition. At present he would have the right to impose conditions. You could have conditions as to what type of mineral water a man should sell. The whole business of the buyer can be affected. In regard to the argument used by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) the same argument can be employed here. What right has he when he is getting his price to tell the man that his freedom of disposal must be interfered with?

There may be good reason. May I be allowed to explain? In the case of the owners, for instance, of Stetson bats, they fixed a certain price. They said “That article is worth that to the consumer and we do not intend it shall be sold at less, as it would be detrimental to us as producers if it were.”

I understand the point, that if an article is sold at a smaller price then in some way the reputation of that article will be interfered with. But that really takes away the ordinary position in this case. It takes away the position that the man is seeking for a profit. In the case of liquor that is not going to interfere with the class of the article at all. There is no evidence as far as I know that an article that has been sold where the retailer is disposing of it at a smaller price than the ordinary one, that it has been adulterated in any way whatever. As a matter of fact, the evidence before me on another matter is that taking many of the licensees of this country, they do put some kind of an article in a bottle which has another description. We are trying to interfere with it somewhere else. You cannot deal with it by allowing the wholesaler to fix certain prices at which the retailer shall conduct his business. The point is we shall not allow him to dictate to the retailer the way he shall conduct his business. We are entitled to lay down conditions in regard to the liquor trade that we should not be entitled to lay down in regard to other trades on account of the special dangers of the liquor trade and the special way that traffic must go. I think there is a good deal in the argument of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col D. Reitz) that this particular matter has nothing to do with the curbing of the drink traffic in the sense of curbing drunkenness. The next point is with regard to the whisky shippers. It is not intended that one man’s business should be destroyed in favour of another man whose business would be expanded to that extent. That also disposes of the argument that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is trying to drench this country with cheap whisky. The point is that what one is trying to dispose of is the fact of all your commodities being placed in the hands of one licensee and destroying that licensee, who is put in an unfavourable position as against the shipper. I do not think that this clause is going to make whisky either cheaper or dearer in this country, but everybody is going to get a commodity for which he holds a licence to sell. He is not going to be put out of business owing to the shippers. I say that if the conditions which are being made by the wholesalers, the distillers and the brewers are fair, then what is his real objection to this clause? If the conditions are fair, he cannot be affected by this clause. He could only be affected by an article losing its reputation because it might be sold by one licensee at one price and by another licensee at another price, or by adulteration. It is a shadowy fear indeed that a commodity which is going to be sold at a small profit is going to have its name destroyed. I have never heard of it happening in this country—I am talking of articles sold by licensees.

What about the case of a man who is going bankrupt?

In a case where a man is going bankrupt, and is selling fast at a low price, it will not affect the reputation of that article, because that would happen on casual occasions, and it would be over in a short period of time. When the bankruptcy follows, everyone would know the reason for that cheapness of price. I have never known a concrete case when Imperial whisky or any well-known brand of whisky has been sold at a small price and it damned that whisky. That argument has been brought up without there being any real foundation for it. I do not appreciate the argument that you should not interfere with the freedom of the distiller. If we do interfere with traffickers in drink, we do so because the State has to a large extent given them a monopoly. If sellers impose fair conditions, there is nothing in this article against them.

I am with the Minister as far as selling is concerned, but the whole tendency of trade is to specialize in certain articles. A man buying White Horse whisky knows he is getting that quality at any price he buys it. It is not confined to the liquor trade; it exists in our own trade. Amongst retailers a man may sell a certain brand of whisky to a certain firm and another brand to another firm in the same place. One firm commences to cut, and another man says “I am not going to worry about your whisky—it is cut here and I cannot make a profit.” The result is he loses business. The same thing happens in our own firm. We refuse to sell to certain people every day. A man may say “I want a full piece of this, and here is the money.” We say “We are sorry, but we cannot sell to you, for the simple reason that if it were known outside it would seriously interfere with our trade with the shopkeepers.” The wholesale man who refuses to sell to a man who cuts prices does it for his own protection. He may have spent thousands in advertising an article, and if it is sold at such a price by the retailer that it does not leave a reasonable profit to the latter, many retailers will drop it, or certainly will not push it at that price. It is done all over America to-day, was tried in the courts, and found to be perfectly legal, so far as my knowledge goes. A man takes care that the price is put on a moderate basis because he wants to sell as much as possible, and he gives what he thinks is a fair profit to the retail man.

I should like to put another aspect before the Minister. I think the commission which drew up this Bill were rather carried away with the Whisky Association. Supposing we have a man who is producing an excellent new brand of wine and would like to get it on the market, say, in Johannesburg: he writes to somebody there to take on an agency. They say “If we have to do all the spade work to introduce this, we must have some security, and in return we must ask to be your sole agent for, say, five years.” Under this they could not do it. The next door man, who comes along, must get the same terms, and the result is the producer would not be able to get a man to take on the agency.

I remain entirely unconvinced by the Minister’s argument. Perhaps he has not been made fully acquainted with the trade practice in regard to other commodities than whisky. Price fixing agreements are quite common in many classes of trade, particularly motor cars, gramophones and proprietary articles. A case which came within my knowledge a few weeks ago shows the danger which might arise under the clause. The country was parcelled out for the sale of a particular commodity, the retailers being required to sell at a fixed price. One of the retailers, knowing that he was about to lose his right for the sale of the article, advertised a reduction of 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. in price, and when this became known the sale of this article throughout the Union was stopped. Before the agent was able to restore the position he had to threaten the retailer with an interdict. It is most essential, both for the protection of the manufacurer and the trade, that these price fixing conditions should exist in the case of proprietary articles. A complaint was made to the Board of Trade about 1917 in connection with commodities sold principally in chemists’ stores, but which were sold by other people as a catchpenny line in order to get customers into their shops so that they might buy other goods, on which a higher profit could be made. The interests of the public are safeguarded by the fact that there is competition, and if the price of an article is too high it will not find purchasers. Price maintenance agreements, particularly in the case of motor cars and motor tyres, has received the sanction of the courts in England. But for such a price maintenance, an unscrupulous trader could buy large quantities of these goods and, by selling them below the fixed price, do an immense amount of damage to the manufacturer. Again, suppose a dealer is about to go insolvent; quite regardless of trade agreements, he throws on the market a proprietary article at much below the fixed price. Is it not reasonable that a man who has bound himself to maintain a particular price should be compelled at the instance of the distributor to adhere to that price? I move—

There is a very serious flaw in sub clause (c). The Minister makes it possible for a licensee, who offers to purchase for cash, to compel an importer to import goods for him. That might take two or three months. Suppose the goods arrive in a falling market? It might be £10,000 worth of wine, and the purchaser might decline to accept it. The importer would be faced with a very heavy loss. I move—

If a would-be purchaser wishes to take advantage of this extraordinary condition, he must furnish a guarantee that he will be able to pay on delivery. I move accordingly.

I do not think the Minister understands the implications of this clause. For instance, I would suggest to the Minister of Finance what is the position a day or two before he is going to introduce his Budget? The public get a feeling, an intuition, that the duty on whisky is going to be put up. Under this clause a wholesaler might have had the foresight to import a large stock of whisky. Under this clause every person who has the right of dealing with this man could go to him and say that he has got to part with his whisky, a day before the Budget statement, and they are only going to pay to-day’s price for it, although everybody may know that the day after the Minister of Finance has spoken, the price of whisky may go up 10 shillings or 20 shillings a case. That is one of the difficulties which arises in trying to restrain trade. I was going to mention in sub-section (c) the same position referred to by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter). I would go further and say if a man has the right given him under clause (c) he should pay cash at the time the order is placed. I do not see why the wholesaler should be placed in the position of having to indent £10,000 worth of goods just to please another man who has the right to demand it of him. If he has the right to insist upon the importer importing the goods, then he should put the cash down at the time of placing the order. To raise the price of a commodity is not the only object of price fixing, but there is an opposite object as well. Take the case of a manufacturer of liquor deciding to reduce the price of his commodity to the trade. He might say that it was no use reducing the price to the trade unless he could get an extended demand for it, and the only way to do that is to insist upon the retailer reducing his price proportionately. If this clause goes through he will not be able to do that. Take the reference made by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), where a good class wine is sold in the country at a high profit. It would be quite an easy thing for the distributor who sells that particular brand to insist that anybody buying that brand, instead of charging 4s. a bottle, shall sell at 3s. or 3s. 6d. a bottle. Otherwise there is no object in the manufacturer reducing his price if the retailer can keep his price up, and not pass the reduction on to the public. There seems to be an idea that there is a whisky ring. I know nothing about this ring, I don’t buy or sell whisky and I very rarely drink it, I don’t like it; but there is an idea that the whisky ring is trying to restrict the sale of it, by controlling the distribution of it. Surely every member of the House is clear on that matter. Whisky distillers are not trying to restrict the sale, but to increase the sale, and to see that the public get it at a reasonable price. Now that the Minister of Justice has heard the grave difficulties that will arise if this clause is put on the statute book, I hope he will help to see the clause is deleted entirely. I would vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter), but I do not think it goes to the root of the question, that is the whole restraint suggested in the clause is wrong in principle. If it is right in principle, it should be extended to trade in every form, and if it is not wrong in principle it is not right that it should be in this Bill. If he wants to bring in this principle and the restriction of the rights of the wholesaler or manufacturer, it should be brought in as a separate Bill, and the whole principle should be debated on a separate legislative measure, and then we could hear the case for and against it. Personally, I am against such a restriction being placed on the statute book. I move—

I want to carry this point a little further, that is, the point raised by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford). It is clear, according to this clause, that apparently the whole blame is thrown on the wholesaler. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) was misled on that point. I don’t look at the question from the whisky point of view, but from the point of view of the interest of our wine industry. In paragraph (c) it is clear the wholesaler is bound down and has no right to make any contract with a retailer as to the retail price of an article. The retailer is left entirely free. The Minister knows the practice. He knows there is such an organization apart from the wholesalers and the Licensed Victuallers’ Association, controlling the retail trade. It is to the interest of the wholesaler to see the extension of the consumption of liquor, but he is not the sole controlling factor. He passes it on to the distributor, the retailer, and the retailers, through their associations, fix the price to the consumer. No doubt it is to the interest of the wholesaler to extend the consumption of wine, brandy and beer, but here you see that the wine farmer is not going to benefit in the slightest degree if paragraph (b) is accepted, because he still remains in the hands of the licensed retailer. They, through their organization, take into account their costs of distribution. They know what capital they have invested in their business, they look to a certain profit on their dealings, and paragraph (b) the Minister will find in practice, is not going to help the local industry the least bit. The right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is mistaken when he says that by accepting paragraph (b) you are going to cheapen the wine to the consumer. I hope the Minister will inquire further into the actual working of the trade, and he will find that paragraph (b) is going to be of no value whatever. On principle I also strongly oppose paragraph (a). That is the reason why I have moved the deletion of this clause.

I hope that the Minister will not be diverted by the wonderful possibilities that the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) has been conjuring up before this committee. The position is clear to anyone who was on the select committee and to anyone who, like myself, has listened to evidence which has been repeatedly given before the licensing board in Johannesburg, that this whisky association not only has the power, but has exercised the power of nullifying the effects of the law. We have had cases from time to time where people who are in the trade made application to get particular commodities. They offered the cash, but they were unable to get the commodities. Then they applied through their shippers in London. The shippers were able to place the orders subject to inquiry, and then the association was consulted in connection with the matter, and the orders were cancelled. The whole effect has been that this is a monopoly which not only benefits itself, but has the power and has exercised the power of deciding who shall carry on trade in South Africa and who shall not carry on trade in South Africa. The licensing board is simply ignored. I cannot understand the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) talking about the principle of the thing. Surely the most important principle is to see that, when this Houses passes a law, that law shall be carried out without individuals placing themselves above the law and making it impossible for that law to be carried out.

Some of the hon. members seem obsessed by this incident which they have dug out of the blue book in regard to the whisky ring. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) is quite right, this thing goes far beyond the sale of whisky. I do not know much about the liquor trade, but I understood from the hon. member that the usual course is for the wholesaler to sell to retail licence holders. These retailers, as far as I understand the position, are practically all members of the Licensed Victuallers’ Association. At present the wholesalers do not fix any prices for the retailers. I am talking of whisky anyhow. I have been informed this evening that in the whisky trade the wholesaler sells to the retailer and makes no stipulation.

No, look at page 804.

Well, I have been informed that is so. We now propose saying to the wholesaler: “You shall not make any stipulation whatever to the retailer as to price.” The retailers are all banded together in an association called the Licensed Victuallers’ Association. Let us assume that the retailers decide they are going to run a certain brand off the market, say Witzenberg. The wholesaler or distiller will have no right under this law to fix the retail price, so all the licensed victuallers have to do to ruin that brand is to put the prive so high as to make it prohibitive. It seems to me the retailers may ruin any brand on the market by simply putting up the price so high that no one will buy. I do not think that will happen with regard to whisky. I do not think the wholesale whisky merchant fixes the price at all

You are ignoring the evidence.

If it is so, it simply strengthens my point that they can run any brand off the market.

That is in the hands of the public.

How is it in the hands of the public? One brand is 1s. a bottle and the next is 2s. a bottle. What say has the public? I want to get back to the point that members will argue a special case instead of looking at the broad issue. We are not dealing with a specific case. We should not deal with specific grievances or a few grievances. We are dealing with broad principles which, to my mind, are seriously infringed by this law. Take this sub-clause (c). I am sure the Minister will agree there is something radically wrong there. If you give an order for £10,000 worth of champagne to be delivered three months hence, the wholesaler has not only to order it, but he has to finance it. I agree with the Minister and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that in a large number of cases the Government has the right, I will not say to discriminate, but to interfere rather more drastically with the liquor trade than with the ordinary trade. This clause does not affect the question of temperance at all, or of controlling the liquor traffic, but it has crept in owing to a slight misunderstanding between one of the members and this association. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is a member of the Law Society, and if he were to undercut prices, the Law Society would take him off the roll at once. Here is a big organization, and if one of its members infringes the rule he has undertaken to obey, or to observe, it strikes him off—the same as in the Law Society. It is a general practice to assign regional areas to various makes of cars; it is done in almost every trade. I finally appeal to the Minister that this particular clause has nothing to do with the scope of the Bill, and with restraining drunkenness, or controlling the liquor traffic. It is an adventitious clause which has crept in I do not know how.

The Minister, notwithstanding he is sweeping away these special trade customs, specially preserves for the producer of wines, the rights he has under Act No. 5 of 1924. While the Minister seems to be quite satisfied to take away rights from the distiller, brewer or holder of a wholesale liquor licence, he is prepared to preserve the same rights to the producer of wines. Under the Act of 1924 it is possible for the association to fix a minimum price, and to make that binding on every member of the association, and every non-member who is producing ordinary wine. Perhaps the Minister is not aware that for the past two seasons prices have been fixed. Under these circumstances the Minister is open to a charge of consistency So long as the commodity is sold by the producer, if a wine farmer, he may impose these restrictions, but the moment the wine is put into a bottle the wholesaler is prevented from doing the same thing. We have been assuming that there is a tendency to fix a minimum price, but should the right be taken away from a wholesaler to insist that a maximum price should not He exceeded?

I don’t like accepting principles of this nature because they have a very awkward way of coming home to roost when they are least expected. I am surprised at the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) taking up the attitude he has, because when he was Minister of Agriculture he encouraged the farmers to do what he now says is wrong, namely, controlling prices. In the dairy industry, South Africa is not consuming what it should in the way of butter and cheese, and an endeavour is being made to increase the consumption in the Union. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort and the present Minister of Agriculture have done and are doing their best to ensourage the farmer to control the price of his produce. The dairy farmers have joined together in a co-operative society, and they tell the retailer that 4d. or 5d. per pound is quite sufficient profit on butter. The butter produced by co-operative creameries is subject to this control, a control which the Minister of Justice says in this Bill should not be permitted. Why should we dairy farmers say to the wine farmers that they must not control the price of their produce? I am quite indifferent to the abuses which may exist in the liquor trade, for if it is wrong to control the retail price of wine to-day, we shall be told to-morrow that it is wrong to control the price of dairy produce. For that reason we farmers should oppose the principle embodied in this clause.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Stuttaford, and first amendment proposed by Mr. Coulter, put and negatived.

Second amendment proposed by Mr. Coulter put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the committee divided:

Ayes—54.

Alexander, M.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Blackwell, L.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

Close, E. W.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Geldenhuys, L.

Havenga, N. C.

Hugo, D.

Kentridge, M.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, G. A.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moffat, L.

Moll, H. H.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, A. S.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Rood, W. H.

Boos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Smartt, T. W.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Struben, E. H.

Swart, C. R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen. H. D.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—18.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Gibaud, F.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Heatlie, C. B.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Nel, O. R.

O’Brien, W. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Stuttaford, R.

Tellers: Coulter, C. W. A.; de Jager, A. L.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Business interrupted by the Chairman at 10.59 p.m.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in committee to-morrow.