as acting chairman, brought up the report of the Select Committee on the Port Beaufort Grant Amendment (Private) Bill, reporting the Bill with amendments, and specially with alterations to the preamble, in accordance with the leave granted by the House on the 20th February, 1928.

Report and evidence to be printed and read a second time on 30th March.

It was my intention to move my amendment as a new paragraph (a), the existing paragraph (a) to become (b), not for the omission of the existing (a).

With leave of committee, this amendment withdrawn.

I move—

On what page of the Afrikaans Votes and Proceedings does this amendment occur?

It is in that of the 9th March.

I move—

1. (i) the obligation which resulted in such tie was discharged not less than three years before such commencement, or
2. (ii) such tie attaches to the licensed premises otherwise than by agreement entered into between the owner of such premises and the person in whose favour the tie exists.”

I am sorry that the Minister agreed to drop his clause as originally drawn and I think that the House will adopt this alteration and I must accordingly submit but I think that my amendment would improve it. It refers to cases where there was an obligation to purchase which to-day has no reasons for existing. Say, e.g., that brewer A has lent money to hotel-keeper B. I am proposing that if that debt has been repaid three years before the coming into force of this Act the obligation resting on the hotelkeeper should cease one year after the coming into force of the Act. I think that is fair because the brewer who is entitled to claim the obligation has nothing more to demand from the hotelkeeper. There are various hotels and bars in the Peninsula on which there is no longer any debt, but they remain tied all the time. I need not mention names.

Does the hon. member move the amendment to Clause 111 or 112?

I understand that there is now a new Clause 111 proposed and I propose to interpolate a second proviso to that new clause next to the first proviso in it. This means, therefore, as I have said, that on properties which for three years have been free from debt, one year after this Act comes into force there shall be no obligation to purchase. Then the second paragraph. There are various hotels in Cape Town and other places where liquor is sold in which the obligation to purchase is registered in the title deed. There are deeds of sale in which, e.g., it is said that the owner of such an hotel may only buy beer from Ohlssons although for years there has been no contract between the owner and the brewery in existence. Hon. members will possibly say that a present is being given to certain people by our removing the servitude. It is true that we are cancelling a servitude, but no one will suffer damage. Hon. members will say that the brewer or wholesaler, as, e.g., Ohlssons, will suffer damage, but they suffer none either because the debt due by the hotel-keeper has long since been paid. Then hon. members will say that it reduces the value of the building. I know a case of a building not far from this House which was sold some years ago for £9,000, it was a tied house and was sold a few years later for £16,000 and quite recently again for £23,500, still tied. How can hon. members say then that the value of a building diminishes? I hope the committee will pass my amendment.

The clause as the Minister originally proposed it was a little too drastic, and possibly the amendment of the hon. member for North East Rand (Dr. Reitz) goes too far. I want to ask the Minister to consider the amendment which I have tried to bring into line with that of the hon. member for North East Rand. The underlying principles are agreed upon that possibly in the question of the tied houses as it exists to-day the necessity arises where ties are necessary. That is common ground and we have conceded that by accepting the deletion of the Minister’s clause. My contention is that the amendment of the hon. member for North East Rand goes too far in the other direction and I propose to put some restrictions on these ties which I wish to move now to be added to the amendment of the hon. member for North East Rand—

1. (c) No tie shall be entered into except as a consideration for a loan or as a condition of occupancy of premises owned by the lender.
2. (d) No licensee shall tie his trade in terms of both paragraphs (a) and (b) at one and the same time.
3. (e) All tieing agreements shall be subject to approval by the licensing board.

The weakness of the amendment of the hon. member for North East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) is indicated by the fact that Clause 65 (2) of the Liquor Bill has been deleted, and the acceptance of the amendment of the hon. member to Clause 3 and Chapter 11 will not prevent a combination of brewers leasing all the hotel properties in South Africa which they do not own, and either conducting the business themselves, through salaried managers, or sub-letting them with ties and exorbitant rents with each annual period of occupancy. In that case, individual enterprise will disappear, and the class of person entering the retail trade will never be better than that which is satisfied with monopolistic control. It is for the committee to decide whether this is a desirable position to attain. The necessity for (c) is set forth by cases 1, 2 and 3 on pages 996, 997, and case (d) on page 999 of the report. I can quote a case similar to number 2 on page 996, in which a brewer acts for an absentee landlord, and a tenant has renewed the lease a number of times—as an alternative to going out of business—but has no chance of obtaining release from the tie. Unless (d) is agreed to, we shall have a perpetuation of the existing practice, by which brewers and wine merchants collaborate in providing money for a borrower, when each lender ties his own class of trade. I understand that Messrs. J. Wynne & Co., Ltd., wholesale wine merchants of Port Elizabeth, and the South African Breweries, own or control a large proportion of the licensed premises in the Eastern Province, and that they had reciprocal ties over their houses, resulting in a Port Elizabeth wholesale licence holder having to relinquish his business, because those ties existed. Unless we have a clause like the one I propose here, although we are assured that that condition will not arise in the future, that position will arise again. I am quoting a case which actually occurred in the constituency of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh), which has been rectified since the Bill came in, but the acceptance of (e) will involve little or no necessity for action by licensing boards, because the very fact of the provision being there will act as a deterrent against unreasonable agreements. It has been said by an hon. member that reference to licensing boards is not practicable, because it will lead to bribery and corruption; but my reply to that argument is that if it is true, there can be no justification in appointing unpaid licensing boards. I contend that licensing boards will never interfere with reasonable agreements, and that the objection to this provision cannot come from those who wish to be fair. In this particular case, provision has already been made in the Bill where every licence is subject to the licensing board. If the committee is under the impression that a tie shall be entirely uncontrolled and not be controlled by a licensing board, it is for the committee to decide, and not to accept my amendment, but if the committee is of the opinion there should be some sort of control over ties, the proper body to carry out that function is the licensing board. I ask the committee to support me in this particular clause. I do not think the trade will object, except a certain section, which is out for complete control.

I move—

I must honestly admit that. I did not take much interest in the Bill, but when this clause came before the House my attention was called to it both in and out of the House. The first thing that gave me trouble was that I could not understand what on earth induced the Minister to put this principle into the Bill. I always thought that the object of the Bill was to control the liquor traffic, but how can the Minister include this clause especially when his own police testified before the Select Committee that the tied houses very much facilitated their chance of controlling the liquor traffic. That is the position and I cannot understand why the principle was incorporated. It seems to me that it is a matter which has nothing to do with the liquor trade, and if it had, why should we bother ourselves with every matter in which the wholesalers are concerned? These things take place in every business.

Not to the same extent.

If it is wrong in wholesale, it is also wrong in retail transactions. That is the argument which the supporters of this clause use. Who asked for this clause?

The liquor trade itself.

It was not the liquor trade but the owners of tied houses who were assisted by it, who now want to be quit of their obligations and there are very few of the people who are in favour of it. Hon. members will agree with me that they have recently received many telegrams, some as many as fourteen, which are all more or less in the same wording, in favour of this clause. An hon. member behind me says “yes.” Hon. members will also confirm that the people who sent these telegrams, or 75 per cent. of them, do not know what the clause really means. They are telegrams from one person who is paid for that job, and he does not send them at his own expense. I am grateful to the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) for lending me these valuable papers for a minute. The telegrams are all set to the tune which this person whistles. I must say that I have a particular liking for brewers, still more possibly for their product. I remember how they sent seed barley gratis to the farmers to grow a good sort of barley. If I mistake not they use all the barley South Africa produces. That is not all. The also buy much of the produce of the wine-farmer. I think that the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) said that the Wine Farmers’ Co-operative Society have the same opinion about Clause 111 as I have, and if that society thinks that it is in the interests of the farmer, then I think, although I am not interested in wine-farming, that we can safely say that it is also good enough for us. The Wine Farmers’ Co-operative Society is best able to say what is in the interests of the wine farmers. I hope the new clause with my amendment will be passed. If the existing Clause 111 is passed, I shall ask for a division, because I think that the Minister should never, in the first instance, have included the principle and, in the second place, we cannot treat the private rights of citizens in that way.

What is needed is a compromise which will be acceptable to the House and will be carried into effect by the trade. The clause submitted by the Commission is, in effect, the recommendation presented to the select committee by the retailers. The Commission unanimously agreed to the recommendation now before the House. If one were to consider the interests of the public as a whole, neither amendment would be of much value, as the interests of the public can be protected only by the nationalization of the liquor trade. Although I am in favour of the nationalization of the liquor traffic, seeing that Government has failed to give effect to a policy of State shipping, and that the abandonment of that policy has been accepted with approval by the Opposition, and with apathetic approval by the Labour party, I realize it will be futile to propose the nationalization of the liquor traffic.

I hope the Committee will accept the amendment moved on behalf of the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) as a reasonable compromise. From my own experience I can say that there has been a great improvement in the country hotels, an improvement which could not have been brought about if it had not been possible for the licence holders to give some security to the people willing to advance money for the improvement or rebuilding of these places. Some tie is necessary. It is difficult, when amendments of considerable length are read in this House, to grasp their meaning. I refer to the amendment of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik), which is not on the Order Paper. I understood him to say that his amendment provides that ties A and B cannot be created at the same time. I do not know why that should not be done. He stated that in my constituency at Port Elizabeth two firms, Wynne & Co., and a brewery firm, have joint ties. I am authorized to state by the representatives of those firms that the statement is incorrect. There is no reciprocal tie in existence.

The hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. Wessels) made a particularly striking speech which showed that he had never read the Bill till we came to Clause 111; that is where he started. The impression I got was that because a brewer had sent a bag of barley to some farmer or other, we should now defend the brewers here. I must say that I am astonished at the power of the sack of barley which has such an effect that people should on that account even be defended in Parliament. The great principle in this connection is that if anyone assists you, you have perpetual obligation to him and it is an entirely wrong principle. I pay interest on the money and the man has the benefit.

What security does the brewer get?

He has the security of the House for everything he sells, it remains his property until such time as it is paid for and the brewer sees that every week he is paid a share of the takings of the man. They are not such business men as to lend money indiscriminately.

Why does the brewer demand compulsory purchases?

He gets great advantage out of the various businesses. If I lend the hon. member £1,000, will he assume the obligation, besides the interest he pays, of buying everything from me? I shall then ask him to buy ploughs and oxen and seed mealies through me. I have assisted him, therefore he is obliged to buy from me. Is it not a wrong principle? And in the meantime the brewer makes a profit of from 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. on what he delivers.

No.

Let him get a little information about the profit. Their security is good enough and the benefits very great. The principle of trust and big combines in South Africa—and they are fast comings—must be opposed as much as possible. We must have free, healthy competition in this country.

The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) forgets one essential, that is, even if there is a tie, it is arranged that the sale of liquor shall be at the market price.

There is only one market price.

I support the amendment of the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. Wessels). If any man purchases a property from a brewer or wine merchant—

Read it. You are giving the effect wrong.

Very well, I will read it. [Amendment read.] The only man who can impose such a condition would be the seller. Generally I am against the system of ties by contract, as they exist in many trades. I feel where a man, by selling his property at a less price than the real value and says, “I am giving you it at this small price to enable me to sell all my manufactured articles to you,” then it does seem hard for no other reason than that you think a tie should not exist to try and cancel this servitude. These servitudes have been recognized by Government after Government, and they are registered in the Deeds Office, and that cannot be done unless they are in accordance with law. There are many cases where men have had properties under these conditions and have made fortunes, just through the assistance they got from the brewer. There is a difference between this and the ordinary tie. A man comes and lends money on mortgage, and he has a claim on the value of the property. He lends the money and ties your business. That is different to a man selling the property at a less figure than he would otherwise have done in order to get his tie. In this case, the position is that the contract is registered, and it is one that cannot be lightly brushed aside. I could show the Minister a form of transfer which becomes a servitude against the property, and any man thereafter who purchases the property does so with his eyes open. If he looks at the transfer, he will see the condition of the transfer, and the first thing a conveyancer does is to look for any servitudes that might be on the property. He has done that and then he finds that he has got a good chance of making some profit by purchasing the property under these conditions. I would like to give a few instances. I will not mention names. In 1910 a property was purchased for £9,000, the brewer accepting only £1,000 and leaving the rest. The same property was in 1922 sold for £16,000, which shows that the tie could have had no effect against the property. In 1926 this property was sold for £23,500. In the first place if that brewer had not come to this man’s assistance and allowed him to have that property at a very moderate figure it would have been impossible for him to have made that profit. This man I met only a few days ago for the first time. He came to me voluntarily and asked me whether I would not support this amendment because he himself but for the sale of this property would never have been able to retire. Take another case. In March, 1917, a property was sold for £27,000 and £5,500 for goodwill in addition, making a total of £32,500. In 1921 that property was sold for £60,000, a profit which would never have been made by the owner except for the assistance he got.

Was it made because of the tie?

He would never have got the property but for the tie. That is the point. Take another case. On the 28th March, 1918, a property was sold for £7,000 together with £3,000 for goodwill. In March, 1922, the property was sold for £12,500. Take another case. On the 26th of June, 1917, a property was sold for £15,000, and a few months after that it was disposed of for £30,000.

Who made the profit?

The man who had bought the property. If you take the Buckle Report, although they are not in favour of tied houses, they do report that existing agreements, to their minds, should not be interfered with. I am prepared to support the amendment so as not to have the existing agreements to continue for the whole period. I do not believe in these long ties. Let us have the tie limited for 10 years That is a reasonable period. I think it is very reasonable to give ten years more. One also feels very strongly that some of these people who have been giving evidence have not been too careful about their evidence. One witness stated a little while ago before this commission that his tie was a hindrance to him. Let us examine the hindrance. He bought the property which he was speaking of for £32,500 and sold it for £63,000, a profit which he would never have made unless he had been assisted by the brewers to purchase it in the first instance, so that out of this “hindrance” he has made a profit of £30,000. After all, the position is I understand, that there are only nineteen such tied houses in the country at present. In regard to these nineteen we suggest that they should be given ten years more from the date of the passing of this Act and after that there will be no more ties. What I want to impress upon the committee is this, unlike the ordinary tie, you have a servitude, a registered servitude, and in every other case we look upon a registered servitude as something which should not be interfered with by any legislative assembly or anybody else. I ask the Minister to consider the position where there are legal servitudes, as in this case, and to say “We will give the people an opportunity of working it off in ten years’ time.

There are of course only three courses open to me. The one course I have already dealt with and that is that this House does not wish to have all ties destroyed at once. The other course would be to keep everything existing as it is to-day. I think this House would be more in favour of adopting a middle course. I have looked at the different proposals and the point in regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. Wessels) which has struck me was this, how it was a conveyancing possibility to have conditions of this kind form part of the title of a person, because it went against all my ideas of what conveyancing practice was. I got a report from Mr. Denoon, registrar of deeds in Cape Town, and asked him to get reports from other registrars of deeds. I also got one of the deeds in question, which shows that it is incorporated in the deed as a condition of the deed. [Report by Mr. Denoon read.] The practice now in Cape Town is to this effect, that no new conditions of this kind are allowed to form a part of the transfer or title to landed property, but where it has occurred in previous deeds it is allowed to be carried forward to susbequent deeds. The Bloemfontein registrar of deeds and the Pietermaritzburg registrar of deeds are at one with the Cape Town registrar of deeds, but the registrar of deeds at Pretoria differs. His answer is to this effect. He is not aware of any such transfer registered in his office, but he does not think he can refuse transfer provided they are operative and enforceable in law. I entirely agree with the opinion of the registrar of deeds at Cape Town. The registrars at Bloemfontein and Maritzburg are also in favour of that, so perhaps it is the safest to follow that practice. I may say the substantial clause I favour most is that moved by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and I hope it will be passed with the small amendment I have introduced. That clause, of course, refers generally, but if that clause is to provide for bonds and contracts and matters of that kind, it does seem one should give something further in connection with taking away rights which are part of the title of a man to his property. These bonds are an agreement between the bondholder and the mortgagee. The man who has the title to which the tie is attached is shackled by certain conditions as part of his title. He may have taken it from a very large number of previous transferees and he has obtained title subject to what can be called a servitude. He is paying a smaller price, at least that is the hypothesis that a man shackled by a servitude pays a smaller price for his property than he would otherwise have paid. He therefore pays a reduced price and that reduction is on the basis of the tie being a perpetual one. Here, that being so, it seems that it is just to allow the right to be as extensive as we can make that right. It is fair to allow it to extend for a fairly extensive time. Therefore I feel the amendment moved by the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. Wessels) fairly meets the position, because there is a very great difference between the man who enters into a contract for the supply of liquor from that of the man who takes personal transfer upon a condition which has appeared in the transfers of his predecessors in title two or three times over. There is a substantial difference in the payment for the property in these circumstances, and what would be paid with a servitude. I am speaking of servitudes generally. I do not entirely like the amendment of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik). I do not think there is much harm with regard to the first part of his amendment. There are two difficulties about this. As far as the loan is concerned, you would have to make it “consideration or part consideration.” You would be obtaining interest. It would mean that unless the whole consideration is the tie, the tie is not a valid one. It must be made perfectly clear that the tie is a new tie. There is not very much to be said against that clause, although I feel we should probably be wiser to vote against it, but there is not much that can be argued against it. Then in regard to (b), that does not carry out the meaning of my hon. friend. A man could tie his property, so far as beer is concerned, on one day, and wine and brandy on the following day. What my hon. friend means is that two kinds of ties should not co-exist. I do not see very much point in that, in a person being bound by a tie in regard to malt liquor also being bound with another person in regard to the supply of wines and brandy. He will probably get bigger facilities, and if they result in building bigger and better hotels in South Africa, the double facility will probably assist him more than the single facility and you would probably get better hotels erected. The third condition I do not like at all, and that is that all tying agreements shall be subject to approval by the licensing board. A and B enter into a licensing agreement at some future time. They go to the licensing board for approval. The licensing board will naturally approve, unless something has happened behind the scenes by one of the parties to the agreement. If two persons go to the licensing board and say “We have entered into this contract. Approve it,” the licensing board would, in the ordinary course, approve of it. What is the case in which they would not approve? I am afraid of that particular case. If the agreement is one which means that the public is going to be affected by a tying agreement, then I think we have sufficiently dealt with that already in Clause 31, because an affidavit must be taken and must be submitted setting out particulars of the tie which the applicant must be bound by. The board goes into that tie and if that factor is of such an important nature that the board thinks the public would be affected by granting the licence, then the board will refuse the licence. It is not necessary for us to place greater power in the board in this regard than they have at present. That is the position and your times for which the tie must run are arbitrary figures to a large extent. The arbitrary figures seem to me fair figures with regard to contracts, as moved by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and I think it is a fair length of time where a man’s rights are regulated by being part of a deed of transfer of the person who is bound by that figure, making that ten years. Also I think I can agree that in all probability there are not a very large number of properties which are tied in this way in terms of the properties themselves. In all provinces there are a few, I believe. There are a few in the Transvaal, but not many, and there are possibly one or two in Natal, but wherever a man’s title is burdened by a servitude, he is placed in a different position from the man who has burdened himself by his own agreement. Therefore I say we should make that difference. I think these figures are fair and I would submit to the House the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout as amended by the hon. member for Frankfort.

I think the Minister of Justice has drawn a fair and proper distinction between the two ties. I propose to support the amendment of the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) together with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. Wessels). At the same time the amendment of the hon. member for Frankfort requires some little amendment. As the clause reads, it purports to make several such contracts valid, and you may make valid something about which we know nothing. Another thing is that the hon. member proposes by his amendment to make ties valid as far as brewers and wholesale liquor licences are concerned, but he does not put the time and the like in the same phraseology. I move, as amendments to the amendment by Mr. Wessels—

After listening to the Minister of Justice I just want to make it clear that he is prepared to accept sub-clause (a) of my amendment about tied houses, but that he thinks provision is already made for it in Clause 31 (3) (b). It is not so. [Clause 31 (3) (b) read]. The clause says that papers and documents must be submitted to the licensing board, but my argument is that it does not say that there must be any resolution on the matter. I do not know why the clause was included as it stands, but my amendment is meant to lay down that the information must be given to the licensing board and that the board shall then go into the ties or the financial interests and see which are right or wrong and shall then approve or refuse the licence. If the Minister accepts that a great portion of the objections that exist will be removed. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) spoke the other day about telegrams which he and other members had received. I just want to tell the House the circumstances about the telegrams. There is a dispute between the south and the north of the country. The society in the Cape Province embraces certain people who are strongest in the beer trade, and in the north the retailers, who are members of the Witwatersrand Licensed Victuallers’ Association are those whom some people are representing in this matter. They approached hon. members here and explained their views. I think the hon. member was approached by them. They approached me and said that there was a dispute on behalf of Mr. Smith of the society in the north and Mr. Fitzgerald in the south as to the best provisions for this Bill. When Clause 111 came up, Mr. Smith, secretary of the Witwatersrand Association, at once telegraphed to members of his association saying that his interests were being endangered by Mr. Fitzgerald and he asked them, in their own interests, to telegraph to their parliamentary representatives what attitude they thought that members should take up. They make no secret of it. If the hon. member has received so many telegrams it shows how strong these people are in his division and he ought to bear it in mind. It is surely not wrong for people to protect their interests in the sale of liquor in the north, and for them to telegraph that their interests are in danger because they are in conflict with those in the south. The society in the south embraces beer dealers, but only 35 per cent. of the general liquor dealers. The Witwatersrand society represents 85 per cent. of the licensed victuallers there. How the hon. members for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) and Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) get into the society they keep I do not know. They represent themselves as looking after the wine farmers’ interests, but they are hobnobbing with those brewers. Where beer is drunk how much wine is consumed? In the Transvaal and in the Free State, as a result of the action of the society, wine is only to be obtained in the places where they have the control at a price which is 100 per cent. more than in the Cape Province. Hon. members ought to support my amendment if they want to do something for the wine trade. I am thankful to the Minister for agreeing to paragraphs (c) and (d) of my amendment, although he says he does not see much in them. If we cannot cancel the ties of the big brewers to-day, we must still try to make the evil as small as possible. Hence my amendments.

I do not think provisions of this kind should have found their way into a Bill dealing with the sale of liquor, as they interfere with the right of people to enter into contracts. So long as these contracts are reasonable the Government is very unwise to introduce such restrictive legislation. If the proposal dealt exclusively with future contracts, I should not have such a strong objection, but it is going to interfere with existing rights. It is pure confiscation. We objected to the confiscatory clause in the Precious Stones Bill, and on other occasions we have protested against the Government tampering with existing rights. We already have some bad precedents, and this proposal will add to their number. The title deeds against which the contracts are registered have the servitude registered on them.

The proposal takes away some of the servitude, so the purchaser is not affected. He will get more lights than the transfer gives him.

But you also interfere with the existing rights of the brewers and the merchants. It is a great mistake to legislate in regard to existing contracts which have been entered into in the past.

The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) referred to telegrams and created a wrong impression. He represented that the Licensed Victuallers’ Association only said to the various licencees that they must telegraph to their respective members of Parliament to protect their rights. That is not what happened. The association drafted the telegrams, and sent them to the licensees.

What is the difference?

The licensees did not have the amendments before them, otherwise they would have possibly telegraphed instructions to sup port the amendment of the hon. member for North East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) moved by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). Most of the licensees possibly did not know what was going on. I want to take the case of the person who telegraphed to me. Shortly after I received a letter from him saying that he had now seen the amendment, and that he noticed that if the amendment of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) were passed, his licence would actually be in danger, because he is supported. The licensees who received those telegrams complete from the association despatched them because they were given the impression by the association that their interests were in danger. If they had known the meaning of the amendment of the hon. member for Vredefort possibly only one-third of them would have sent the telegrams.

The amendment moved by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) on behalf of the hon. member for North East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) says after the 1st January, 1929, no tie shall be binding unless it has certain conditions, one of which is it shall not last more than six years. The amendment of the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. Wessels) improved by the amendment of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), which I intend to support, deals with endorsements on title deeds made prior to January 1st, 1928. I would like the Minister to consider what about endorsements on title deeds which have already been passed or may be passed between the 1st January, 1928, and the 1st January, 1929. They will not be affected by the one amendment or the other. In the amendment of the hon. member for Frankfort we shall have to substitute 1929 for 1928, so that in the event of any endorsement being passed between January, 1928, and January, 1929, it will fall within the scope of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Frankfort. I move, as a further amendment to the amendment by Mr. Wessels—

I think in the first part of the amendment of the hon. member for North East Rand that means existing and future ties. It does not only mean those executed after the 1st of January, 1929, but existing and future ties. As far as the second part is concerned, I think the underlying idea was that one does not want new ties to be constituted after the date of the commencement of this Act in order to get ten years. We shall find agreements made for transfer, and if they pass they get the ten years instead of the six years, therefore, it is only existing contracts, existing before January, this year, which shall remain in existence for ten years. It will be binding on the successor in title. We do not know exactly what will happen, but you may have new ties simply to get the ten years.

There is no doubt the Minister has given the interpretation of the clause which is intended, but the point raised is one that is worth making clear, and the point of the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) would be met, not in the way he proposes, but by inserting in line 1 of the proposed amendment of the hon. member for North East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) after word “no” the words “present or future.” I accordingly move—

There appears to be a misunderstanding about the matter and it is of great importance to clear it up. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) wanted to make out how foolish I, who pretend to look after the interests of the wine farmers, am to vote for the amendment of the hon. member for North East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) because it is diametrically opposed to the wine farmers’ interests. Let me tell the hon. member that 97 per cent. of the wine farmers in the Western Province belong to the Wine Farmers’ Co-operative Society. The society has an executive committee, and above them there are a couple of wine farmers who, as a kind of council, see that the board really acts in the interests of the wine farmers. All the persons have agreed to support the amendment of the hon. member for North East Rand and therefore I also do so.

Amendment by Mr. Close and amendment by the Minister of Justice put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Munnik put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—30.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fordham, A. C.

Grobler, H. S.

Hattingh, B. R.

Heyns, J. D.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Nathan, E.

Naudé, A. S.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Visser, T. C.

Waterston, R. B.

Tellers: Roux, J. W. J. W.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—67.

Allen, J.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Barlow, A. G.

Bates, F. T.

Bergh, P. A.

Blackwell, L.

Brown, G.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Deane, W. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

Duncan, P.

Fick, M. L.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gibaud, F.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Jagger, J. W.

Keyter, J. G.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moffat, L.

Moll, H. H.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oost, H.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, N. J.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Strachan, T. G.

Stuttaford, R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Vermooten, O. S.

Vosloo, L. J.

Watt, T.

Wessels, J. B.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Roux put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—17.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Brink, G. F.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, J. H.

De Jager, A. L.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

Munnik, J. H.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Waterston, R. B.

Tellers: le Roux, S. P.; Roux, J. W. J. W.

Noes—69.

Allen, J.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Bates, F. T.

Bergh, P. A.

Blackwell, L.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, D. G.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

Duncan, P.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gibaud, F.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Jagger, J. W.

Keyter, J. G.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moffat, L.

Moll, H. H.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Nel, O. R.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oost, H.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, N. J.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Rider, W. W.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Sampson, H. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Strachan, T. G.

Stuttaford, R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H D.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Vermooten, O. S.

Vosloo, L. J.

Watt, T.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; Pienaar, B. J.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

With leave of committee, amendment proposed by Sir Thomas Watt was withdrawn.

Remaining amendments by Mr. Close and Mr. Wessels put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

New clause to follow Clause 111,

I move—

Agreed to.

On Clause 112,

I move—

The idea is twofold. Firstly, if you have a visitor having a meal with you at your hotel you can pay for his drink and, secondly, you can have drinks served to you in your own room in your hotel.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move—

The paragraph says that the provisions of this clause shall not apply to the sale of liquor in certain canteens. That includes, inter alia, bars of the defence force and of the police. Paragraph (3) says that in such bars, cash need not be paid. I think it is of great importance to the members of the defence force and the prison warders. I think it is in the interests of the young people that they shall not get credit in the bars. I shall be very glad if the Minister can accept my amendment. We know that the pay of those men is not very large and if they can get credit in the bars, it would be a great danger. I shall be very glad if the Minister will accept my amendment by which such alteration will be forbidden.

I think that I can agree to the amendment. I know more or less what the position in the police bars is and how payment is made by good-fors, and I think that there is no objection to the amendment.

I move as an amendment—

I just want to point out that the custom exists of signing ordinary IOU’s.

I cannot allow the amendment. I have already accepted an amendment by the Minister in the previous line. The hon. member can move it later.

Would there be any objection to my moving as an unopposed motion that the hon. member be allowed to move this?

The hon. member can move it at the report stage.

Amendment proposed by Dr. van Broekhuizen put and agreed to.

Clause as amended put and agreed to.

On Clause 114,

I move—

The amendment would be an excellent thing for the lawyers, for many summonses would have to go out for the payment of accounts. I do not think the amendment would be wise. The clause goes as far as we can go, and if anything the third month errs on the side of giving too short a period in which a bottle store keeper can recover his debts.

Supposing a merchant has £100, £200 or £300 in his books to the credit of a customer and the customer orders £50 or more worth of liquor, the merchant may not utilise that money for the payment of the account. If the merchant took £50 to pay the account with, the customer might demand a refund of the amount.

I will look into that.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 115,

The Commission was strongly pressed by the trade to insert this clause, against which I have no very strong feeling. The common law position is this—that an inn-keeper or a common carrier is an insurer. If you give your goods to a carrier it is his business to deliver them, and if they are lost he must make good the loss. The same position has existed from the earliest times of Roman law with regard to the innkeeper. If my goods are stolen from my room, the inn keeper is liable at common law. It has had the effect of making inn-keepers careful of the class of servant they choose. If the inn-keeper or the manager of the hotel so badly guarded the premises that goods were stolen, it was his job to make good the loss. It must be admitted cases have arisen where hotel-keepers have been victimized. Unscrupulous guests have gone into the hotel and claimed that valuable jewellery has been stolen. Of course, the guests must prove that they had the things, but I am prepared to believe cases have occurred and may occur in the future, if the clause is not put in, where hotel-keepers will be victimized. Of course, it is a question of balance of convenience. If the clause is passed, very serious detriment may result to guests at hotels. It is possible for a hotel-keeper who dislikes the provisions of the common law to contract out, by making the guests sign an indemnity. The common law says the proprietor of a hotel must bear the responsibility of guests’ property whilst in the hotel. Now the onus cast on the guests by this section will be difficult to discharge. He goes to the hotel and puts his goods in his room and goes out, and when he comes back they are gone. How is he to prove the loss of the goods was due to the act or wilful default of one of the servants of the hotel. I could appreciate this clause in connection with jewellery or cash. If a man leaves it in his own room instead of depositing it with the landlord, but I speak of ordinary things, such as suit-cases and books and things of that sort, which one takes to a hotel. Lose two suits of clothes and £20 has gone, or a couple of ladies’ valuable dresses, which you could not expect to be locked up, and £20 will not go anywhere. I view the clause with a certain amount of misgiving. It gives the protection to hotel-owners only, and for every hotel in South Africa, there is at least one private hotel or boarding house. Take the private hotels at Sea Point, which are largely patronized, or the large private hotel at which I stay at Rondebosch. They would have no protection and only the holder of a liquor licence will have this special protection. I invite the Minister’s attention to another thing in this clause. Normally at common law the onus is on the hotel-keeper. I lose important articles and I go to the court and declare that I had these articles and that I have lost them and the onus is on the hotel-keeper to show why he should not compensate the owner of the goods. In this clause, over £20, the onus is on the guest. Can you conceive a case where the onus under £20 would rest on the defendant and over that amount would rest on the complainant. I see difficulties in this clause, which is taken over from the English Act, and it might act very well in England, but I can see Gilbertian situations arising here. If a provision of this kind is necessary, it should apply all round. You should not give protection to the hotel-keeper which you do not give to the unlicensed private hotel and boarding house. More members of this House stay in unlicensed premises than in licensed premises and one section will get the full benefit of the protection of the common law, but if they live in licensed premises they may get £20, but not another penny, unless they discharge the onus cast upon them by this section. Every vigilant licensee can always get, and most do, the guests to contract him out of the liability under which he lies at common law.

It is always possible to contract out and it does happen in many cases. On the general point as to the difference between the hotel-keeper and the private hotel-keeper, there is this difference that greater burdens are cast on the licensees. You cannot compare the two. The hotel-keeper has a more drifting population than the private hotel or boarding house, and I think a clause of this kind is very essential. There have been many complaints in my department of losses sustained by licensees, and the department years ago, before I was in office, was asked to introduce legislation on this point. I have seen no complaints from boarding houses or private hotel keepers. The swindling of hotel-keepers is much greater than the swindling of private hotel-keepers. The difficulties with regard to the different ways in which the court must deal with the first £20 and the balance above it is more apparent than real. If a man makes a claim above £20 and loses his case, he will be mulcted in the cost for the larger amount. With regard to the hardships of the person who loses above £20, after all in most cases where these losses are brought up they are cases where a person leaves his room in an hotel and he does not lock the door.

Very often he cannot get keys.

Then that would at once be negligence on the part of the licensee. It would be negligence if he cannot give one something to secure one’s door, because certainly if you have a key and do not lock the door there is no doubt that that is negligence on the part of the person who occupies the room. I do not think I have heard of any case in which goods have been stolen from a room in an hotel of which the door was locked. It is a very real difficulty and a complaint of very long standing in regard to the condition of our law for hotels, and I think that we should remedy that position. I believe this clause will meet the position. Of course, we cannot in this Act deal with ordinary boarding houses and places of that kind.

I do not want to continue the discussion on this point. I merely want to move an amendment. I do not think it is in the most elegant form yet, but I think the Minister will accept it. I move—

This is to make it quite clear that up to £20 there is the common law liability which remains. I want to ask the Minister to consider this matter, which has been mentioned to me by a friend in the House. Should there not be, now that you have made this distinction in favour of the hotel-keeper, a provision prohibiting an hotel proprietor from contracting out up to £20. There is the common law liability up to £20, out of which he cannot contract. After that he has the protection of this clause. I think the Minister might very well agree to that proposal, otherwise what happens is this—you go to an hotel and they make you sign a book or form which relieves the proprietor of any liability, and the law itself relieves him of liability over £20 unless a certain onus can be discharged. I think up to £20 it is fair to ask the hotel-keeper to accept the common law liability, and not to say, “Unless you sign this form, we will not take you at all as a guest.”

I am prepared to accept the first amendment. I do not think the other one would be fair. After all, your swindler would be very prolific up to £20. I think you would probably find that the majority of cases arise within the £20.

I would like the Minister to be good enough, before the report stage, to consider this point, too. Thefts take place by the employees and also by visitors to the hotel. It is very hard for an hotel-proprietor to guarantee the honesty of his visitors to the hotel.

That is also covered by this case. It is a very important point.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 118,

I move—

That section lays down what constitutes separate premises. My amendment is to take the place of sub-section (2).

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause as amended put and agreed to.

On Clause 119,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 120,

I move—

This clause, as it stands, goes too far, in prohibiting your licensed places, your bottle stores and your wholesalers soliciting orders. That, in certain circumstances, has been abused. It is abused not perhaps so much in soliciting orders as in making sales. The Minister specially referred to a place like Hartebeestpoort, where they go from Pretoria really to sell liquor. We wish to assist the Minister to keep liquor away from Hartebeestpoort, the diggings and other parts, but you do not wish to prevent your licensees in any residential area from getting their orders. That is why I move this amendment, so that the Governor-General may specify in the proclamation areas where no orders could be solicited. I think that would give the Minister quite enough power. Then they can proclaim areas where they wish to keep out the liquor sellers who go into those areas ostensibly to solicit orders, but really to sell liquor.

It is, of course, not only in connection with places of that kind that we wish to stop canvassing. There is a good deal going on in the poorer parts of the towns, and we find at the end of the month that a man can easily have spent a lot of money. It is to prevent that position largely that this clause is inserted. There is one amendment I have to move—

We have made provision for brewers like the Stag Breweries, which are not allowed to cater to the trade, and your small brewer is finding it very difficult to compete with your larger breweries. I could refer to the Queenstown Brewery. Their article was supplied over the whole country at one time. To-day they are very much restricted in their selling operations, owing to the fact that your larger brewers and other liquor sellers have a large number of ties, and the Queenstown Brewery and other excellent little breweries are not obtaining the business they should have. As far as beer is concerned, there is not the danger you have with spirits. The small brewer’s only chance is to canvass the family places and places not tied. Beer does not form part of your illicit liquor seller’s paraphernalia. It is for these reasons I think we should make an exception, but as far as the stronger forms of drink are concerned, I think your bottle stores—I am speaking especially of them—should not do canvassing. The bottle stores in connection with places like the Hartebeestpoort dam and the collieries lying outside the towns, I refer to a place near Witbank, and at the Lichtenburg diggings and other parts of the country, have certainly acted very badly indeed, and I think we should generally prevent canvassing from taking place.

I wish to point out to the Minister that there are other dealers who are in exactly the same position as your small brewer. You have your small wholesaler doing a household trade. They sell South African products like dried fruit, and they also have a wholesale liquor licence and do a household trade. These people can do no harm, and that is why I think the Minister should discriminate, and he can very easily proclaim certain areas where they should not solicit orders and leave alone the other areas where no harm is done. Just the same as there is no harm in soliciting orders for beer, so there would be no harm in soliciting orders in your inland places like Fraserburg and Beaufort West, and those parts. We shall be doing a great deal of harm to those who are doing a household trade, just as brewers are doing a household trade, so in the same way, we ought to provide for wholesalers who are doing a household trade.

We have to do here with an important principle, viz., application for liquor licences. I can quite understand the view of those who would like to have a certain amount of control over unfair sale, but the clause, as it now reads, makes an unfair distinction between various people who sell liquor. At present the immediate tendency of the Bill is to put the sale more and more into the hands of the wholesalers, that is to say, the capitalists. But the retailers, of whom the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) has just been speaking, are a body who cannot be accused of abusing their privileges; they are not people who encourage the abuse of drink. As far as I know, there is not one case where those people can be accused, e.g., of furthering the illicit liquor traffic. If the Minister provides that certain restrictions shall be placed on all to control the trade, or if he should provide that the privileges of all shall be cancelled, then quite a lot could be said for it, but the Minister must not discriminate. I want him to particularly consider the position of the retailer, and I think that if he accepts the amendment of the hon. member for Worcester he goes a long way in meeting those people. The Minister will then not only do justice to the retailer, but something which will certainly greatly benefit the wine business. It is already laid down that that class of people may practically deal only in wine, and I hope the Minister will favourably consider the amendment.

The effect of the clause may be in this direction. The idea, generally speaking, is to bring the purchaser and the manufacturer in close touch with each other, and this may result in the farmer selling to the consumer at cheap rates. I am not moving anything, but I would like the Minister to consider whether that might not be the effect.

The farmer does not canvass.

This clause is to prevent what is a gross and absolute scandal in many of our large towns. There are holders of bottle liquor licences who employ men as travellers and touts to go from door to door and try and get orders for bottled liquor from housewives. The licensing courts in many places have reported adversely on this practice and the length to which it has grown. I agree with the Minister that this was not inserted to meet a local evil, but an evil of general extent in South Africa. If a wholesaler does a retail trade he must submit to the same regulations as a retailer—he becomes for the nonce a retailer. The Minister has rather weakened the clause by the insertion of this particular exception, but I can well understand the reason for doing that. I hope he is not going further. Without the Minister’s amendment, a particular institution might well have to close down.

I should like the Minister to tell me what clause 120 (c) means. It seems to me that hon. members who spoke about it understand it just as little as I do. Who are “they”, that are mentioned in paragraph (c)?

The word “they” refers to “offers for the purchase of liquor”.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Heatlie put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by Minister of Justice put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 122,

On the Order Paper on page 221 a series of amendments appear in the name of the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz), substituting one or two clauses to be found on page 222. Briefly, it comes to this, that these provisions are deleted, and certain modified provisions are inserted, to give security of tenure to lessees to a certain extent.

I may say that on this clause we test quite a number of clauses, because if the committee is against this clause we test all clauses up to 131 inclusive, because the first amendment of the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) is on Clause 132. The whole question for the committee to consider is whether it wants an extension of the provision for rentals of dwelling houses to hotels to the large extent we lay down in these clauses—or not. I cannot say I have any very strong opinion on the subject. There are, of course, difficulties both ways, and there are cases of lessees who are badly treated. This in a very marked degree shows how wise it is not to make this Bill a party measure. It is for every hon. member to exercise his own judgment, which is on an important point. Personally, I am going to vote for the clause.

After that very clear statement by the Minister, let me tell the committee what the commission did as regards the chapter. This chapter was in the original Bill and before the select committee of that year. We took voluminous evidence from protagonists of every point of view. It appeared to the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) and myself that these clauses were not justified, and that the provisions of this chapter were too drastic, and constituted an infringement on the right of contract which could not, under these circumstances, be justified. We have in the Bill interfered with the freedom of contract between individuals, but we did not think when excessive rentals are charged against tenants that this justifies the extremely drastic provisions in this chapter. A report on shop rents was submitted by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh), but it has never been touched from that day to this. The Government did nothing, and left that report in the pigeon hole—in the place where it belonged. Now it is proposed in the liquor trade alone to legislate on the lines of that report. This is not a question of temperance; it is not involved at all. Whether you favour the Hattingh report or not, this is not the place nor the opportunity for legislating for licensed houses alone. For every case of a hard luck story you can tell me for rentals charged for hotels, I can tell you 100 for shops. It is illogical to legislate in respect of the rents of hotels when there is no general Act to legislate as to the rents of shops as a whole. We had the opportunity some years ago, when we renewed and modified the Rent Act, relating to the rents of houses. We had a discussion whether that should be extended to business premises, and the Government decided not to do it. We are singling out one branch of the business world, and saying with regard to that that we are setting up a rent board to apply the extremely drastic measures you have here. It is wrong. If we pass this, and if I owned licensed premises and let them on a lease, say, at £100 a month, the licensee could go to the court and say they were worth only £50 a month. The court might accept his view and reduce the rent to £50. I might have passed over a man who would have been perfectly willing to pay £90 or £95 a month, and who would not have gone behind my back to have the rent reduced. The worst feature, however, is this—if I let the premises to a man for a year or two, he may, under the chapter, stay in them for 20 years and may set me at defiance, unless he is guilty of absolute misconduct. My premises may be worth £10,000, and I may let them for three years. The premises may double in value, but the rental would have remained the same. In no other sphere of the business world could such an anomalous state of affairs prevail. What we want is freedom of contract. Occasions may arise, however, where the necessities of the case are so overwhelming that the State may have to interfere, as it did during the war with regard to the rents of houses. This Bill will probably stabilize the liquor laws for 50 years, for it is exceedingly improbable that any other Minister of Justice will undertake such a formidable task for many many years to come. This clause is quite impracticable. The commission struck out the clause, and offered some relief to licensees who said they were at the mercy of unscrupulous landlords who may wish to throw them out because they have a tenant who is willing to pay more rent. Their position, however, is no worse than that of an ordinary tradesman who is unfortunate enough to have a grasping landlord.

I wish to raise a point of order. The full title of this measure is a Bill to consolidate and amend the laws for the control of the supply of intoxicating liquor. The Bill authorizes the establishment of a board for the consideration and determination of applications for or relating to the grant, renewal or transfer or removal of licences for the sale of liquor. Chapter 11 contains provisions relating to the leases of licensed premises and deals with excessive rentals. Do these provisions, Mr. Chairman, fall within the title?

That is a question which should have been raised before the House went into committee. All these clauses have been referred to the committee, and I have to put them.

Perhaps you will guide me as to when I can raise this point, as it is a most important one. I agree with every point put forward by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). I am totally opposed to the report on shop rents. I believe the Minister would be very glad if the clause were struck out. If the clause is passed, the licensing courts will have to decide whether a rental is excessive. These courts may be able to consider and decide whether a man is a proper person to hold the licence and whether the premises are suitable, but when it comes to the question of whether the rents are excessive, it is asking too much to expect that that point can be settled by a magistrate and several laymen who may be indirectly interested in other properties.

That applies to the rent board, too.

Quite so. The Rent Act applies only to private dwellings, but the time may come when efforts will be made to induce the Government to extend the principle to other buildings.

This is one of the most objectionable clauses in the Bill and should never have been introduced. We have dragged in the Wage Act and the Colour Bar, and now we are bringing in the Rent Act.

The Colour Bar is in the Bill now.

An hotel proprietor may have several people applying for his premises. A most unsuitable tenant with the powers under this chapter might offer an extremely high rental for the premises and get occupation. After he has been in occupation for some time he goes before the Rent Board and get a reduced rental, and the landlord finds he has lost a good tenant and got a very bad one instead. I hope the Minister will vote wholeheartedly against the clause himself. It interferes with the premises, it irritates the landlord, and it interferes with the type of tenants.

I want to add my views to those who have spoken with regard to this clause. This is a kind of omnibus Bill, and not a Liquor Bill. We have passed a clause restricting the right of merchants to refuse to sell goods to an individual if he objects to him, and now we are bringing in a confiscatory clause, a property confiscatory clause. As it stands here, it practically confiscates the rights of any owner of licensed property. The tenant comes into your property at a certain rental, and, immediately after entering into a five years’ agreement, he can go to the Rent Board and ask for a reduction of the rent, and he need not give any reason whatever why he offered and entered into a lease at a high rent. He has simply got to deal with what the property cost the individual who bought it. After once getting into the property nothing in the world can get him out. If the owner decided that he wanted to give up holding property with a liquor licence and desired to cancel the liquor licence, even that right is taken away. After the tenant’s five years’ lease is over the tenant is in this position—that, if the value of the property has gone down, he can say to the landlord: “Take your property back. I don’t want it.” But if the value has gone up, although the agreement is finished and the lease completed, the tenant can say to the landlord that the value has gone up and he has, therefore, made up his mind to keep it. He can not only keep it for another period of five years, but for the whole of his life, and if he thinks he is going to die he can transfer it to another person, and the landlord has no right in the property. The property is confiscated to the tenant. I recognize this clause is put in to satisfy the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) and the gentlemen on the cross-benches. I say, however ridiculous the report of the hon. member for Krugersdorp was, this is more ridiculous. This has out Heroded Herod. It has nothing whatever to recommend it, because hon. members with socialistic leanings have this on their side that when they confiscate the rights of private property the State has the benefit, and there was something to be said for that, but in this case you confiscate the money from one set and hand it over to another set of men. There is no equity or reason in that. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) mentioned the Rent Restriction Act as applied to domestic dwellings was brought in under exceptional circumstances. It is doubtful whether that has done much good. It is very doubtful whether it has not hindered the erection of dwelling houses, and, instead of reducing rentals, has increased them. There is, however, a vast difference between these two classes of property. In the ordinary domestic dwelling the rent is dependent on the cost of the building, but in the case of business premises the rent is largely charged on the value of the site. For instance, in Cape Town you might have a site worth £15,000 to £20,000, and the building upon it might only be worth £5,000. The cases are diametrically opposite. Further, there are always ample sites for premises for whoever wants to erect them. There is no reason whatever for confiscating the property of practically every owner of licensed premises in South Africa, I must say I am surprised at the Minister treating the clause with any respect whatever. I admit he treated it with very little respect, but I was astonished at the Minister giving it the slightest favour. I suggest to the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) if he is going to confiscate property, then give the swag to the State, and not to another set of men. I hope the Minister will wipe out everything in this chapter. It is wrong in its essence.

I do not want to follow the very ridiculous arguments of the hon. member. He does not appear to have made any study of the question. I have not the evidence before me, and these people were unwilling to give evidence if it was to be published. There is undoubted evidence in every corner of South Africa, even in small villages, that people in the liquor trade pay very much higher rent for buildings than in any other line of business. Why should a man, because there is a bottle store in a building, or it is used as a bar, have the special privilege of getting a higher rent than any other man for the same class of building on the same site. I hope hon. members on this side of the House, and on the cross-benches, will not allow themselves to be misled by those who favour the man who has, rather than those who have to make a living. They have tried in every way in this Bill to protect those who need no protection from anybody, but as for the man who is down, the man who has to fight for his living, they say: “Let us take out of him as much as we possibly can.” In parentheses, I would say this—that it might be time to control the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) in selling his wares. I will leave that alone. There is abundant evidence that the rents for licensed premises are very much higher than for the same class of building in other lines of business in this country. At the same time, the Minister provides for that. There is the premium system, and it has been exercised till last year in Johannesburg, and very likely in Cape Town and all over. A man comes along and wants to have a bottle licence, or something of that kind. He finds the correct building for that purpose, but the landlord says to him: “You may have my premises for a period of three years, but then I want you to pay me a premium of so much,” perhaps £500 or £1,000. It all depends on the trade that may be done there. Then, apart from that, they have that very excessive rent to pay. After the three years, when they have to renew that lease, the owner says: “Because you have built up a good business, and you have a very big turnover at that place, I want you to pay me a bigger premium before you get that place again for another three years.” They never bind themselves at the outset for a renewal on the same conditions and terms.

Do you agree that that should be applied to farmers?

If they ask excessive prices, why not? But they don’t. They are not squeezers. Now you have got this premium system and, apart from the second premium and the third premium, they always increase the rent if the man is building up a good business. These capitalists over there cry when they are touched a little in the case of rents, but they don’t worry to squeeze out of the other man as much as is possible. They always try to get as much as possible. That man in a small building has built up his business and made a success of it, and then comes the landlord, who says: “I want a share in your brains, your labour, your work, because you have had my building.” Why should a man for a dead building, which has no brains whatever, come along and ask his share for that work and that labour?

What about a dead farm?

There are no dead farms; they all produce. Then there is another thing. They have the goodwill system. When a man sells his business all these things are brought in. The landlord comes along and says: “With your business after three years you have got a goodwill of £3,000. I want some part of that goodwill.” Why should people who go in for the trade not be protected? All the police evidence is practically unanimous right through the country in favour of controlling the rents of licensed premises. They find this—that several of these people who pay such high rents have to go in for illicit liquor dealing to make ends meet. That is the police evidence; I do not give it as my own evidence. It comes from the Chief of Police in Cape Town and elsewhere. These reasons may not be right, they may be wrong. The remark of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) is ridiculous. The Minister of Justice must have been ridiculous twice, because, in the first instance, he placed this clause in the Bill, then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) came and took out these clauses, and then the Minister put them back. Not only that, but the “Rand Daily Mail,” the “Sunday Times” and the “Star” had columns applauding this report and advising the Government to act upon it as soon as possible. Take the advice of your own papers and your own leaders and follow your own leaders.

I cannot understand the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh). I always thought that as the one man commission he had investigated the leases of buildings. How this clause has got into the Bill I cannot understand. Whether the people who drafted the Bill have been well treated I do not know. The clause is superfluous. We have the rents board, and when the rent is too high the people can go to the rents board.

I cannot understand the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh). Here he comes with a plea for taking away owners’ rights. I am always opposed to the taking away of owners’ rights. Unfortunately, the last Government adopted the principle, but, personally, I always opposed it. The hon. member for Krugersdorp mentions how well the “Star” and other papers reported him. I am sorry he does not oftener listen to those papers instead of only here where it happens to suit him. His argument is inexplicable to me. They are people who make big profits, and it is not necessary to legislate for them. I hope the Minister will withdraw the clause which ought not to be in the Bill. Let those people go to the rents board if they think they are paying too much rent. Let us try to keep our people independent as much as possible. The hon. member for Krugersdorp now wants to protect those people as if they cannot look after themselves when they make a contract, and as if they would not look after their own interests. The people want to pay low rents for the whole of their lives, and now the hon. member says that the rents are too high, and that the people cannot pay them. I do not think there is one trade which makes greater profits than the liquor trade. They look after themselves and will see that they do not pay too much.

Clause put and the committee divided:

Ayes—15.

Brown, G.

De Villiers, P. C.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fordham, A. C.

Hattingh, B. R.

Le Roux, S. P.

McMenamin, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, P. W le R.

Visser, T. C.

Waterston, R. B.

Tellers: Alexander, M.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—83.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Ballantine, R.

Basson, P. N.

Bates, F. T.

Bergh, P. A.

Blackwell, L.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brits, G. P.

Buirski, E.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Duncan, P.

Fick, M. L.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gibaud, F.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Jagger, J. W.

Keyter, J. G.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, H. H.

Munnik, J. H.

Nathan, E.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oost, H.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pienaar, B. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Pretorius, N. J.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Steytler, L. J.

Stuttaford, R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, O. S.

Vosloo, L. J.

Watt, T.

Wessels, J. B.

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

Clause accordingly negatived.

Clauses 123 to 128 are consequential, and should, therefore, be negatived.

Clauses 123 to 128 put and negatived.

On Clause 129,

I think this is a clause that might be retained. It deals with a difficult class of case where the licensing court intimates that it will refuse to renew a licence unless substantial structural repairs are made, and this clause lays down how the responsibility is to be shared between the owner and the licensee.

I think this is a very necessary clause, and that, after we have slaughtered so many innocents lately, I think we might keep this one.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 130,

This is consequential on 129 and we must retain a portion of it. There is an amendment on page 221 by the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz), which amendment I move—

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause 131 put and negatived.

On Clause 132,

Now comes in the new clause which the commission put in and which I wish to re-insert, but I will move that when the House resumes.

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

I move—

That the following be a new Clause 132:

132.

1. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any contract of lease, the tenancy of any hired premises upon which is carried on the business of an on-consumption licence—
   1. (a) shall, if the tenancy began before the commencement of this Act, endure for at least 12 months after such commencement and if the tenancy begins after such commencement, endure for at least 12 months after such beginning of tenancy;
   2. (b) shall not terminate save after six calendar months’ notice of such termination given in writing by the lessor to the lessee:

   Provided that if the lessor proves to the satisfaction of the licensing board at an annual meeting or of the chairman and any two members of the board at any time that the lessee-—

   1. (i) has during the tenancy been convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine; or
   2. (ii) has during the tenancy been convicted under this Act or under a law repealed thereby and sentenced to pay a fine of 50 pounds or more; or
   3. (iii) has during the tenancy been convicted two or more times of an offence under this Act or under a law repealed thereby; or
   4. (iv) has done or is doing material damage to the premises; or
   5. (v) is conducting his business in a manner which is calculated seriously to prejudice the lessor or endanger the continued existence of the licence,
      the board or the chairman and two members, as the case may be, after giving to the lessee such notice as it or they may deem fit and considering any representations by him showing cause to the contrary, may by writing under the hand of the chairman authorize the termination of the lease on any date specified in such writing and under any conditions set forth therein.
   1. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) contained snail be deemed to affect the provision of subsection (3) of section 129.

I would like to explain the purpose of this clause and the reason for its introduction. Having decided to scrap the whole of Chapter XI, the commission proceeded to see how far it could by reasonable compromise meet the position of those licensees who complained that at the will of the landlord they were very often turned out neck and crop, summarily, without having any redress. In order to meet that position as far as, in the opinion of the commission, it could legitimately be met, we drafted this new Clause 132, which gives the tenant of licensed premises a security of tenure in his premises for a minimum of 12 months. The State gives him a licence to sell liquor for 12 months and, therefore, we thought it reasonable to give him a tenure of his premises equal at least to 12 months. In sub-section (b) are certain provisions in regard to the termination of the tenancy and the notice to be given. It has been represented to me by the representatives of the breweries that to have this provision would really be to dislocate the whole of their business. To make all their leases terminate on one day of the year would, they say, be an impracticable provision. I would, therefore, amend my amendment so as to make Section (b) read “shall not terminate save after six calendar months’ notice of such termination given in writing by the lessor to the lessee,” so that the provision of this clause will be 12 months’ tenure secure and six months’ notice. The six months, of course, can commence after six months of the tenancy. The rest of the clause is taken up with provisions protecting the landlord in case his tenant turns out to be an unsuitable tenant and is guilty of any of the actions therein mentioned. I think both sections of the trade have been fairly dealt with in this matter, and I understand the brewers are prepared to agree to this. Of course, that section of the trade which complains would naturally have preferred to have the Minister’s chapter, but seeing that has gone by the board, they will be glad to have this as being half a loaf instead of no bread. Therefore, I move the clause standing in my name with the alteration as mentioned.

Before the Minister deals with the matter, I would bring to the notice of the committee what seems to me a very serious defect in this amendment. Supposing a lease were in existence and had still live or ten years to run. This does not seem to make provision for that.

At least 12 months.

It seems the hon. gentleman and his committee thought of leases which were less than 12 months, and not of leases which were still running and had to run for a longer period than 12 months. I do not think this has been sufficiently considered. That is how I read it. Then I would point out that this is interfering with the administration of the courts of justice. Surely if there is something wrong as between lessor and lessee, the parties should have the right to resort to a court of justice. Here provision is made in sub-section (b) for the lessee to appeal to the licensing board at the annual meeting or to the chairman and two members of the board. It does not say that the chairman and two members shall be present at the same time and consider the matter. A lessee may go to the chairman and thereafter go separately to members of the board. I am not going to move any amendment, although I am opposed to this clause, but I throw out the suggestion for the consideration of the Minister and of the hon. member.

New clause put and agreed to.

Clause 133 put and negatived.

Heading “(E) Goodwill.” put and negatived.

On Clause 134,

As hon. members will have seen, I have an amendment to this clause on the Order Paper, but I must say I am not entirely satisfied with either the original or the amendment. There are so many difficulties in connection with the matter, and I do not know if I have seen them all. To mention some, it may be that your tenant takes his goodwill and obtains a business in the neighbourhood. I think that at the least I require further time to go into the matter and, with the leave of the committee, I would move that the clause stand over.

I thought it went out consequentially with the others.

I do not think goodwill has anything to do with the other clauses. It is another point. I want to consider whether it is possible to have the amended version or whether, if I cannot get what I want, I should proceed with the clause. I move—

Agreed to.

On Clause 135,

I move—

This amendment is one that the farming community especially are very anxious to have. I have had representations from a large number of farming associations who will be greatly affected if this is not allowed.

I would like the Minister to give us a little more information. This clause is one of the vital clauses in the Bill—dealing with the brewing of those various concoctions from yeast—and no one is more strong on this than the Minister. I do not know what malted kaffir corn is. We did our best to make this an absolutely watertight clause, and to try to put an end, as far as could be done, to the evils that result from the brewing of liquor by natives from yeast, and its various compounds. I do not want to do harm to the farmers, but I do want to stop the sale of illicit liquor.

It is what the native uses as a food. It is impossible to delete it. Our whole native population on the farms would get into trouble. They have drunk it for centuries and centuries.

I think we are doing it in exactly the same way as with yeast, and yeast is more dangerous in the Transvaal than malted kaffir corn. If it is sufficient in the case of yeast it is sufficient in the case of malted kaffir corn. I think yeast is the danger, and not malted kaffir corn—apart from its being an ordinary food.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 137,

As far as the next part is concerned, I understand there are hon. members who are not prepared on the questions raised in the next few paragraphs, with regard to kaffir beer—from Clause 137 to Clause 142 inclusive. I move—

Agreed to.

Heading “(C) Wine and Beer Shops for Asiatics and Coloured Persons.” put and negatived.

On Clause 143,

I have, on the Order Paper, a motion for the deletion of this clause. I simply ask the committee to vote against the clause.

I consider it one of the great virtues of the Bill that the sale of drink should come more and more under State control. I think no one any longer doubts that where there is State control of the sale of liquor instead of private control drunkenness has diminished. It was one of the characteristics of the Bill, in my opinion, that the State should more and more take on itself the responsibility for the sale of liquor. It is not my intention nor, I believe, is it that of any individual member in the House, to increase the use of liquor. I do not think that any member of the House wants to push the sale of liquor at the expense of the material and moral welfare of any part of our population and, as we are now engaged on a great Bill which has already been postponed for years, perhaps from nervousness to tackle it, although it is highly necessary, we now have the opportunity of proving that we seriously want to tackle the sale of liquor, because it has been a great evil in the past, and may continue to be so in the future. I want to repeat that in countries where State control of the sale of liquor has been introduced, as in Sweden and in England, during the war, beneficial results have undoubtedly been obtained, while under different systems, the sale of this article would have come into bad odour. As we have to do here with a large number of natives and coloured people who are already accustomed to the use of liquor—I am thinking particularly of the natives from Portuguese territory and the large number of coloured people in the Cape who have got accustomed to taking drink. It is also a well-known fact that there is a very great illicit liquor trade on the Rand where the custom has not been confined to taking wine. As we have the opportunity in this clause to improve the position, the State must not try to evade its duty. If the State is not prepared to take charge of the sale, I think the State or the Government and successive governments will have to bear the responsibility. You, Mr. Chairman, served on a commission which recommended that the evils of the drink traffic could not be controlled without State control. We have the proof of it to-day. Conditions have become worse since the issue of that report. Convictions have increased and the position has become more difficult and complicated from day to day. The finding of the committee is therefore confirmed by practice and as the whole world is becoming more and more convinced that, where there is a need of drink it must be supplied by light drink, particularly light wines, so there is the opportunity here of the State proving that it wants to use the opportunity to take control of the sale of liquor. I need not say that light wine is the least injurious liquor because it is universally known. It is often laid down that persons have not suffered the slightest damage, material or spiritual, by the use of light wine. I regret this as a citizen of the country and as a responsible member of the House that where the State has an opportunity of taking charge of the sale of liquor, it is evading its responsibility by the withdrawal of the clause.

I have an amendment to this clause, but I am thankful the Minister is withdrawing the clause, and I also withdraw my amendment.

Clause, as amended, put and negatived.

On Clause 144,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 145,

I move—

Certain medicines which do not contain alcohol may be intoxicating, for instance, if they contain chloroform. I suggest that we use the words “liquor or intoxicating.”

I do not think the alteration is necessary, for the question of chloroform is dealt with separately. The governing part of the clause says that the Governor-General shall declare which medicines shall be deemed to be intoxicating, and I think that puts the whole matter straight.

Can the Governor-General make regulations preventing the supply of these medicines in a location or native-village?

The clause is for restriction.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 146,

I understand that the general idea is to prevent the illicit sale of liquor, but that is well provided for in Clause 149. I have a letter from a wholesale liquor firm in Cape Town pointing out that the clause will interfere with legitimate business, as they will not be allowed to sell more than two gallons without having to go to the police for a permit. There are many people in Cape Town who buy beer, whisky and wine by the case. I am assured that the clause will interfere very seriously with ordinary legitimate wholesale business.

I move—

There is a certain consumption of liquor in both Johannesburg and Pretoria, and we have had this provision which the hon. member objects to for a considerable period, but I have not noticed that it has hampered business, and I do not think the consumption of liquor will be greater here than in Johannesburg.

Books of permits are issued to reputable people.

The regulation has been in force in the Transvaal since 1903, and we have had no complaints, and there has been no movement to have it altered.

In those cases in which farmers are sending their wine into Cape Town by motor lorry, as the Government railways do not seem to want to carry it, I suppose permits will have to be obtained.

Yes, it costs nothing to get a permit.

I should like the Minister to explain what the amendment means, and how far it takes you.

It means anywhere within an urban area liquor cannot be conveyed from one point to another at any time or in any part without a permit. All these matters must be governed by permits.

And in a rural area?

Yes, and in a rural area also.

I see the most serious difficulties for wine farmers if this section were to be passed as it stands, and I think my amendment provides for these difficulties. You might have a wine farmer living in Paarl, Stellenbosch or Montagu, inside the urban area, and he cannot deliver without a permit. A man might be delivering his crop to a distiller or wholesaler. He was freed from irksome conditions when he sold under section 6, but now he must have a permit. Why?

Because a lot of wine is used in illicit traffic.

You have ever so many areas where there is no illicit traffic at all. Why group them all in this irksome permit condition? Take another case. A farmer orders a five gallon case of wine, say, somewhere in the district from Fraserburg Road station. He has to have a permit stating who is in charge of the liquor. Well, the railway department will be in charge of the liquor until it gets to Fraserburg Road, and then it will be taken by a carrier. How can he then say who the person is who has charge of the liquor? Some of the conditions are impossible as required in this section, and you will unnecessarily hamper legitimate trade very much. My amendment, if accepted, ought to satisfy all parties, viz.—

That is, that where it is desirable to prevent liquor from falling into the hands of illicit dealers, it could still be delivered by permit. In the other areas, where there is no such trouble, it could move freely. My amendment further reads—

That means where farmers sell to wholesalers it cannot go into the hands of illicit traders. You allow the liquor from one licensee to another to pass freely without permit, but here you restrict the wine farmer who delivers to a licensee or a wholesaler.

But everybody will say he is delivering to a wholesaler, and nobody can check it.

Supposing he is not a legitimate wine farmer?

But he will have to get a permit for each lorry load.

Why not; he can get a dozen permits at a time.

I think these sweeping changes for permits everywhere is going too far, and the Minister is asking too much. As I said, if a man has to deliver to a farmer in the Free State, say from Kroonstad station to Mr. Venter, who is living in the district. The railway will carry it to Kroonstad, but some outside carrier will take it from the station, and all this must be under permit.

That man up there gets another permit.

Then you are making other difficulties. It is not necessary where you have liquor delivered to country districts where you have no illicit dealing. I cannot see the necessity for this. I can only say that it is going to cause an enormous amount of hampering to the trade, because you have had illicit dealing in Johannesburg and you have got illicit dealing here in the Peninsula. We want that done away with, but we do not see why the whole of the trade should be hampered all over the country. Then you have a person selling under a wine farmer’s licence. You are going to have this anomaly, that the wine farmer living inside an urban area has to get a permit, and the wine farmer living outside an urban area has not to get a permit. The wine farmer delivering his crop to a wholesaler, if he is inside an urban area, has to have a permit, but if he is outside an urban area, he is to have no permit. If it is to stop illicit liquor dealing, why should they have a permit only for that stuff which is delivered from inside an urban area? I really think that the Minister ought to accept my amendment, which I think meets the case sufficiently well. If it is desired to proclaim areas where liquor cannot be delivered into, then proclaim those areas, but do not restrict and hamper the trade over the whole country and farmers in their deliveries.

I was mistaken in saying that our ordinance of the Transvaal has been in force since 1903. It has been in force since 1906. It has, since 1906, done an enormous amount of good so far as the conveyance of intoxicating liquor, which is used for illicit purposes, is concerned. I cannot see any difficulty in regard to these permits in the case of farmers. If it were possible to make that exception, we, all of us in this House, are prepared to treat the farmer, the producer, on a different basis to anybody else, but if you take Cape Town, I am told that you have a considerable number of people buying wine from the farmers and taking it into Cape Town as one of the principal supplies of the shebeens in Cape Town. We are going to do something to deal with that evil if the wine farmer has also to get permits the same as anybody else, or the man who gets his wine from the farmer. A good deal of the type of trouble that was caused by the Cloete Act will also be obviated by legislation of this description. We have had practical experience in the Transvaal. We know that that has worked well in practice. What will happen here where you have substantial farmers is that it will be no trouble whatever. They will have a book of permits, the same as is granted in the Transvaal, and they will have no trouble. There is no harm whatever in this provision, but there is an enormous amount of good in it. The hon. member (Mr. Heatlie), I think, misinterprets. The idea is that this should be in force in all urban areas throughout South Africa. There is this potential danger, and we ought to nip that danger in the bud. As far as (b) is concerned, if one knew that drink was going to a wholesaler under Section 6 (2), and it is being taken there by a cart or a lorry, one could introduce that, but there is nothing to show a policeman stopping that cart that that drink is going to a wholesaler. How is the unfortunate policeman to tell from the type of drink which is on the cart that it is going to a wholesaler and not to a shebeen?

The Minister has not explained yet what will actually be required. I will take my own district. You have got Rawsonville, about 10 miles out from Worcester, which is an urban area. A person living inside Rawsonville must have a permit, but a person living outside Rawsonville can send the wine without a permit.

Not if it goes through an urban area. The final destination of most of the drink is an urban area.

As the Bill is here, it says: “From an urban area.”

The amendment cleared that up. It says “in an urban area.”

Still, I do think that the Minister ought to allow these deliveries which have been allowed under Section 6 (2) to be delivered freely without any permit. As it appears to me, we have got this anomalous position, that the wine farmer living inside an urban area, has to have a permit, while the wine farmer living outside an urban area is to have no permit; why worry the farmer with permits when he delivers to a wholesaler?

I must say that to a great extent I have a considerable amount of sympathy with the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) in this matter. In the first place, the paint that the Minister makes that it has been in force in the Transvaal and been very satisfactory there really does not apply here. In the Transvaal there is practically no wine farming industry. There is some stuff sometimes called wine made there, but the wine farming industry down here and the conditions here are quite different. I see quite clearly that the wine farmer is going to have considerable difficulty in getting these permits. The Minister seems to think that every wine farmer is within two minutes of the urban area police station, but I can assure him that in many cases it means five to ten miles to get their permits. There is another point I would like to make. The Minister points out that no policeman would be able to stop a wagon and know that the wine or liquor was meant for a wholesaler or for licensed premises, but I do suggest that that is rather a reflection on the wine farmer. The Minister is quite satisfied that if a man holds a wholesale liquor licence he is, as an hon. member here says, a gentleman, and will not humbug the public and police. He is allowed to move the stuff about and has only to say, when a policeman stops him: “I am going to take this to another licence holder.” In sub-section (5) it says—

That is governed by Section 149.

I don’t care what it is governed by, but it is quite clear that this does not apply to the holder of a wholesale licence or a brewer’s licence. I do suggest one amendment to the Minister, and that is to insert after “brewer’s licence” the words “or of a wine farmer’s licence,” and then, at any rate, the wine farmer will be able to bring his product into the village and deliver it to the wholesaler, to whom he has sold the wine, without a permit. That will put the wine farmer on the same basis as any other holder of a licence. I will move that. I do not suggest that that does full justice to the case, but, at any rate, it minimizes, to a certain extent, the difficulties of the wine farmer in the matter. Personally, it seems to me that if the Minister had not moved that amendment which he has just moved, this difficulty would not have arisen. I move—

I think the hon. member has given me a very important hint, and I move—

The same argument I used with regard to that other conveyance applies with equal force here. I do not accept the other amendment of my hon. friend.

May I point out to the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) that if he is anxious to assist the wine farmers he is not helping them very much by this particular amendment. The class of inconvenience represented by the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) is not the inconvenience which would be suffered by the holder of a wine farmer’s licence, but by a wine farmer as such. They need not necessarily be the same person. The class of business affected by sub-section (6) (2) is entirely different from that done by the holder of a wine farmer’s licence. He does not get that licence for selling to the trade at all. He does not need a licence to sell to the trade. He only gets a wine farmer’s licence to sell to the public direct. So the hon. member for Newlands’ amendment is not at all germane to sub-section (5). and I trust he will not move it. Sub-section (5) was put in—I see the Minister has taken alarm—really because delivery by a brewer or holder of a wholesale liquor licence is always done in the regular course of trade and in regular vehicles of these people, and that is governed by Section 149, which provides that the liquor must be accompanied by a delivery note.

No. Subsection (2) of Section 149 does not require anything at all. I want to get that out too.

Do I understand the Minister is moving out sub-section (5)? Surely there was some reason for putting it in originally.

The argument of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) is very strong on that point.

Certain people can be supplied with permit books and that lends itself to an evasion of the law.

Not the decent people.

It is very often under the cloak of decency that illicit liquor dealing is carried on. One should say something in defence of the wholesale dealers who are, under this sub-section, allowed to deliver to the licensed premises of any licensee. I hope the Minister will think it over very carefully before he has the clause deleted. The hon. member for Newlands says the wine manufactured in the Transvaal is very bad.

I did not say that.

I know a very reputable gentleman who manufactures very good wine. I am referring to Mr. M. A. Zocola. If the hon. member says he did not mean it was very bad, I am prepared to accept his statement.

I hope the Minister will reconsider this point; paragraph 5 must remain and the amendment of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) ought to be withdrawn. The clause is bad enough as it is. If a wholesaler sends his wagon out and has to take out a permit for every two-gallon barrel it will be an impossible position. When will he get finished with his work?

One permit for everything.

If he has to deliver at half a dozen places, does he need a permit for each place?

One permit.

But the wine farmer must have a permit every time he delivers a little wine.

Hon. members will possibly be surprised at my talking about wine, yet, I also am a wine farmer’s son and know something about it. It seems unfair to me. We in the Free State produce thousands of bags of mealies which we have to remove; these farmers in the Western Province produce hundreds of leaguers of wine which they must remove to the village. How can they get a permit each time? What about the people who must go a long way for the permit every time? It will cause a lot of bother.

I have not noticed other sections of the liquor industry quite so restless as to these restrictions as hon. members representing the wine farmers. If we chastize them with whips we chastize the trade with scorpions. The latter has made far less noise—I do not know whether they dare—at their chastizement than the wine farmers have done over a simple provision of this sort. All he has to do under this is to go to the police and say he is ready to lift his output; it is going to be sent to so-and-so, and they will give a permit for the whole operation.

I cannot understand from the debate whether the wine farmers come under this clause. It says—

It seems to me that the permits only apply to people within towns or a municipal area. I should like to know from the Minister if it is only the man in an urban area who needs the permit. Then I want to move an amendment—

It is true that the farmer who lives along the railway has little trouble in getting the removal permit, but why should the farmer suffer that humiliation, because he regards it as humiliating when he constantly has to go to the police for a removal permit. I want to move that only the man who sells his wine to a dealer may remove it in larger quantity.

I would be prepared on a point of compromise to withdraw my motion to delete sub-section (5), and would be prepared to accept (b) of the amendment of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie). I want that to be accepted as a compromise now. I prefer the way in which I have drafted the clause, which is better. I want to stop the discussion, otherwise we will be chasing wine farmers all over the country this evening. We in the Transvaal have to get permits, and I do not consider it a humiliation. The mentality of the wine farmers must be different from that of every other person.

After the Minister’s statement, with the leave of the committee, I will withdraw the whole of my amendment with the exception of sub-section (b). I want to stop discussion, but I would like to say a few words to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). The wine farmers have given up their right of free selling under the Act of 1883, under which they have been selling in any quantity and to any person they could sell unrestrictedly, and they have agreed to the repeal of the Cloete Act, under which they could sell without taking out a licence, and still the hon. member says we wine farmers are unwilling to give up anything—we have given up a great deal. I think the ally of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has taken up more of the time of the House than anybody else. We value his assistance, but he must recognize that there are other points of view than his.

With leave of committee, amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice, to omit subsection (5), and amendments proposed by Mr. Heatlie and Mr. Stuttaford withdrawn.

Will you not, Mr. Chairman, put the amendment I have moved?

I thought the hon. member had also withdrawn his amendment in view of the compromise.

I could not quite follow the various motions, but if the altered clause has the same meaning and effect as my amendment, I will withdraw it.

I move—

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Justice and Mr. Heatlie put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 148,

According to the clause, it is forbidden and punishable for Europeans to be in possession of, or to take, wine into a location or native territory; but it seems to me that the case of white persons who live in such a native territory or location was not thought of. I am thinking, e.g., of a large location in my district. A large number of people travel through it, have shops there, there is a large police station, there are stock inspectors, there is a large native commissioner’s office, and I think it is no more than right to add a proviso to the clause excluding these white persons, and, therefore, I move—

When it is a question of travelling through a location I have no objection, but the amendment affects the case of a European who lives in a native location as a native, or even if he is a trader in a native location and he is allowed to have liquor there, it will result in drinking parties with the natives in the location. I would accept the hon. member’s motion if it merely referred to a man casually going through the area, because everybody goes by road through a location from time to time, but it would be serious for anyone living in the area to have drink in his possession.

Those are only rare exceptions. I do not believe that there are many such persons in my district. I cannot remember one. But there are several Europeans employed at the native commissioner’s office and in the police, and it is surely not the intention to exclude these people.

But the Europeans who live among the natives as natives, are for the purposes of this Bill not natives, but Europeans. We must not make exceptions. We may possibly permit people who travel through it to possess liquor, but we ought not to go further.

With regard to the point of the traveller, the Minister will see by the wording of the section no traveller will be inconvenienced, because the wording is that no person shall introduce liquor into a location. No traveller passing through with a bottle of whisky in his car could be considered to be introducing liquor into a location, and no court in the country would convict in such a case. I agree with the Minister on the other proposal, that it will destroy the utility of this clause which aims at making it impossible for liquor to be taken into a location. This clause is passed in the interest of the native, and any Europeans who live in the native areas are either whites gone native, or Europeans living in the area because of the natives, either trading with them or acting either as doctor or teacher of the natives. If he so chooses to live amongst them, he must submit himself to the same conditions of total prohibition imposed on the natives.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) spoke about people who go there, but what of the people who live there? We must surely admit that it will be a strange position for the native commissioner and his clerks, the sergeant of police and his men, dip inspectors and shopkeepers, against whom nothing can be said, to be entirely prohibited to possess any liquor in their homes. That is surely not fair. I think that my amendment will be harmless and fair towards those people.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 150,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 170,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 175,

I move—

To omit paragraph (c) and to substitute the following new paragraph:

1. (c) sell as a particular kind or brand or as the manufacture of a particular person liquor which is not of that kind or brand or is not the manufacture of such person, unless he satisfies the court that he was not a party to, and had no knowledge of, the fact and had no means of detecting or preventing it.

In line 33, on page 112, to omit “104 or”.

To add the following new paragraph to follow paragraph (s):

1. (t) save for some reason deemed to be satisfactory by the magistrate trying the charge (the onus of proving which shall be upon the accused) refuses or fails if the holder of an hotel liquor licence to provide lodging for any person demanding it, or, if the holder of a restaurant liquor licence or an hotel liquor licence, to provide any meal for any person demanding it.

Are you dropping (c).

I am putting something in place of (c).

Yes, but it is something quite different.

I am dropping old (c). It has been put to me that in the course of his duty a policeman has to go to these places, and a policeman is always on duty whether in uniform or not. I think it is better to leave it without this. The police are having no trouble in regard to that.

The Minister gave his reasons for dropping old (c) in rather a peculiar form. He said that a policeman was always on duty whether in or out of uniform. We had the same difficulty. A policeman may always be on duty, but he is not always in uniform, and therefore in order to meet that case, and after going carefully through the evidence and hearing what the police people had to say, we altered it to make it an offence to supply any member of the police force in uniform.

You have officers going to these places.

One must observe a certain amount of proportion in these matters. This is in the existing Acts. The whole idea is to stop the treating of members of the police force by licensees. The matter was thoroughly thrashed out by the commission, and they altered it from “on duty” to “in uniform.”

You have a large portion of your force, all your detective force, never in uniform. That means that a man who is not in uniform is entitled to have a drink with his meal or without his meal if he wishes, but a man in uniform cannot have a drink. Formerly your officers, in many cases, did not wear uniforms. An end has been made to that practice. Your commissioned officers will wear uniform in future, and I am not prepared to allow a slur of this kind to remain upon these men. These men will not abuse anything of this kind, and I do not think we should place this slur upon the police force. It would cause a good deal of trouble. I do not think it will do any good or any harm if it is omitted.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 177,

I move—

1. (a):
2. (b) sells, supplies or delivers to any person any liquor other than in a cask, jar, bottle or other receptacle securely corked or stoppered;
3. (c) sells or supplies a greater or less quantity of liquor than he is authorized to supply under any provision of this Act or any authority issued thereunder; or

and in line 13, after “any” where it occurs for the first time to insert “wholesale liquor licence or any”.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 181,

I move—

1. (i) any road, street, lane, thoroughfare, trekpath, outspan, commonage, or market place; or
2. (ii) any shop, store, warehouse or public garage; or
3. (iii) any place of entertainment, café, eating house, race course, or other premises or place to which the public are granted of lave access, whether or not the right of admission be granted on payment or be reserved to any class”.

To omit paragraph (p), on page 118, and to substitute the following new paragraphs:

1. (p) in contravention of any provision of section 148 introduces into or possesses in any place or area mentioned in that section any intoxicating liquor or kaffir beer; or
2. (q) makes, has the custody or possession of, uses, drinks, or gives or supplies to any person any concoction referred to in section 135.

We have not said a word yet about Clause 178.

The hon. member can discuss Clause 178 on the report stage. We are now at Clause 181.

In that case, I would like to know whether it was legal to pass Clause 178, as there was no quorum.

The hon. member should have drawn attention to the quorum at the time.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause as amended put and agreed to.

On Clause 182,

I move—

In line 26, to delete “or (s)” and to substitute “, (s) or (t)”.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 183,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 184,

I move—

In line 11, after “Act” to insert “or of any regulation made thereunder”.

I want to move a small amendment. I think the period is rather too long. To say that within five years of conviction in the case of another conviction there should be double the penalty is going rather too far. I move—

I will accept three years.

Well, I will move it in that form, viz.—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 186 put and negatived.

New Clause 186,

I move—

186. Save as is otherwise specially provided in this Act—

1. (a) any contract entered into after the commencement of this Act whereby any person purports to relinquish any right or forego any obligation thereunder shall be null and void; and
2. (b) Nothing in this Act contained shall affect any provision in any contract existing at the commencement thereof.

Agreed to.

On Clause 188,

I move—

To omit the definition “Asiatic” and to substitute the following new definition:

“Asiatic” means any Turk and any member of a race or tribe whose national home is in Asia, but shall not include any member of—

1. (a) the class or race commonly known as the Cape Malays;
2. (b) the Jewish or the Syrian race;
3. (c) any race, or branch of any race, declared by the Governor-General by proclamation in the “Gazette” to be excluded from this definition.

The last part is the reason for this amendment. There are certain nations of which there are a small number in South Africa, and this small number perform very special functions, and it may be necessary to proclaim a nation of that kind as being one of the races which are excluded from this definition. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) gave one of those cases, in connection with a merchant in Port Elizabeth entering the Transvaal. Cases of that kind would be met. I was thinking of the Japanese nation, among others. At all events, it is necessary to consider nations of that kind in connection with this definition.

I move—

1. (d) Ascension Day.

I hope the Minister will accept the amendment. We have repeatedly in this House acknowledged that Ascension Day must be a sacred day and we do not even sit as a House on that day.

I move—

1. (d) Dingaan’s Day.

Recently a Bill of mine in connection with Dingaan’s Day had a rather stormy reception, and it was then said that I wanted to create a new Sunday. There can be no question of that here. The amendment is that the bars shall be closed on the 16th December just as on Good Friday, Christmas Day, etc. I hope the House will pass it. If the House is not prepared to apply the whole of the Sunday law to that day, we can at least be met with regard to this proposal.

I am prepared to accept the motion with regard to Ascension Day, but not to Dingaan’s Day. Dingaan’s Day does not come under the same category as Christmas Day, etc. Anybody who does not want to go to a bar that day can remain away. Everybody is free in that respect, and we must not make laws for everything.

I wish to move an amendment in the definition of “class.” I do not think it will make any real difference to any of the clauses. We are anxious to see that the definition of a particular class will not bind men purely on account of colour. I wish to move a proviso—

I am against that amendment because there are various parts where it may be necessary in protection of coloured persons to say that that class of the community known as coloured persons shall fall under certain proclaimations that are issued with regard to their not obtaining liquor. It is in the interests of these people, and I do not know why we always have this trouble when we try to pass legislation in their interests. I have also an amendment. I will move—

I am very sorry that the Minister cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart). I hope that the House will consider and pass it. The Minister must not think that we are engaged in a matter about which there is no sentiment. The view we defend is held by a very large section of the population, and such a motion cannot be lightly treated. Nor are we engaged in going back to the original motion to apply the Sunday Act to Dingaan’s Day. This is no attempt to win back what we lost then, but we are proposing here to prevent Dingaan’s Day becoming more and more the great sporting day of South Africa, which was surely not the intention when the day was originally established. No one can deny that we run a danger of Dingaan’s Day becoming the great racing day of South Africa. It is now gradually becoming such. We well know that if we prohibit the sale of drink on that day it will prevent its becoming the great sports day of or racing day of South Africa. Great races are constantly being held on Dingaan’s Day, and we want to prevent it. We are anxious for the day to be honoured by the people in general, according to the original intention, as a day on which the people remembers its past. I appeal to the House to reconsider the proposal and pass it, for which the people will be grateful to the House and Minister.

The argument is precisely the same as that used when the Dingaan’s Day Bill was rejected. We cannot deny that Dingaan’s Day was never previously kept in the Colony. I am speaking from experience, and Sarel Cilliers never made the promise for the Colony. It was intended for the people who were in the Transvaal, on the spot, and for their descendants. We who have sentiment about the day can celebrate it in our own way, but why should people who have not this history behind them, who have not yet, in every respect, become citizens of South Africa, be prevented from getting a drink on that day? They are not descendants of those voortrekkers, and the promise was not made on their behalf. It is a question of freedom.

What about Good Friday?

That is a sacred day, but Dingaan’s Day is not.

Not for everybody in South Africa.

It is considered by some of those who supported the deletion of the clause that we should arrive at a compromise, and under the circumstances, with the leave of the committee, I withdraw the amendment.

With leave of committee, amendments proposed by Maj. G. B. van Zyl and by the Minister of Justice, in line 20, withdrawn.

I move—

I move—

I would like to ask the Minister with regard to the definition of a native, whether “Griqua” cannot be excluded. The Griquas are by descent and in personal characteristics coloured people. It is imposing an impossible task on a licence holder to differentiate between a Griqua and a coloured person. I think the Minister knows of a recent case which exemplified this argument. I trust that in justice to those people the Minister will consent to their exclusion from the classification of “Native.” I move—

I think the hon. member is right. I know there is very great difficulty in distinguishing between a Griqua and a coloured person. I will go into the matter before the report stage to find out whether there is any objection to his proposal. So far as my present knowledge goes, I would favour the deletion.

† *I want to ask the hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) to allow his amendment to stand over. I want first to investigate whether it can be applied to the clauses of the Bill. I must say that I am, in principle, in favour of the amendment, but I want the hon. member to allow it to stand over till the report stage.

I am quite prepared to agree to it. Of course only if I get the assurance that the matter will be dealt with at the report stage.

With leave of committee, amendment proposed by Dr. van Broekhuizen withdrawn.

The Bill provides that liquor can be provided only with meals costing a minimum of 18d. I have with me the tariff of an Adderley Street café, which will provide 26 meals a month at a total cost of £1 12s. 6d., or 1s. 3d. a meal. It is a very good meal. If a restaurant in Adderley Street can supply a good meal at 1s. 3d., it would be very drastic to say that one could not have a drink with it, because the meal had not cost 1s. 6d.

Make it 1s. 3d.

I was suggesting whether we could not do away with the proposal altogether.

No, no.

Why penalize an innocent man in order to punish the guilty man? It is very hard if I cannot have a drink with a couple of sandwiches. When in England, I have never enjoyed a lunch so much on a walking tour as a piece of bread and cheese and a glass of beer. Let the Minister be lenient and let us say 9d.

No, 1s. 3d.

May I move 1s.—I do move 1s. There are many places where a poor man gets an excellent meal for 1s., but under the clause the position will be that a rich man who pays 1s. 6d. or more for his lunch can have a drink with it, whereas the poor man who cannot afford more than 1s. for lunch will not be able to have a drink with it, so this really becomes class legislation. I move—

I will accept 1s. as the irreducible minimum. The sandwich meal is one which has caused a lot of trouble, a small sandwich being a cloak for a big drink. In certain parts of South Africa one can get a fairly substantial meal for 1s., so perhaps it will be fair to accept the amendment.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Justice, Mr. Keyter and Mr. Gilson put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Swart put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 189 having been agreed to,

On the motion of the Minister of Justice it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; House to resume in committee to-morrow.