as chairman, brought up the first report of the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements as follows—

stated that unless notice of objection was given on or before Friday, the 23rd March, the report would be considered a adopted.

My attention has been drawn to the fact that after having adjourned from 21st February last the Select Committee on the Port Beaufort Grant Amendment (Private) Bill was to have met this morning. At the appointed time only one member put in an appearance with the result that no meeting could be held although counsel and the parliamentary agent were in attendance, together with the promoter who had specially come a long distance in order to attend the meeting. It is the duty of hon. members who are appointed to serve on a select committee to see that the work of that committee is completed as expeditiously as possible and that no unnecessary inconvenience is caused to the members of the public who have to attend the meetings of the committee. This rule ought to be observed with regard to all select committees and specially with regard to select committees on private bills. I am drawing attention to this matter in the hope that it will not be necessary to refer to such matters again in future.

I move—

seconded.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—50.

Allen, J.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gibaud, F.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Hay, G. A.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Kentridge, M.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, N. J.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Snow, W. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Tellers: Blackwell, L.; Collins, W. R.

Noes—53.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J: H.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal. J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, M. L.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Oost, H

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Tellers: Hugo, D.; Vermooten, O. S.

Motion accordingly negatived.

I move—

1. (1) the question of making extensive tests in the matter of collecting during times of plenty various kinds of grass for use as fodder in times of drought;
2. (2) the desirability of giving special encouragement to all plans for increasing the water supply in those parts where open waters are barely sufficient, beyond reach of the animals and far apart; and
3. (3) the feasibility of embarking upon a comprehensive scheme whereby the surplus waters of our largest river, the Orange River, may be used for agricultural purposes (a) by forthwith undertaking minor possible schemes for irrigating all alluvial soil in the immediate vicinity of the river and (b) by thoroughly investigating larger schemes which have as their object the conservation of water and the development of the more distant Karroo-vlaktes

Hon. members will see that my motion deals with droughts and losses caused through drought. It is not my object to-day to go into the causes of drought. That would take us too far afield, and a few years ago we had a report from the Drought Commission which investigated the causes of drought and which contained more information than can ever be elicited in a debate in this House. Nor is it my purpose to discuss the means of fighting droughts or making them less injurious, because on that also the same report refers to quite a number of ways in which it is possible to lessen the consequences of drought. I want to confine myself to direct losses caused by drought, and then to ask what we can do to neutralise the losses. I know that the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) is usually an expert on statistics. He has them on the tips of his fingers, and as I hear that he intends to speak on this subject, I had better leave it to him, but I know that in the drought year in 1922-’23 more than 6,000,000 sheep and goats died, and nearly 800,000 cattle. The drought of that year cannot be mentioned in the same breath with the two years’ drought which we have just had, and which still continues in a few districts. If the figures were available to us to-day, we should be speechless at the awful loss which is being suffered through the fatal drought, loss which amounts to at least from £10,000,000 to £12,000,000 for the two years. It goes without saying that if such heavy losses are suffered by the people, a large number of farmers have been impoverished during every drought. I well remember how 20 years ago I went for the first time to Kakamas, and met men of intelligence and enterprise among the poor colony people, and when I, in surprise, asked how they got there, the reply in almost two-thirds of the cases was on account of the drought of 1897-’99 which had ruined a great part of the farmers in the north-west. If what we hear so often is correct—that the farmers are the backbone of the country—and when we find that every drought ruins a great part of our farmers, we must be afraid that eventually farming will be doomed in this country, and we must take steps in every possible direction to see what we can do to strengthen the backbone of the country. The first part of my motion, however, asks for extensive experiments for the conserving in times of plenty of various kinds of veld grass for feeding in times of drought. I know that the Agricultural Department is making experiments in that direction and doing excellent work. I know, e.g., that experiments are being made with various kinds of grass that can be planted on various ground that gets little rain. We know that where grass grows on a farm, the power of resistance is increased 10-to 20-fold. I know that the department is also experimenting with hay and all sorts of conserved fodder, as well as with prickly pear. The department is engaged in settling the food value of the grasses and plants. I do not know what the present position in the Transvaal and Free State is, but, in the old days when I was still in the Free State, the farmers were cutting grass that was of great assistance in droughts. When one goes through the Great Karroo and sees ridges everywhere, one thinks it impossible that varieties of grass can exist there to serve as fodder, and yet, I make bold to say that the greatest possibility in the whole Union of collecting excellent kinds of fodder is just in the north-west. If you go from Prieska by train through the whole of Prieska, Kenhardt, Gordonia to Nakop, and further on into south-west, you find thousands of morgen of veld covered in the rainy season with a kind of grass which is known by the name of “sour grass” or “stink grass.” It grows luxuriantly, but is regarded by many farmers as of little value because it is not a permanent grass and does not grow very long. It is half sour, and the stock do not eat it when there is other grass. When it is ripe it falls over because the stem is fragile and thin, and it is then usually neglected, but only then do the animals eat it. It is an extraordinary thing that the parts where that grass grows hold out the longest against drought. It happens that after two years without a drop of rain, the stock there are amazingly fat, while that grass is still lying about. It goes without saying that tests with that grass will be very successful. I learn, I do not know if it is correct, that the Agricultural Department is making tests in Upington with reference to the food value of that grass, and that the report is that it is worth quite as much as dry lucerne. The grass is therefore very good. It will be asked why the farmers do not sow that grass on a large scale. We are a strange nation. We are told in the Bible about Joseph and Pharaoh. Joseph looked far ahead. He knew by a dream that there would be seven lean years, and he told Pharaoh to conserve food for the lean years. Pharaoh followed the advice, and when the lean years came they had large stocks in the barns to get through the drought with. That is a great lesson for us to learn, but we do not always profit by such lessons. The question why the farmers do not do so is answered in the first place by their only cutting a few bags of fodder with the sickle for horse-feed, but if they want to do it on a large scale, a mower should be used. The grass grows between the thorn-bushes, and it is valuable food, excellent for the stock, and the farmers do not like to chop them down in order to cut the grass. We must just set the people an example. If the food value thereof is gone into, it will be found to be very great. Let the Government then enclose a few hundred morgen, take out the bushes and let the grass grow there. It grows close together like wheat to a height of 18 inches. Tremendous quantities can be got on a few thousand morgen. If the Government takes ground along the railway, it will be easy to carry in time of drought. It will cost a few hundred pounds, but in a few years the people will themselves learn to collect fodder for time of drought. The days of trekking are irrevocably gone. Formerly when the world was open and cheap veld was obtainable, a farmer could trek with his sheep, but to-day with the fences-even roads are fenced in—trekking has become impossible. We must do something else. We can no longer take the stock to the food, but must bring the food to the stock. That is my first proposal, and the effect will be to save thousands of pounds every year. The second deals with parts where water is scarce. There are some parts of the country where water is far apart and very scarce. Take the north-western parts where one still finds farms of 10,000-30,000 morgen, and which often have only one water-hole. They are sometimes 15 miles away from the river—the Hartebeest River or the Orange River—and the animals then have to walk hours and hours so get to the water and back. In time of water scarcity they walk from morning to night to the river, drink there, and drink so much that they remain lying all day. The next day they trek hack, and the day after they have again to Walk the whole distance to drink water. They walk themselves to death, and if we could only increase the water, the resisting capacity in time of drought will be much greater. I am very glad that the Minister of Agriculture last year made the bores cheaper, and now has made a further reduction. It means a considerable loss to the State, but in places where water is scarce and far apart it will indirectly pay the Government to encourage the people to produce more water. The third head of my motion is not to prevent drought, because we cannot do that, but to somewhat relieve the people in time of drought. It is strange that the Orange River first attracted the attention of the old Cape Government for irrigation purposes. Many hon. members will already have forgotten the old Director of Irrigation, Mr. Gordon. At that time the first irrigation works, the Buchuberg scheme, was started, and to-day after 40 years there are still traces of the work done there. It was surveyed 40 years ago, and about £10,000 spent, but why work was stopped is not clear even to-day. It is remarkable that the first large dam was also made in the north-west, close to Kenhardt. It is the Rooiberg dam, which was built 30 years ago, which was unfortunately badly constructed, so that when the first big floods came the whole embankment gave way, and it is in the same state to-day. It seems that the Irrigation Department got so frightened of irrigation works and dams in the north-west, that thereafter the whole attention was diverted elsewhere. A few years ago we learned that we were again to receive attention. The Minister of Agriculture, with the Secretary of Lands, the Director of Irrigation and members of this House, and even the clerk of the House. We thought we were getting the whole House of Assembly when the clerk came, and that a very big scheme would be started there. We elected irrigation committees, held meetings, passed resolutions—I want to say in parentheses that I have not yet got back a penny for my travelling expenses in that connection—and schemes were suggested, but when next we heard of it we learnt that they had decided on something else. As a dam was built at a place which surprised everybody, viz., where seven channels run between islands at a place where the river is four miles broad. I went myself, and saw that a cement dam was being built there. I said to the engineer that when the floods came the silt around the islands would be washed away. He said that did not matter, and if it should happen that they would put it right again. I remarked that it would then wash away again, and that in the long run a dam of fully four miles would be necessary. That actually happened. As soon as the water was a bit high, the silt washed away. It cost the country about £75,000 or £80,000. I could never ascertain the exact sum, and the whole affair was a failure. It remains to this day, and the monkeys spend their holidays there. I hate that embankment like the plague, because the natives who worked on it at the time were unfortunately put on the voters’ roll at an interim registration—there were about 80—and I lost the seat in 1921 by 18 votes. Namaqualand has a peculiar history. The first explorings by the old East India Company were in the direction of Namaqualand, where the richest diamond fields are now situated. I hope, therefore, that under the present Government the day will come when they will see the great value of the Orange River and understand that in it we have a jewel like the wealth in Namaqualand, and that they will start developments there. Along the river there is alluvial land for a distance of 60 miles from Upington to Kakamas. No less than 25 water furrows have been led out of the river by private persons in that small distance. That shows how the people can lead water there, and they have a superabundance of it, and the ground there is of the best and richest in the country. Much of the ground along the river belongs to the State. Is it not astonishing that beyond the dam costing £75,000, which was a failure, and a loan given to the labour colony at Kakamas to make water furrows—but it was a loan—the State has done nothing further with regard to that valuable area, except that Minister Grobler has commenced with the Karroo scheme. The best ground there belongs to the State which a few years ago again bought more new farms. There the Crown lands lie, and private people are not permitted to make water furrows, otherwise it would have been done long ago. What is wrong with the Irrigation Department I do not know. It seems to me that the departmental heads must be removed before anything will be done. In 1920 the smaller Buchuberg scheme was surveyed, but to-day one cannot even yet get full particulars. When will they be available? The Buchuberg scheme will mean that 5,000 or 6,000 morgen of splendid ground will be available, and I hope and trust that the Government will immediately develop this small scheme, which will not cost much money. I then come to my last proposal, viz., the big schemes. There are people who talk about two big schemes like the one in connection with Gamagara River. I cannot find any figures about the distance in connection with that, but one can always judge from what the railway time-table says in connection with the height of the places. In any case, it is more than 500 ft. to get to the water level of the Gamagara, and the distance is 50 to 60 miles from the Orange River. Be this as it may, it is very difficult to follow it. Let someone survey it. I, however, want to leave this and call attention to the possibilities along the river, above and below Upington as far as the waterfall. It pains one to see at the Buchuberg scheme how all the water runs past, and a dam there of 50 to 60 ft. high would bring a very big area under irrigation. In some respects the ground which will be irrigable will be better than alluvial ground. It has been proved that if red ground is once cultivated, manured and worked, it is practically better than alluvial silted soil. Thousands and thousands of morgen will be irrigable. I do not want to enlarge on the mass of silt which runs down the river. It will be said that such a dam will silt up completely. We must have a weir that we can shut when the water is clear. We know that at first much silt comes down, and thereafter a river runs for months with clear water. Someone from the Irrigation Department can easily enquire whether such a weir is possible. I saw an article in the “Cape Times” the other day—I do not know if it was inspired—which said that it was impossible. I say that that excellent part has never yet been properly surveyed to see what can be done. I see to-day in the “Cape Times” that Mr. E. G. Bryant, of the Chamber of Commerce of Prieska, says, inter alia—

Such an enormous quantity of water in one week! He goes further—

As against that Mr. Kanthack, the former director of irrigation, said it was nonsense, because the rise will be about 800 feet, but here Mr. Bryant adds—

Sir William Willcocks in 1901 suggested the taking out of canals from two points in the Orange, leading them into the Kenhardt district and into Bushmanland respectively, and irrigating vast areas in those regions. Though doubt has been cast on the practicability of doing this, there are South African engineers of repute who consider that it could be done.

I agree with that, and there is much truth in the article. What we want is for the Irrigation Department once and for all to be courageous and to make a proper survey, so that we shall know the possibilities. I know that we cannot compare ourselves with rich America. They have put millions and millions into irrigation and also lost a great deal. If this House gives the Government authority for a comprehensive scheme for the service of the country, even if it costs £10,000,000, so long as it is properly spent, all the people will be glad and something of great importance will be done. The great point is that we cannot be nervous any longer. Forty million pounds was quite easily spent on the war, on which to-day we not only get back no interest, but have, on the contrary, to spend thousands for war pensions Let us tackle a large comprehensive scheme in the north-west to change great flats in our country which are now lying idle into fruitful ground. I heartily hope that the Government will give full attention to the motion.

seconded the motion.

I support the motion. In view of the increasing drought in our country, this motion is not too untimely. There have always been unheard of droughts in this country and in others. We read in the Bible of the drought in Egypt which lasted 7 years, because the Nile, the artery of Egypt, no longer brought any water down from the heart of Africa. We read of a drought 3 years in Palestine, that land of promise to the Israelites. If in such a country there can be such drought, then we can also expect them in South Africa. I read about a French explorer, Le Vaillant, who in the 17th century travelled up the south-west coast to the place that is now Port Elizabeth. He says, in his description, that on his return he had two difficulties. He could not again return along the coast because the locusts had eaten everything, and he could not go back through the Karroo because there was no water for man or beast. That was in the 17th century. At that time, therefore, droughts were already bad, but they are still increasing. Weather prophets can now say that we get certain circles of rain and of drought. It may be that we are once more going to have a circle of rain, but one thing is certain, viz., that South Africa is gradually becoming drier. As Professor Schwartz tells us in his book, we find when excavating in the Karoo, bones of water animals, animals which cannot live where there is not perennial water. To-day we look in vain for such perennial water in the Karroo. The Kalahari is always extending further. In the Transvaal, which is thought so much of, the water is becoming less just as in other parts. In the Transvaal we find many farms to-day which have names ending in fontein, such as Kwaggafontein, Springbokfontein, Rietfontein, Blesbokfontein, Braamfontein, etc.

And Mooimeisies fontein.

You find traces of fountains on those farms, but there is no longer any water. Old people state that they have not known such a drought for the last 50 years. That may be true or not, but one thing is certain that drought is increasing in South Africa. Are we merely to let it continue? Shall we allow South Africa to dry up so that it can no longer be a white man’s country, as is prophesied by certain people? No, we must make provision, and I think we can. When the Minister of Agriculture, some years ago, commenced to exterminate the locusts, many people considered it blasphemy, because they thought that we could do nothing against the plagues of heaven. If we say to-day that we must assist nature in regard to rainfall, then the people will say once more that we are going too far. I want to remind such people of the Scriptures, where it is said that “as for the heavens, they belong to the Lord, but the earth he gave to the children of men.” If the earth is for the people, then the people must make the best of it, in South Africa also. I mean that we must construct waterworks. Great mistakes were made in the past with reference to waterworks. I do not wish to name the Governments, but the big dams they made have never yet been full of water, and if water did come in, it was more filled with mud than with water.

Why is there no water if there is mud?

The answer to the hon. member is that the water disappears and the mud remains. I do not say that the Karroo must have no dams, but those that I saw in the neighbourhood of Graaff-Reinet are quite unpractical. I remember that I saw the Kendrew Settlement, 30 miles from Graaff-Reinet, below the Van Ryneveld Pass dam, and the person who escorted me showed me the plans. They wanted to bring people from Europe and start a splendid settlement. I then asked where the water was coming from. I pointed out to him that that dam would not always be full of water, and that rain did not fall in the Karroo every year. I am not a dam expert, but I can see where a big dam should be built and where not. There are parts of the Karroo where one cannot build big dams. There is also a danger of their silting up, e.g., the dam that one sees when one passes Beaufort West. I say this with every respect for the Karroo.

How long has that dam existed?

I don’t know, but it is no longer a dam. One finds traces of dams there just as we find traces of fountains in the north. There has been another great fault in constructing dams. I will instance the Haartebeestpoort dam, where £30,000 was wasted in experiments. That shows once more that experts are very useful to the country, but we must not have experts only. The Irrigation Department under the lead of an expert, goes, so to say, on one leg. A commission of practical men should be appointed to assist him. Experience is the best teacher. It is a very good thing that there is an Irrigation commission to-day. I think highly of those people. They have practical experience of conditions in the country. Now we have the Haartebeestpoort dam, on which thousands of pounds were wasted, and when we examine things we find a small village below the dam; they call it the “white village” like a small white elephant which was left by the people who built the dam, but the houses there are all empty. When the dam was finished, it was found that the ground below it was not so good as was thought. Then it was found that the Government had much less irrigable land below the dam than they thought. Take a case in my constituency, Potchefstroom. I am talking again of a previous Government. Shortly after the second War of Independence in 1902-’03, they established a settlement at Vyfhoek and put over 400 families on it and on adjoining farms which they leased along the Mooi river. There is also a settlement of about 40 families of returned or rather surviving soldiers on Mooibank, a portion of the Potchefstroom commonage. There was also a large experimental farm established below the waters of the Mooi river. At that time the old people said they were going too far, because there would never be water for all the schemes. Why was a large part of the water sold by the town council? What could they not have done in those days? It was simply a rule that you must sell it or otherwise it would be taken away. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) knows that the Government in those days was very autocratic. He himself was never autocratic, but we were both in the Transvaal at that time, and he knows that a person, if they wanted it, had to sell the water because otherwise the Government took it. The people below Potchefstroom, on the Mooi river, at once complained that their water was being taken away for the schemes, and the Government said, “You must not complain. A large compensating dam will be built.” The dam was built, but it was only a small one, and it stands to-day there as a comfort, but not as a help, and the people are to-day suffering from the policy of a former Government. To-day the people there have about one-fifth of the water they need, and then complaints are made that the people on the settlement cannot pay the share they have to give to the Government.

Just as in the Karroo.

No, I am not talking of dry dams, but of wet dams. We have a sympathetic Minister, and we have asked him to get back the water which his predecessor took away with a revolver. The Minister say he is not responsible for the acts of his predecessors. That is a fine comfort. The Government cannot make the excuse to-day that it has to write off so much on the old works, and therefore cannot contemplate new works. Then the country has accordingly to suffer for the faults made by past Governments, and the people have to suffer for the writings down which have to be made, and yet no new good schemes must be gone in for. Gold and diamonds are not the best value the country has, but the best value is the water supply of our country. The poet says—

The Orange river, if it could talk, would say—

Diamonds, gold, parties and governments may go, but South Africa remains. The water today is running just as uselessly through the country and in the end it runs over the water to foreign seas, just like the water of the Orange river runs away to-day. I admit that if an American, a member of a progressive people, came to South Africa and he saw the country, the Orange river and its tributaries, he would say: What are the people of South Africa doing with the river? I repeat that it is not right that the people should suffer for the unsatisfactory water-work schemes of a previous Government. The Government, as successor of those previous governments, and not the people, should suffer the loss. But where are we going to at present? At the Haartebeestpoort dam we see thousands of people trained for intensive farming. There are training schools where the sons are trained for more intensive farming, and where are the people to farm. Provision must be made for them. On the diggings we hear that responsible people say that the diggings are an evil which must be stopped. Others again say that our people are not suited to gold mining. It is said that we should send the people to the factories, but when are the factories starting up? In the meantime, people are dying. I ask again: Where are we heading for? I want again to impress on the Minister that the time has come for us to put our shoulder to the wheel. Large water-works must be commenced as national works, and smaller works must be supported, to get the water out of the bowels of the earth. The people must be encouraged to build dams and make furrows to lead the water, because we can no longer allow the water to run waste to the sea; the sea already has enough water. It is a question of life or death for the South African people in future. We must protect our fatherland against drought. We need not be pessimistic because we have had little rain in recent years. Why need we not be pessimistic? Well, if we conserve the water that falls, and dam up the water that runs away, then the rainfall will improve and bring the water in the earth to the surface and also make our lands more humid by afforestation. I remember that I met a Portuguese in Europe, and he told me that for years in their country they did not know what to do to prevent the drought. They consulted experts, who told them that they had too recklessly rooted up their trees and vegetation and that that had caused the drought. The Portuguese then commenced afresh, planted trees and forests, and now things are much better. It is a great principle of nature that the earth, which is damp, forms liquid which rises and becomes clouds. It then descends again as rain. It is certain that we can much improve our rainfall if we conserve the water and spread it over the earth, and thereby make the crust of the earth damp. Civilization is always coupled with destruction. We allow the stock to recklessly tread down everything on the veld, and get rid of our vegetation in divers ways. If the Government does not take care, this will always continue. I am much in favour of the Schwartz scheme, but I think, nevertheless, that we much first use the water in our country. It is certain that the Government must give its serious attention to the matter. I am glad the Minister of Finance is here, because I want to point out that he must prepare himself for irrigation works costing £30,000,000. The country will feel that less than all the money which has been spent on wars in the past, because it will be an asset.

Who will cultivate the ground.

The country needs a larger white population. The people must themselves see to the increase, because if the Afrikaanse people do not see to its continuation, then in the long run we shall have to hand over the country to inferior occupants. We should also encourage desirable immigrants to come here. Our great country needs a larger population, but it is folly to bring people here until we have assisted our own people. Our own people on the countryside are wandering to the diggings, the gold mines and the big towns. They are people who would do quite well if they were assisted a bit to stop on the land. I have now said a good deal on the subject, but I feel very strongly on it. I am glad to see the Minister’s eye sparkling so, because I know that he cherishes a lively interest in farming matters, but he always gets unfriendly when there is a talk of money being required. If there is no money available let us borrow, but let us keep the farmers on the countryside. We want more factories in our country, hut we must first get more water. It is complained that Pretoria has not got enough water to-day for the iron and steel factory which is going to be established there. The Minister of Lands will confirm that, during the last drought in the Transvaal, he received hundreds of letters from people asking for plots below the Haartebeestpoort dam, and he could not give them. We must use the blessings of the country and dam up the big rivers with their tributaries. Then there will be “showers of blessings for the length of days.”

It is strange that people who are entirely ignorant of conditions always want to pose as the best experts. I congratulate the reverend gentleman.

Order.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom (the Rev. Mr. Fick) on his eloquence, but he has not the vaguest idea of conditions in the Karroo. He says he travelled through the Karroo to Kendrew, and that he does not know where the water there comes from. The hon. member does not actually know where the dam is! He does not know where the water comes from. I can assure the hon. member that astonishing development is taking place there. Unfortunately, the Karroo and the Midlands are at present suffering from a calamity which no one in the world can avoid, hut, in spite of that, I can assure the hon. member that where millions of head of stock have been lost in the Karroo, no loss has occurred where there were dams in the Karroo. I make bold to say that not a single sheep or goat was lost in the Cradock district where there are dams. What right has the hon. member to speak of failure. He spoke about the dam at Beaufort West, but it is half a century old. All the dams in the world, even his Haartebeestpoort dam will silt up, but I say the Government will be well advised if it exercises all its powers and concludes all loans that can be raised to build dams as quickly as possible in the Karroo. It will save millions of stock, it will remove the necessity of people working on the railways to make a living. It will make the relief works superfluous. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) was much concerned over the statistics I usually quote. I shall not quote any to-day, and I want to tell him that if the Government spends £40,000,000 in damming up the rivers of South Africa it will render great service to the country. But the hon. member for Potchefstroom is not the only expert. We have Mr. Faure, who is trying to talk in two ways. Now, he says that the dry rivers are a hopeless failure, and then he talks on behalf of the 1820 Settlers’ Association. He rendered a disservice to South Africa, and especially the Midlands by his remarks. At present we are faced by a terrible calamity, but the dams there, and the people who live there will win through. I think I can unhesitatingly mention the dam of the Smartt syndicate that has made such a great alteration that at present millions of bags of grain are produced there. The dams in the dry rivers in the Midlands will pay. Millions of tons of conserved forage and lucerne can be produced there. The hon. member for Potchefstroom will have to try a little of the fruitful Karroo land below the Haartebeestpoort dam.

Have you been there?

I would not otherwise talk about it. I should like to move a small amendment—

We find that grasses generally need much water, but we find that other kinds of plants need very little water. Hon. member will laugh when I speak of the great value of prickly pear. I think the Minister of Agriculture can be heartily congratulated on his experiments on prickly pear. Thorn bushes and prickly pear constitute great foodstuffs for the stock in the dry parts. I want to move a further amendment to the third part of the motion—

There are also other rivers which are perennial.

Where are they?

Let us, if possible, use the Zambesi. I want to point out to hon. members that tremendously big works are constructed in Australia to take water out of the Wemoror River. Canals, five thousand miles long, are made, and 31 towns are, in this way, supplied with water; nor is the water rate at all high, but only amounts to £1 a morgen. I do not favour experiments. The time for them is past. Dams must be built in the rivers of South Africa and the Karroo, which has been contemptuously referred to, must receive every attention, the sooner the better. The reason for the failure of many large schemes is that the dams were larger than the water supply. There can be no doubt that immediately steps must be taken to save the position. I want to point out to the hon. member for Potchefstroom that irrigation works have been a partial failure in every country. Only recently I read that more than £27,000,000 had been written off in irrigation works in America. Let us give the people who are in great distress an opportunity of existence; the burdens of the dams will be smaller to the country than those it will have to shoulder to support all the people in distress. It is very necessary to bore deep down. If artesian wells can be found in Namaqualand how much more chance is there not to find them in other parts of the Cape Province, especially in the Midlands. Let us make experiments, and we shall be surprised at the results.

I second the amendment, and would like to add a few remarks about waterworks and the conservation of water. Optimistic pictures have been painted this afternoon about the importance of waterworks. I was always one of those who strongly supported waterworks in our country, and I am still one of those who cannot get on without water. Without water on my farm I can do nothing, and I feel also that much more can be done if we establish large water schemes and encourage more of the small ones, but we have to do with a few hard facts which we must meet frankly in connection with what has already happened in the past. The water schemes were possibly not such a failure as the hon. member for Potchefstroom (the Rev. Mr. Fick) wants to make out, but I think that I can safely say that 60 per cent. of the schemes which the Government has started have actually been failures. We must not forget that the aftermath falls on the taxpayers of the country and, therefore, it is useless making very eloquent speeches in the House and painting every-think as beautifully as possible, and, therefore, it is no use merely encouraging schemes which, subsequently, will hang round the necks of the taxpayers. Order 4 on the Order Paper is the report of the Select Committee on Irrigation Schemes. I do not think that if that order had preceded this motion we should have had so much optimism in the House. I think it is better for the House to meet and suggest something on the basis of our experience in order to assist the Government to arrive at a method whereby our schemes will be a greater success than in the past. Dams were built in the past, and I agree that sufficient attention was not paid to the quantity of water which would flow down and which would be available for the irrigable ground; many of the schemes proved failures, but to come and suggest here that the great cause of failure of irrigation works must be sought in drought, is a bit childish, because droughts are temporary. When droughts have passed, and the ordinary rainfall returns, there will still be dams which will always remain failures Therefore, I should like to suggest something which, in my opinion, will put the initiative on a business footing. When the State undertakes schemes, people are taxed who work with estimates and deficits; if there are deficits the taxpayers must clear them off. If, however, a private person should undertake such a thing he would see that his estimate showed a profit, or otherwise it is not business. I, therefore, feel that if we slightly alter our policy and put it more on a business footing we shall be more successful with our water schemes. There are, of course, undertakings which must he regarded as national schemes which the Government will have to undertake entirely. Then there are smaller schemes, however—and by small schemes I mean schemes up to £30,000—where I would rather see the system that when those interested apply to the Government for support, the Government would in such a case under legislation for schemes above and below a certain amount contribute 25 per cent., while the other 75 per cent. would have to be got by those interested as business men from the Land Bank, by means of a loan on a business footing, and that they then go and have such a dam built by their own engineers. When I speak of their own engineers. I mean that an advertisement is placed, and that the lowest tender of the most competent man is accepted for completing the contract, so that any loss on it shall not fall on those interested, nor on the Government, but on the contractor. In this way only useful schemes will be carried out, because the people will be very careful. It is not necessary at the moment to go into that further.

We have for years and years seen how much money is spent and wasted on big schemes. Hon. members opposite are responsible for the waste. I have ground below one of the old schemes, and know how heavy the burdens are. We did not ask for the dams, but men built the dams which was a misfortune for us.

You yourself urged the people to take land there.

The hon. member is wrong again. I only bought ground there later. It is only human to make mistakes, hut South Africa should learn from the mistakes made. Millions have been thrown away on schemes which the engineers carried out. One of the famous engineers built a dam which leaks so badly that 70 per cent. of the water runs out. Then we cannot be surprised if such a scheme is a failure. The first thing that we must learn is how much water a morgen of ground requires for production. We shall find in all the blue books that the head of the Irrigation Department, in regard to all the schemes came to the conclusion that the ground is different before the scheme is carried out and after. The estimates are always wrong, and the cause is that they do not know how many morgen can be served by a dam, or rather, how much water a morgen of ground requires. We have an experimental farm near Middelburg, but they never learnt how much water a morgen requires.

Excellent work is done at Grootfontein.

Yes, but in this matter it does not answer its purpose. If excellent work is being done there, then they ought to be able to give information for the benefit of South Africa. I have not heard a word from the Opposition during this debate. Do they take no interest in it? Do their constituents take no interest? We shall always go wrong if we do not know the quantity of water required for a morgen. That must be the basis of calculation. Our educational system is wrong. The children are not taught water-leading. Very little, at any rate. 90 per cent. of the people below the big dams cannot lead water.

They now have beds.

Yes, because they cannot lead water. If the hon. member were my water leader I should be afraid of the consequences. I should not get much from that ground. We are suffering from a severe drought. Who is suffering? Not the very poor man, because he is assisted; nor the very rich man, but the middle man, the man on the farm who has heavy bonds on it and who cannot leave it. Not one of our big schemes pays, but a small scheme built by an ordinary farmer, Lutz, at Kakamas, pays; there is water enough. The people with splendid diplomas go there, but they cannot build dams. We must learn lessons from the mistakes we have made, and call in the farmers to help. They are practical people. I have heard that an hon. member thinks so highly of the Irrigation Commission. It seems to me that there’s only one dominating person. We always hear of the chairman, but never of the other persons, and, unfortunately, the chairman is also an engineer. We have never yet heard of a doctor disapproving of another doctor’s work, nor shall we hear an engineer attacking another engineer. Our former director of irrigation cost more money than his weight in gold. But do we ever hear that he was a curse to South Africa? The farmers that are below the irrigation scheme curse him. What Government did that take place under? Not this Government. We now have a sympathetic and a practical Government.

The debate this afternoon and the motion are very important, and, therefore, I should like to deal with the motion point for point. May I ask the mover what he means in the first part of his motion by the “collecting during times of plenty of various sorts of veld grasses?” Does he mean that the Government must collect veld grasses in all the districts and save them for times of trouble? Then I fear we shall undermine the feeling of responsibility of our own people, and that they will no longer feel that they are responsible for their animals on the farms which are entrusted to them. We feel that our farmers must learn that farming is like any other business, and that they are responsible for it. My hon. friend, however, probably means that the department, by experiments, must show the people what can be done, and, if so, I am quite prepared to accept the motion. Will my hon. friend alter it in that sense? I want to tell the House that we are making tests. At Fauresmith we are enquiring what various Karroo vegetation can be cultivated. We have an experimental station there. Experiments are also being made with prickly pear as well as with grasses in various parts of the country. At Graaff-Reinet, too, we have an experimental station, and we are trying in every possible way to see what can be done to lessen the tragic consequences in time of drought. The time for trekking on account of drought has gone. I think we almost lose more by moving stock in droughts than by keeping the stock on the farms and feeding them and watering them there. We are experimenting in that connection at Graaff-Reinet, and I am sorry that the experiments were not made 14 of 15 years ago, because then the loss, which is now being suffered through the drought, would probably have been much less. The department made proposals in 1914, but they were always pigeonholed, until, in 1925 and 1926, proposals were made to me, and I felt that we must try to find something to stop the effects of drought, and to reduce the damage to the lowest minimum. The hon. member for Potchefstroom (the Rev. Mr. Fick) spoke of Joseph and Pharaoh, but we do not possess the great supply barns of those days. The people must be taught to act for themselves. We are now prepared to give the necessary advice by means of the extension officers. But we do not only require fodder in the drought-stricken areas, but water as well, and I think it is a very great concession by the Government to assist the people in boring by reducing the price from £5 to £3 10s. a day, which will cost the State £43,000 a year, which means a large sum over a period of 20 years. But we feel the interests of farming, and, therefore, the Government is doing everything possible in future, in time of drought, to reduce the consequences to the lowest minimum. There is another great fault which is made in parts like the Karroo where droughts repeatedly occur. If, after a time of drought, good years come with good rains, then the ground there is once more so good that the people keep too many cattle and with the smallest drought they suffer tremendous damage. There is the old proverb that one learns by experience. But the people want in favourable times to keep as much stock as possible, and then lose frightfully in times of drought. It is better for the people to keep better stock that, if they are to be fed in a drought, will pay to feed. The slogan should be “less stock, but good stock.” I am, therefore, inclined to accept the first part of the motion with the following amendment—

We want to make tests and assist the people with advice. When people trek, it, unfortunately, happens that they go to unknown parts, are not accustomed to the climate and conditions, and we must try to keep the people on the farms in a position to hold out there. I come to the second part of the motion. I have already mentioned what we are doing in the direction of cheap boring. I do not know whether the hon. member is thinking of the building of dams, but the Government is always prepared to lend money at a reasonable interest to people who want to build dams on farms and can give security. It cannot be expected of the Government to build dams for private people, but it is always ready to assist. £50,000 is put on the estimates for that purpose every year, but the year before last, only £21,000 was used because the number of applications was very small. The third point in the motion deals with the building of dams on a large scale. Let me say at once that I have become a little frightened. I have not long been Minister of Irrigation, but it has already quite sufficiently appeared that requests for dams are often made without the financial question being referred to. I believe there is hardly a scheme that pays. We have already written down many, and we have to do so again, and I think that we cannot go to work otherwise than very carefully in building dams in the future. We cannot go on as in the past suffering millions of pounds’ damage in money which has, subsequently, to be written off. I think that that mistake is made in every young country, and it has also been made here, and now we have the problem of rectifying matters. I want to tell the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) that we should adopt the slogan: “Hasten slowly.” I want to remind him that those were his own words when he gave evidence before the Irrigation Commission a few years ago. He then said himself that we ought to go to work slowly, but now he says that we must build large dams in a great hurry. He spoke of the magnificent Orange River. No one disputes it, and we know that the Kakamas scheme, e.g., is a great success, but we must not forget that we run a danger, if we build many dams, of one scheme injuring the other. Schemes higher up on the Vaal River will be much dearer than those lower down and there the canals will have to be much longer. The hon. member asks for different schemes to be investigated. There is, e.g., the proposal for the big scheme called Kromellemboog scheme which has to be carried out on the Vaal River, and which will supply Bloemfontein with water. That itself would cost £5,000,000 to £7,000,000, and we cannot build such big schemes before everything has been properly investigated and before we know precisely what the local people want. From the district of Hoopstad I have received one representative after another in connection with this scheme against the building of the dam, because all the people’s ground there would come under water. We must, therefore, bear various things in mind. The scheme, too, would be very costly, like most schemes, like that of the van der Kloof and Buchuberg scheme. The hon. member desires a big scheme to lead the water into the desert. I fear the water would disappear there and would be of no use. The small Buchuberg scheme is also being enquired into, but as I have already said, we must take care that one scheme does not interfere with another. Accordingly, the schemes must be carefully gone into by the Irrigation Commission, and when it has investigated all of them it must make proposals as to the scheme which will pay best. The best scheme for the country must be adopted after careful enquiry. We can no longer build schemes of which it is said to-day they are the best in the world, while to-morrow, if they are built, they will be a failure. That was, unfortunately, the case in the past. The best schemes before construction were, after it, a failure. Last year another individual came to me and said that I should advance him £1,000 through the Irrigation Department as he wanted to carry out a small scheme which would be a great success. I had the matter looked into, and it was found that the security was adequate. The department had certain objections to the scheme, but the security was ample, and I then asked whether the department had any other objections. The reply was “No,” and that it was possible that it might be a success, but they had not made the necessary enquiry. To-day, not a year later. I get a letter from the person to please allow the interest to stand over this year. That is the case with most schemes. Before they are built, they are the best paying, but when they are built first the interest and then the capital have to he written off. There are large dams which have so much been written down that the debt on them is only a few pounds, but that, too, will still have to be written off. I had an irrigation scheme brought to my notice the other day which cost £800,000, and I said to one of the people below the scheme: “If I were now to wipe out the whole debt of £800,000, would you be prepared to continue the development of the scheme?” The man I was talking to replied: “Oh, no, if the Government is prepared to write off the £800,000, but does not want to put the thing in order, we cannot undertake it.” That is one of the schemes which are so frightfully good. My friend here spoke of the Olifants River scheme. That is one of the schemes which cost £800,000, one of the legacies from the other side of the House. Sufficient money was not made available for it, and the furrow was so badly made that the water escapes. The engineers are clever enough, but cannot have the work properly done if they have no money. I do not think it is right to accuse the people of building so badly that the water escapes. If they have not enough money they cannot build properly. The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) said that we did not know how to lead water yet, nor how much water a morgen of ground required and how much ground can come under a scheme. Let me say that now that I have been in charge of the department for a year it is not possible to say what precisely is required. We are making tests at Grootfontein, and as soon as they have had reasonable time to make them, information will be supplied to the farmers. There is one fault amongst people under irrigation schemes that they very often lead too much water which evaporates and is needlessly wasted. If the ground, after being watered, were harrowed, much less water would evaporate, and much less would be required. Then the Irrigation Commission was attacked on the ground that there appeared to be only one member that counted. We should know that the three members of the commission sometimes work day and night. They certainly belong to the busiest officials we have. They enquire into all the schemes. Almost all the schemes we have to-day in the country are economically unsound, and a proper enquiry must first he made. Then the matter must be referred to this House and writings-down must take place to put them on a sound basis. The country is crying out for irrigation schemes, hut the time has come for us to put the existing schemes on a proper basis. Under the existing schemes there are still 10,000 morgen of ground under irrigation where there are no people. There must therefore be something wrong with the schemes if we still have that quantity today that is unsaleable. I am very glad that the Minister of Lands said that he is going to sell more of the ground to people by virtue of Section 11.

Where is the mistake?

The mistake in the schemes is that they are, in the first place, too large, and the tax is too high. The House must prepare itself to make considerable writings-down on the schemes. An hon. member asked who was responsible for the schemes that have failed. Well the present Government is only building a few schemes, and they are not yet finished, therefore it is not responsible for the failures. I am very glad to hear from the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet that where irrigation works existed no loss was suffered in the Karroo during the drought. I am very glad to hear that, because then it is not necessary for those districts to be assisted under the Drought Emergency Loan Act. I do not know whether the hon. member includes Beaufort West in the Karroo, but people suffered very big losses through the Gamka scheme.

That was a scheme that silted up.

It has not silted up entirely; when there is a great drought we cannot expect the dams to hold water. Therefore, I cannot admit that no damage will be suffered where there are dams. I admit that less damage is suffered, because they had fodder longer, and the stock could, therefore, hold out longer, but I know that damage was suffered. We must try to get every farmer to prepare himself against the time of trouble. The hon. member for Potchefstroom (the Rev. Mr. Fick) said that proper surveys were not made before the Haartebeestpoort dam was built. That was not my fault, nor that of my department. We did not make the surveys of that scheme. We are no less than 15 years behindhand with the surveys of the ground served by the dams, and it will take years yet before all the ground is properly surveyed. I think the ground must first be carefully surveyed before we start building a dam. Then the hon. member for Potchefstroom again referred to the matter of the Compensation dam which has already been fully discussed previously, but the hon. member can surely not expect us to build another Compensation dam for the water that, as he expresses it, was taken away from them at the point of a revolver. If the people want to build a dam there let them have a careful enquiry made, and, if the scheme is a good one, we will assist them in building it, but we cannot be expected to saddle ourselves with the cost of another Compensation dam. I do not intend detaining the House longer, and I hope that if the hon. member stands on his motion, that the House will pass my amendment, viz.—

I second the amendment. It appears from the debate that the drought is making us think. Already on a former occasion, the report of the Drought Commission which was appointed to investigate the general drought existing in South Africa, and to make recommendations as to the best ways of fighting drought, was debated. We are all aware of the praiseworthy work which the commission did, and the valuable report they issued. I hope the Minister of Education will take steps to have the report of the committee properly brought to the notice of the youth of South Africa. Possibly extracts from the report of the Drought Commission could be prescribed as one of the set works. The recommendations of the commission are of the greatest importance to our country, and I hope the Government will enlighten the whole country about them as soon as possible. The object of the mover is to draw the attention of the Government to various methods of preventing drought in the country, and I quite agree with him that it is necessary to call serious attention to it. Drought injures a country just as much as war, and as it is the duty of the Government to make every effort to protect the country in case of war, so it is its duty to do everything possible to prevent drought. The recommendations contained in the motion are necessary. In the first place, it says that care must be taken for the planting and the collecting of grasses. I quite agree with that, and we cannot do better than make tests with all kinds of grass and see that we get grasses which can stand against drought as well as possible. I want to heartily thank the Minister of Agriculture and his department for the tests they have made to find out the best grasses, for the information of the farmers, and to advise them about the cultivation of grasses. We made a blunder in building elevators for the export of mealies, and in that way encouraging the export of mealies, instead of creating a system whereby they would be used by the farmers in the drought areas by using the mealies to keep their stock alive. That is also a thing the Government can consider, viz., to put the farmer in a better position to buy mealies in time of drought. The mover further recommends that provision should be made for conserving water in our rivers, and that more boring for water should take place. I am glad the Minister of Agriculture has done the needful in encouraging boring for water, and I hope the farmers win now make liberal use of the bores. Quite a number of farmers are leaving to-day with their stock, and, as a result of the trek, they are losing much stock, while, if water were available on their farms, they would have suffered less losses. The third part of the motion recommends the Government to take steps to embark on irrigation works. I must say that the Minister of Agriculture has not shown himself very optimistic about new works. The poor efforts made in this direction in the past have greatly insured our country. Irrigation has tremendously suffered, and will still suffer in consequence, because such wrong work with regard to irrigation was done in the past. We must not, however, assume that irrigation in South Africa must always be a failure. I am of opinion that we can really make a success of irrigation. As the great works have ended in failure, such as those in the Karroo, I want to suggest that we should for once try small irrigation works in the Karroo. I think that the Government, in the first instance, should start the schemes which are best calculated to succeed. The Orange River is one of the best for irrigation works. At present it is carrying off millions of gallons of water and cubic feet of soil year after year. This river has a permanent flow, and that is just the reason why it can be made a success of irrigation. The river is perennial, and there is good soil. Here then we have the first requisite for the success of an irrigation work, but our other rivers, such as the Vaal River, the Modder River, the Riet River and others, we can also employ usefully. We can apply the system of irrigation there which was used with such success in the Murray River in Australia. In that river the fall is very insignificant, only two inches a mile. The Australians make concrete weirs across the river, and above them the water is collected, and it is then pumped out and distributed over the ground. I think we ought to apply the pumping system of Australia here. The rivers must be dammed up, and a large pumping plant must be erected by which a whole district can be irrigated. Such a system will be much cheaper than big works. Tests should be made of such a system. One finds individual farmers to-day who pump water out of the rivers, but it is difficult for them because the pumping plant is expensive and the area of land irrigated is small. But if we put up a large pump which can serve a whole district, the cost per morgen would be slight. I agree with the mover that the Government should give still more attention to irrigation where possible, and I hope it will now take steps to show the country that they are not frightened by the experience of the past, and that they will let no opportunity slip of developing our land. There is yet another matter that the mover should have added, viz., the prohibition of mountain fires. Instead of our mountains being the best conservators of water, the sponge to hold the water, we are now busily engaged in burning the sponge and in drying up the mountains so that they are nothing more than an iron roof from which the water immediately runs off. I hope the Minister will consider steps to prohibit these mountain fires in future. The farmers living at the foot of a mountain know what it means when the mountains are burnt every year. The Drought Commission report also contained useful suggestions about this matter, and it is not necessary for me to enlarge upon it.

This is an important motion and many other members want to speak on it.

On the motion of Mr. Steytler, debate adjourned; to be resumed on 27th March.

I move—

The House is already fully informed about this motion, because it has been discussed repeatedly. The object is to obtain the formal approval of the House to the amendment of the regulation framed under the Higher Education Act. According to the Act, the Minister fixes the basis under which subsidies are granted to universities and colleges. Formerly the universities and colleges had the right to increase their expenditure by 10 per cent., but we are now bringing it down to 5 per cent. If, however, anyone can convince me that it is fair to exceed the 5 per cent., then the Minister still has power, under the regulations, to grant it. I am rather in a hurry with the motion in order to get it approved before the end of the financial year.

seconded the motion.

Motion put and agreed to, and transmitted to the Senate for concurrence.