as chairman, brought up the first report of the Select Committee on Official Flying of Flags as follows:

1. (1) The flags of the Union (hereinafter styled “the flags”) shall be hoisted on each of the four flagstaffs (that is to say, on two of the flagstaffs the Union Jack and on the other two flagstaffs the national flag), whether Parliament is sitting or not, on the following days only—
   1. (a) Accession Day—6th May.
   2. (b) Victoria Day—24th May.
   3. (c) Union Day—31st May.
   4. (d) Coronation Day—23rd June.
   5. (e) The King’s birthday—First Monday in August.
   6. (f) Such other days of public rejoicing as may from time to time be specially appointed by his Excellency the Governor-General by notice in the Gazette.
2. (2) During a session of Parliament the Union Jack shall be kept flying on the N.W. and the national flag on the N.E. flagstaff whenever the Senate is sitting, and the national flag on the S.W. and the Union Jack on the S.E. flagstaff whenever the House of Assembly is sitting.
3. (3) The Royal Standard shall be hoisted on a flagstaff over the main entrance to the Houses of Parliament (facing Parliament Street)—
   1. (a) During the time his Excellency the Governor-General is in the building for the purpose of opening or proroguing Parliament, or, if this ceremony is performed by commission, during the time that such commissioners are in the building.
   2. (b) During the time his Excellency the Governor-General is in the building upon any other occasion which his Excellency may officially intimate to be recognised as official.
4. (4) The flags shall be half-masted on all four flagstaffs on the following occasions—
   1. (a) Upon receipt by the President and Speaker of an official intimation from his Excellency the Governor-General, or the officer administering the Government, of the death of the Sovereign, the Heir Apparent or the Governor-General.
   2. (b) Upon the receipt by the President and Speaker of an official intimation from his Excellency the Governor-General of any other days appointed for public mourning.
   3. (c) Upon the death of the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Assembly, a member of the Ministry of the day or any member of either House of Parliament: provided in such last-mentioned case that death takes place when Parliament is in session.
5. (5) All flags shall be hauled down at sunset.

stated that unless notice of objection was given on or before Tuesday, 3rd April, 1928, the report would be considered as adopted.

as chairman, brought up the second report of the Select Committee on Crown Lands.

Report to be considered in committee on 2nd April.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

I want to ask the Minister whether that means to-morrow and the day after.

Yes.

The House will meet in the morning. When will the select committee be able to sit?

I must mention that a few witnesses were subpoenaed for those days and they are already here. The committee will, however, only sit from 9 to 10 o’clock.

It only applies to the two days.

Yes.

Motion put and agreed to.

May I make a statement on the plague position which I promised the House last week? The course of events during the year ended 30th June last and the position at that date in regard to plague are detailed in, and shown on, a map attached to the annual report of the Department of Public Health for that year, which was laid on the Tables of Parliament and published on 30th January last. During that year a total of 75 human cases with 56 deaths was reported, all of these being in the Cape and Orange Free State Provinces and made up of individual sporadic cases or small localized outbreaks occurring in rural areas, infection being traceable to veld rodents. During the same period there were further extensions of plague infection in veld rodents in the north-western Cape districts, to a line running from the Orange River southwards to some miles north of Van Rhynsdorp and thence to the point where the Ceres and Sutherland districts join; and in the eastern Free State and north-eastern Cape districts to the boundary between the Rouxville district and Basutoland and thence to a line running northwest and south-east through Herschel, a point three miles east of Lady Grey and a point five miles west of Barkly East. Since June last 26 cases, of which 18 were fatal, have been reported in the Cape Province and Free State, and there has been further spread of infection amongst veld rodents southwards from the Calvinia district into the Ceres basin, and also westward from Bushmanland into Namaqualand as far as a line about 15 miles west of Springbok and running parallel with the coast to within a few miles of Van Rhynsdorp; there has also been some extension of the infection area in the northern Cape district—in the Mafeking district to within a few miles of the border of the Bechuanaland Protectorate, the line of extension running westward through a point 10 miles north of Vryburg and then southward through a point some 50 miles east of Kuruman and joining the Vaal river at Mosesburg. For many years past there has been a focus of infection in the Coega Valley and neighbouring parts of the Uitenhage district and recently there have been suspicious signs of recrudescence among the veld rodents in this area and southward in the direction of Port Elizabeth, but these suspicions have not yet been confirmed. Early in January last reports were received of suspicious disappearances of veld rodents in two or three localities in northern Natal, but investigations have so far failed to disclose any definite evidence of plague there. Three years ago the Government and the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association jointly undertook to finance a comprehensive scheme of investigation into plague in the Union to be carried out by the South African Institute for Medical Research, acting in co-operation with the Union Health Department. A comprehensive and useful report has been printed and published by the institute detailing the results of the investigations up to July last. These investigations fully confirmed the reports previously made by the Union Health Department as regards the nature of the disease in man and rodents and the role played by veld rodents in spreading the disease and perpetuating the infection; they also shed useful light on the mode and mechanism of the persistence of infection in rodent burrows, the causes of periodical waves of infection amongst the veld rodents, and the flea carriers of the infection from rodent to rodent and from these animals to man. During the investigations a new infectious disease of rodents was discovered; this has been called “Tiger River disease,” having first been discovered in rodents near Tiger River station on the railway line between Bethlehem and Harrismith. This is caused by a specific organism, and is highly fatal to rodents amongst which, in nature, it spreads as the result of cannibalism and the eating of infected carcases. Hopes were entertained that it would prove effective for rapidly destroying veld rodents over wide areas, and extensive experiments in this connection were carried out, but the results had been disappointing. Rodents, after eating grain or other material soaked in cultures of the organism, usually die of the disease, but so far attempts to start a spreading epizootic amongst them have been unsuccessful. The quickest and most economical and successful method of destroying veld rodents so far devised is by poisoning with grain soaked in a solution of strychnine and sugar, but with this method extreme care is necessary to prevent accidents. In the neighbourhood of dwellings, and where it would be dangerous to use strychnine, gassing of burrows with “Capex” cartridges is most satisfactory. By these methods veld rodents can be fairly quickly and cheaply destroyed over considerable tracts of country, and the spread of infection in this way checked. These methods are being utilized to destroy rodents over belts of country and in strategic localities so as to arrest advancing waves of plague infection. Within the past 18 months a belt about 100 miles long and from 1 to 2 miles wide extending from Koekenap, near the mouth of the Oliphants River, to south of Citrusdal, has been cleared, and kept clear of veld rodents by gangs of natives working under trained rodent inspectors employed by the Government. Similar gangs are now working in the Tulbagh district and in the neighbourhood of Citrusdal and Elandskloof with a view to arresting a spread of infection towards the sandy gerbille infected coastal belt comprising the Clanwilliam, Piquetberg and Malmesbury districts, and the Cape Peninsula. The Cape Divisional Council has cleared of rodents a belt extending across the Flats from Table Bay to False Bay. Belts of this nature are fairly effective for gerbilles and other small rodents, but unfortunately are not so effective for hares, which appear to have been the principal agents in the extension of infection in the northwestern Cape and more recently into the Ceres district. In practically all the large towns and in many smaller ones considerable progress has been made in rendering stores and other buildings rat proof, and in permanently reducing the rat population, so that the risks of serious epidemics such as occurred in Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London, Durban and Johannesburg during the period from 1901 to 1905 have been greatly reduced. Every effort is being made by Government to promote increased activity by local authorities and owners of urban property in this direction, and also to encourage farmers to preserve and protect the natural enemies of rodents. Apart from a small outbreak in Kimberley in 1924, a case in a member of the crew of a mail steamer at Cape Town in April last, and one recent case in Johannesburg imported from the northern Free State, there has been no occurrence of plague in man or rodents in any of the large centres or at the ports of the Union since 1905. As regards urban areas, the disease may be said to be under fairly effective control, but despite all efforts the spread of infection amongst veld rodents in rural areas has proceeded until at present nearly half the total area of the Union is involved. The department is in touch with the health authorities of other countries having similar problems, but so far no successful method of eradicating plague infection in rodents over large tracts of country has been devised; indeed the authorities in most such countries, including India, Java and the United States, have given up attempts at eradication and are concentrating on methods of control and prevention, especially as regards “building out the rat” in the towns and in the dwellings of the people.

Certain provisions are made in this clause, certain restrictions imposed on beer drinks that take place outside of certain areas. It is certainly the desire of the farming population that means should be found to prohibit beer drinks if the owners of farms are strongly opposed to them. Provision is made for that in Clause 128 and I think that that is quite adequate, and the farming population will certainly be satisfied. Now, however, the Minister puts in a further restriction on beer drinks where not only members of families drink beer, but also strangers, natives from adjoining farms. I think that hon. members generally have a wrong idea of native beer-drinks outside the locations. It does not at all mean that natives go to a beer-drink only to drink beer or to get drunk. No, in many cases beer-drinks are given with the object of getting certain work done, e.g., the building of a new hut or when a native wants to get his cultivated land scuffled. Then natives from the various surrounding kraals or from neighbouring farms are invited to come and assist with the building of a hut or the scuffling. A further case where help is wanted is when a skin is being cured. It also happens that at the opening or closing of native schools the natives meet and that beer is drunk on those occasions. It is far from always being the case that the object in the first place is to drink beer. The occasion is, however, availed of where beer-drinks take place just as among the Europeans; there are occasions when they drink wine or spirits. It is, however, far from the case that, after the scuffling of the lands every native goes home drunk, presumably not half of them do as far as I have noticed. What provisions are being proposed here? That a native if he has guests from beyond the farm he lives on must have a permit. Where are the permits to be obtained? From the nearest magistrate or native commissioner or sub-native commissioner. The Minister seems to forget that many of the kraals and of the farms are far away from the nearest magistrate or native commissioner, and that it will take a native in many cases 2 or 3 full days to fetch a permit. The result will be that the beer-drinking will go on without a permit and that an offence will be created. In short, we get an Act on the statute book which cannot possibly be carried out. Clause 138 suffices for the demands and wishes of the farming population to keep the natives in order. With regard to the going of natives to other farms there is surely the Pass Law. A native must first ask leave from his master or even from the police to go to another farm. I think it will possibly still be best to delete the whole clause, but if it cannot be done, then I still think that it ought to be made a little easier for the natives to have beer drinks where work is being done. I agree with the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. A. S. Naudé) in proposing that the permit to be obtained shall in addition cost £1. It is provided that at a beer drink without a permit a native may only invite three guests. I think that in any case we must enlarge the number to enable him to give such a party with the object of getting certain work done. More than three persons are often required and, as an amendment, I move—

I move, as an amendment to the amendment by Maj. Richards—

I mentioned the matter last Friday, but on giving the subject further consideration, it seems to me it is essential that the word “European” should be omitted, for although in the Free State the farmers may be purely Europeans, in other parts of the Union considerable areas of land are owned by non-Europeans. Why the right to consent to beer-drinks being held on farms should be confined to Europeans is more than I can understand. I think it is in the interests of Europeans just as much as it is in the interests of natives, that there should be some control on every farm of assemblies of natives for beer drinking purposes, regardless of whether the farm is owned by a European or a non-European. In Natal a large number of farms are owned by Asiatics, and it would be a curious anomaly if we are going to have the consumption of native beer on a European-owned farm, subject to the owner’s consent, under control, but on non-European farms not subject to owner’s consent, simply because it is not owned by an European. These farms upon which kaffir beer drinks will take place without control, will attract natives from farms on which beer drinks are controlled. I know Asiatics who own thousands of acres of land, and employ large numbers of natives. Why should they not be allowed to say whether a beer drink shall or shall not be held on their farm? I know that in Clause 138 the word “European” appears, but I hope that will be rectified at the report stage.

I hope the Minister and the House will not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize). I do not think there is a single farmer in the north of the country who would approve of that alteration. We are farmers who have to battle with great difficulties as a result of the native beer drinks. They hold their parties on Saturday, and the natives come on horseback for long distances to attend them. The following Monday every farmer has the bother of his workers being unfit for work. If the clause remains I understand that a permit can be granted for special cases, but in ordinary circumstances no more than three visiting natives may take part in the drink. I hope the Minister will stick to his amendment and that the Minister will reject the amendment of the hon. member for Lydenburg. If the hon. member for Lydenburg knew the circumstances in the north, then I am sure that he would not insist on his amendment.

I cannot quite agree with the last speaker, although there is much true in what he says. We know the custom of the natives in connection with their beer drinks. Usually they come in the time when work is being done on the lands. The natives meet to work on the land and thereafter they drink beer together.

They can get a permit for that.

As the law now stands, it will possibly be the best way to prevent natives drinking beer without doing their work. I agree with the hon. members that we want to restrict drinking parties, but an exception can sometimes be made. I think that the clause as it is now proposed is in the interests of the natives as well as of the owner of a farm. If a beer party is being given, then the owner can easily give his consent and the native can get a permit from a magistrate. In any case it rarely happens more than once a year. I agree with the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan) that if the Bill is passed it will make the position much easier for the farmers as well as for the natives. We do not want to take away the right of the native entirely, but we want to give the right in special cases, to have a beer-drink when he gets a permit from the magistrate, and the owner consents. Then the farmer can so arrange his work as to suffer no loss. I quite agree with the clause as it stands.

I do not actually want to insist that the Minister should entirely alter the clause, but I want to bring something to his notice. I want to point out that when the natives give a beer drink they have to get a permit from the magistrate. But the custom of the native is to scuffle their land and then they meet and drink light beer. It is not always a drunkards’ party, but the natives simply drink the beer after work. Now I should like the Minister to provide that the natives in such a case, when they scuffle, can obtain their permit from the police, because at that time it is often not possible for them to go to the magistrate. At my farm they would have to go to Harrismith, 50 miles, and I therefore want to move that they shall be able to get that permit from the police, because the police stations are much nearer. It will not cause such a great inconvenience to the native population. In any case they will not hold such a party without a farmers’ permission, and if they require a permit for it, let them get it from the police.

I think that the Minister’s motion is quite sufficient. If we consent to make an exception of scuffling parties, then it will not cease The Minister himself said the other day that he saw in my division what the Sunday beer-drinks meant. They come together from the east and the west and the result of the beer-drinking is all the wrong things we have to do with, such as the stealing of sheep, etc. A stop must be put to that. I do not refer to Lydenburg or Witwatersberg, where the distances are long, but to the thickly populated parts around Bethal. There the natives come from one farm to the other and the position is intolerable. I am often very tired of that drinking and its results. The provision that they require a permit as well as the consent of their master will slightly reduce their drinking. If there are scuffling parties, the owner will give consent, but if we provide that they need no permit for that, we shall open the door for further exceptions.

There is one omission in this clause concerning these beer-drinks. We have nothing against an assembly of natives which meets in a friendly way, according to their own customs degenerating into an assembly of natives paying for their drink, and thus developing into a money-making concern, and generally descending into a debauch of natives. I move—

The tendency to-day is for the native to make money any way and anyhow. The head of the kraal would not have the same control over the assembly that he would have if it was an assembly called by himself for a friendly beer-drink.

I hope the House will pass the clause as it stands. It protects the natives as well as the farmers. My experience in the past has been that we must go to work very carefully, especially with regard to beer drinks, and if we are going to make an exception in certain cases, I fear that we shall open the door for the repetition of the same trouble with which we have now to struggle. I do not wish to blame the farmers, but there are farmers and farmers. There are farmers who always try to lessen the beer-drinking, but there are others who, for the sake of native labour, allow them to take place. The clause, as it stands, makes such scuffling parties, etc., possible. They do not occur with us so much, but in those cases they can get a permit from the native commissioner, magistrate or police after the farmer has given his consent. Good control is necessary, because at present the natives are seldom available on Mondays, and the farmer has all the trouble.

I want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Natal (Coast) (Brig.-Gen. Arnott). I think we are in danger of legislating to break down a very laudable native custom. It is common knowledge that in the past natives have never sold beer. That has been contrary to their custom. They give their beer in a friendly way, and I refer the Minister to what the Native Affairs Commission said on the subject. As will he seen on page 34 of the report of the Select Committee, Dr. Loran said—

That is what the Native Commission says. We all know that has been the practice in the past. There has of late years been a spread of the selling of beer by the natives which has not been to anybody’s advantage, and I think it is a custom against which we should steadfastly turn our faces. If we do not do this, then these beer assemblies which we are going to permit under this law, will be carried on by those who are going to make money out of them, instead of being merely friendly gatherings of natives for the purpose of partaking of the hospitality of their friends. Therefore I think this amendment is very necessary.

I think that the clause will do as it stands. I grant that it will cause some trouble here and there, especially, e.g., where a native invites his relatives from far-off for the scuffling of his mealie lands, but I cannot see how we can provide for that. Perhaps the Minister can make the special permits obtainable more easily.

More difficult.

I do not mean that the conditions for obtaining them should be made easier, but in cases like Lydenburg and Waterberg, where the natives live 150 miles or possibly 180 miles from the nearest magistrate, it might possibly be provided that they may get a permit from the police.

I want to reply at once that there are practical objections in this connection to leaving the granting of permits to the police. Usually there is a police station at these remote places, but there is merely one constable, and he will never use his discretion of deciding, but will send the application on to the head office and the practical effect will be that it will never be granted by the police official. Nor do I want the police to exercise the discretion. It will be a very good thing if the visits of natives from one farm to the other decrease, and I cannot quite understand why the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) is not in favour of that.

I am very glad about the Minister’s attitude. If there is one thing where I think the farmers would blame the Minister, I think it would be if he made it easier to hold beer-drinks. The hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. de Wet) said that we must pass the clause as it stands. I hope we shall not do so. There are various amendments which I hope will be passed, at any rate, two of them. We must not weaken the position from what it is in the Free State to-day. One of the amendments is that a permit shall not be issued by an official unless the owner of the farm has consented. In the Free State a £1 is always paid for such a permit, and we must not make it easier to hold beer drinks. I really think that we should try to stop natives going about from one farm to the other. I even think that it would be a good thing if we could make regulations in this respect because the natives go about a great deal from some of the leased farms and they are badly controlled there. I hope the Minister will stand firm. It is certain that the position must be controlled better because, notwithstanding the law in the Free State, we have the greatest troubles as a result of the beer-drinks. I think that Clause 138 is fair towards the natives, under which he and his whole kraal can drink and ask two guests in addition. Places that are far from the police station have been mentioned. Those are just the places where we often have trouble in connection with beer drinks, and I am surprised that the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) wants to make beer drinking easier.

The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) merely wants the beer drinking to be better controlled. If the native has to go to the police station for a permit, it surely follows that the police will be better informed and be able to control the position. When we go to the Minister for more police, then he says he cannot build any more police offices. Here we have an opportunity of getting better control, if we explain to the natives that there is a legal way of drinking by going to the police station. I accept, of course, that even a magistrate or native commissioner will give no permit for a beer drink on a farm without the farmer having consented. I should, at least, strongly object to natives from other farms coming to my farm to drink beer without my consent. We shall actually get better control by the amendment of the hon. member for Waterberg.

I am sorry that the Minister will not agree to an amendment. We do not want to encourage the natives to drink beer, but it will certainly be convenient if the police could issue a permit. I do not see that it could have a bad effect because the police know the circumstances of the district and will be well able to judge whether a native can be given a permit or not. They will also be able to consult the owner of the farm. I therefore move—

I hope the Minister will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Natal Coast (Brig.-Gen. Arnott) for this reason. At all these native beer drinks there are a number of onlookers—

Is that sale?

Yes.

I am quite satisfied. I think there is provision made for it.

I just want to say that my constituency will be much better off if the clause is passed as it stands. We know how difficult it is for the farmers to keep their workmen together, especially on Saturdays and Sundays. The natives go to another farm to drink, and I cannot understand how the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) can move to replace the words “3” by “8.” He represents a very large district, and the clause possibly causes difficulty there, but in the case of the Pretoria district the beer drinking on Sundays is terrible, and this clause will stop it. As for the inclusion of the word “police,” I want to point out that we shall be putting the police in a very difficult position. The police station is often situate in lonely parts, and when an influential farmer comes the policeman will not refuse the permit. It will make it very difficult for him.

The native has to go for the permit.

The farmer will have to consent, and if he is an influential man it will be difficult for the police to refuse it. We know that in far-off parts the police often receive hospitable treatment on the farms, and we must not put them in the way of temptation and trouble. The farmers in my constituency will be very thankful if the obtaining of the permits is not made too easy.

I was asked by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) about this £1 fee to be paid for a permit. I do not think that we should, in the circumstances of this clause, insist upon that £1 fee, for this reason, I admit that it makes it more difficult for this permit to be obtained than it was before. There will be a certain amount of expense entailed upon the natives to get this permit, and I do not think it is fair to put that £1 fee upon them as well, because I think there are sufficient safeguards in the section. As I have said, I am entirely in favour of the amendment of the hon. member in regard to selling or bartering of kaffir beer. It is true, of course, that kaffir beer cannot be sold by another section of this Bill, being intoxicating liquor, but to make it perfectly clear that it applies in this clause as well, I think it would be as well to put that amendment in that has been moved. In regard to the consent of the European occupier or owner of land, as I have said, I am in favour of that clause, but I do not think we should take out the word “European” for this reason, that I think it is obvious, as far as your Asiatic farmer is concerned, he will stand a good deal nearer to his native employees than the European farmer, and the danger of his collecting natives upon his farm and having liquor sold to them, is much greater than it would be in the case of the European farmer. I do not think it is wise at this stage to insist upon the word “European” being deleted.

Supposing there is not a European owner, what happens then?

Where there is no European owner, under Section 138 (1) there cannot be any beer drink at all on a farm of that kind. That may be hard in certain cases, but I think, taking it generally, that it is a wise provision. We may find out in a year or two that it is necessary to do something in that direction, but at this stage I think that we should restrict it to European owners or occupiers. I am quite satisfied that your magistrate or native commissioner or native sub-commissioner is not going to grant that permit lightly. Hon. members feel very strongly that this amending clause should be withdrawn. It is not part of my Bill. It was inserted on the motion of an hon. member for Natal and, therefore, I think the attitude I am taking is perfectly clear. Let that disappear entirely or confine it to Europeans. I say that if the proviso appears we should allow it simply to apply to Europeans.

I moved an amendment to benefit farming and to make the life of the farmer a little more pleasant. I do not know whether hon. members who opposed my amendment so much know the position on the farms. The drinking of kaffir beer has become intolerable. On one Sunday it takes place on one farm and the next at another farm and so on from one end of the year to the other. On Mondays the farmer can hardly do anything with his workers. As for the amendment of the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) I want to say that the conditions there are not the same as with us and I hope the amendment will not be passed. The natives do not sell beer, but make as much as they want to without its costing a penny and they drink till they are drunk. I hope the Minister will accept my amendment to charge £1 for the licence. That was the law in the Free State and it worked well.

The Minister said a moment ago that kaffir beer was included under the definition of intoxicating liquor and, therefore, it was unnecessary really to legislate in regard to its sale, but the Minister is quite wrong. Kaffir beer is expressly excluded from the definition of intoxicating liquor. I very much doubt if the kaffir beer position is properly safeguarded now that Clause 139 has gone out. I would like the Minister to give that point his attention, especially in view of the fact that we have excluded kaffir beer from the definition of intoxicating liquor, and, therefore, none of the other provisions in this Act regulating it apply.

I do hope that the House is going to stand behind the Minister in the matter of the deletion of this £1 licence for every beer drink. After all, kaffir beer is consumed by the natives on almost every possible occasion, at every wedding and every other little gathering that they have. Beer is a necessity in the native mode of living, besides being a beverage it is also a food and when strangers visit a kraal it is a sign of hospitality to offer a calabash of beer; surely it would be imposing a most unwarranted hardship to impose this fee of £1. We white men can meet our friends and offer them a drink, the coloured man may do the same and yet we want to penalize the native. This is really unjust. When you think of the amount of wages that a farm native receives, 15s., £1 or 25s. a month, if you are going to tax him £1 for every gathering that he gives to his friends, I think we are going too far. After all, we must do justice to the native. I am sure the feeling of this House is not to oppress them, and I feel that hon. members, more especially those who live in areas where there are a large number of natives, will realize what it is going to mean to impose upon every gathering of more than three natives where kaffir beer is consumed, a fee of £1. It is a hardship that we should not impose upon them, and I hope the House will stand behind the Minister in that if it does come to a division.

I hope the Minister will stick to his guns in this case. The whole intention of this Bill is to limit as far as you possibly can the injudicious use of liquor. I entirely agree with the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) that if you give them kaffir beer pure, it is a wholesome beverage for natives. I remember that during the siege of Kimberley, were it not for the issue of kaffir beer, scurvy would have been very prevalent amongst the large number of natives who were shut up in that town. What is the objection to kaffir beer? The objection to kaffir beer, as it is generally known in this country, is that it is mixed with spirit or mixed with golden syrup or something of that sort, which increases very largely its alcoholic content. I speak from knowledge of it. I know that where you have large numbers of natives gathered together and they manufacture kaffir beer, the danger is not from the kaffir beer pure but from the fact that they have bought illicit drink, or golden syrup or something of that kind, which they have mixed with the beer. I have gone as far as possible with anybody in restricting privileges in connection with the consumption of drink, but I do say it is an unjust thing to put upon a man, because he is a native, a special permit of £1, as the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. A. S. Naudé) has suggested. It seems to me, whenever you desire to impose restrictions on natives you are very careful to put on them far greater restrictions than you do in the case of Europeans, and not always in the advancement of their moral qualities. If the drinking of kaffir beer is allowed where more than two or three people come together—and there may be cases on a farm where it may be perhaps rather wrong to deprive a native of the right to what, after all, is his natural privilege—by all means do ail you can to stop the kaffir beer drinks, which are a curse to the country, but do so by some other means than by saying to the European: “You can do certain things” but in the case of the native you are going to impose a special prohibition by a tax of a sovereign. It is not fair or just, and you should treat all sections of the population alike in matters of this character.

Hon. members who have not got much practical experience ought to leave the decision about the position to the farmers who have to deal with the natives every day. My experience is that if my workers may never have liquor, I cannot farm. The native cannot work without beer. It is in his blood. Now all sorts of restrictions are being proposed. I do not agree to the natives having to pay a £1 for a beer drink.

It is so in the Free State.

If the Free State wants it, let it, but I am a Free Stater myself and if there is one place where beer is drunk it is in the Free State. The native in the Free State drinks more beer than natives anywhere else. It is my experience and I grew up on the borders of Basutoland. I agree with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) that it is not right to the natives to make them pay a £1. I protest against its being applied to the Cape Province. They only earn a few shillings a month and it is not right to make them pay a £1. I think that we must pass the amendment of the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) because when the native commissioner or magistrate is one hundred or two hundred miles away it will be almost impossible for the native to get a permit.

I would like to know whether the Minister proposes to give power to the police or the magistrate to grant such permit without getting the consent of the farmer himself. I think that would be the cause of a great deal of dissatisfaction. With regard to the broader application of this clause, I do not know whether hon. members realize that it is the existing custom in native areas to have beer drinks for various purposes. For instance, during harvest time. They collect in considerable numbers and do a lot of work in return for the beer they are supplied with. As has also been pointed out by the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) there are many functions at which kaffir beer is used. It would be obviously unfair to deprive these people of such rights which are part of their whole national system. I am in agreement with the amendment of the hon. member for Natal (Coast). Further, they do not sell kaffir beer to each other, as far as I am aware. It is given in hospitality. I agree with what the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has said, that the intoxicant properties of kaffir beer are much more due to concoctions which are added rather than to the beer itself. I have often, in Basutoland, been offered a calabash or pot of beer and I have enjoyed it. You might just as well argue that beer should be discontinued in Germany, where it is the national beverage. During a long and trying winter, when there is no meat or milk, it would be a distinct hardship to deprive these natives of their national beverage.

I cannot unfortunately speak with the same experience as the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). It seems to me that what he drank was not kaffir beer but skokiaan. It may be that at the time of the siege of Kimberley that that wonderful thing took place, but such a siege happens once in a lifetime. What our natives drink on the farms is, however, not skokiaan, but pure kaffir beer.

Speak for yourself, and from your own experience.

That is just what I am doing. I am going to give my experience. The beer I drank was not mixed with golden syrup.

Did it intoxicate you?

I was fortunately not so mixed as the hon. member; according to this speech the practice only exists in the native reserves, but I can assure him that it also exists on the farms in the Free State. At certain times the natives are invited to a certain place, then the drinking commences and goes on for two or three days and sometimes even a week. During this time the mealies are scuffled or the kaffir corn, but the drinking in connection with it is often very great. I would not object so much to that, but the misfortune is that when the natives drink beer they have a great longing for meat. Now the hon. members from the Cape Province say that the Free State native paid so much, but it is still strange that the Free State native is in a much better position than any native in the Cape Province or the Transvaal. The wages of the Cape Province cannot compare with those of the Free State. Notwithstanding their vote in the Cape Province, and all their protection, the natives in the Cape are terribly poor, while those in the Free State possess all kinds of things, such as horses and goats. Notwithstanding the fact that the licence costs £1. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. A. S. Naudé). It works well in the Free State and ought to do well elsewhere. It certainly reduced drunkenness.

The discussion of this clause clearly shows how difficult it is to get an Act which will apply to all parts of the country. What is possibly good for one part is fatal to another. I listened to the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) and differ from him as the poles. He lived on the borders; I passed my whole life there and I say that the law passed in the Free State by the farmers is that the licence costs £1, and it is an excellent provision. I do not know whether my hon. friends are indeed all well acquainted with the inconvenience we farmers have in connection with the beer drinking. It does not stop at beer drinking, but leads to all kinds of excesses, and on Mondays the farmers have no workers. I quoted a few cases of homicide after beer drinks the other night, but there are hundreds of such cases. Notwithstanding the stringent law, such things happen at nearly every beer-drink that takes place. I want to make another appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment. If a fee of £1 is not demanded, much harm will be done to the Free State, and it is not right. We are not accustomed in the Free State to have something forced on us that we don’t want. If the amendment is not passed, let us exclude the Free State and let those parts of the country who want to allow the drinking know what they are doing for themselves.

I hope the Minister will not be in too much of a hurry with the matter. I can assure him that the Free State feels very strongly about the kaffir beer parties. I understand the Minister is against the amendment of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. A. S. Naudé).

The clause is much stronger than the existing law in the Free State.

If the clause makes it easier for the native than is the case at present in the Free State, then it is much contrary to the wishes of the Free State farmers. The argument of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) surprizes me. If he sticks to it then he must be consistent and vote in favour of the abolition of all restrictions on natives. He states that we cannot give a privilege to a white man and not to the native. In this Bill we have passed various clauses where the privileges of the Europeans are not given to natives. And this is in their own interests, because they cannot control themselves. I can assure the Minister that if he makes the restrictions more severe, it will assist greatly in removing the difficulties which the farmers have in this connection. He will receive fewer complaints about stock theft and other crimes, because one of the reasons for the native stealing stock is because, as it is well known, when the native drinks beer, he must have meat. It is perhaps one of the chief causes of stock theft. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort wants to make out that natives do not get drunk on ordinary pure kaffir beer. Well, I cannot speak from such experience as the hon. member, but I can assure him that if he drank a calabash full of kaffir beer, he will not be able to walk straight out of this House. I can tell him that I have a little experience of it. One day I landed on natives who were drinking kaffir beer far behind the mountains where they can get nothing else. I was hungry myself and there was nothing else to be got and I tried a little myself, but I can assure the hon. member that I felt the effect. Subsequently I made sure that it was nothing else but kaffir beer, and most of the natives were more jolly than anyone who had had two or three whiskies. I shall be glad if the Minister will make the restrictions stronger instead of weaker.

The position is that the native is being forced to get the consent of his master and thereafter a permit from the magistrate, the native commissioner or sub-native commissioner. This makes it rather difficult for the native to get the permit, and it often causes expense. The clause is, therefore, very strong, stronger than the existing law in the Free State. Hon. members from the Free State say that the proposed clause makes the position worse, but I think the clause sufficiently reduces the opportunity for beer drinks because the Bill provides that the native must go for a permit after he has the permission of the owner of his farm.

They must also do so now in the Free State.

I do not know whether the natives require the permission of the owner to-day.

Yes.

Then this clause is quite safe. The farmer in the Free State can then refuse permission. If the farmers there are so bad that they never refuse the permission, then they deserve the trouble. We reckon on a good farmer, and not on a bad one. I think that I have now answered all the arguments adduced, but I want to say a few words more on the great danger of the amendment to exclude the word “European” from the clause. The danger will be particularly great in the Transvaal, where there are farms which a number of natives buy jointly; they do not subdivide, but work them jointly, and the result of this amendment would be that those natives possessing a farm would get the unrestricted right of drinking beer there and of selling it to their compatriots. It is indeed prohibited, but still it takes place. The work of the police, too, would be much more difficult in consequence, and therefore it is dangerous to exclude the word “European.” If any further amendments are proposed, I will consider them, but I do not think any further discussion will much assist us.

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

Amendment proposed by Mr. Nieuwenhuize put and negatived.

With regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Col.-Cdt. N. J. Pretorius), I think we ought—

That will make the amendment practically unnecessary, for in most of these country places where beer drinking trouble arises the policeman is merely a constable.

It would be highly dangerous to give the power to issue a permit to any policeman. That power should not be entrusted to any police officer below the rank of a sergeant.

Would it not be competent for a superior officer to issue orders that no permits be issued where drunkenness was rife so that matter would still be under the control of the superior officer?

I have little doubt that the order of the head of the police will be that no such permits shall be issued. I shall certainly give instructions for that order to be issued all over the country.

The amendment is very dangerous; the whole thing should be scrapped.

Don’t worry, we will vote it down.

After what the Minister has said, I withdraw my amendment.

The difficulty about the granting of permits only serves to show that the clause is almost an impossible one. When you remember that if more than three natives who are not inmates of the kraal assemble for the purpose of partaking of beer, the head of the kraal at which the gathering takes place will be liable to be punished, surely we must realize how unworkable such a provision will be. It means that if these natives living on the farm venture to go to a kraal (on the same farm) where beer is being consumed, the kraal head is liable to be fined. Do we seriously contemplate that? If he is not to be fined, he must go to a magistrate and get a permit and the magistrate may be 20 to 25 miles away. It means that the whole of the natives will have to be on the move at one time or another under this law if they want a drink. Their one cry will be, “We live in the magistrate’s office, our food is taxed, and we live under this tyranny.”

The food is not taxed.

The Minister of Finance himself is in favour of the £1 fee for an assembly of more than three natives.

I say why should they entice my natives away.

The natives go to partake of beer at their native neighbour’s kraal or on my own farm, and they are liable to be fined or else they must get me to write to the magistrate for a permit. This provision may prevail in the Orange Free State, but it has never prevailed before in areas where the natives are more populous. With our eyes open, we are going to bring in a law that is going to be gravely resented by the natives.

Since the wisdom of this clause has been questioned, I must also make a protest. I think we ought to set our face firmly against introducing legislation of this kind in a liquor Bill, and the Native Affairs Commission stresses that. We are going to put irksome restrictions upon the natives, the reasons for which they will never understand, and in the present state of tension in the country we are going to make the position more difficult. If it is necessary to do these things, they can be done infinitely better throughout the country by the Native Affairs Department. Full powers exist in the Native Administration Act for measures which it is sought to introduce under this Act, and I think the course of wisdom will be to allow these matters to be introduced by administrative efforts and not by legislative methods. I have felt all along it was the wrong procedure to introduce this clause into this Bill, and I have stated my objections on several occasions. This constant tinkering with native administration by legislative side winds will do infinite harm.

There seems to be a little misunderstanding about the meaning of the clause. Suppose a permit is granted—is it to be to a whole assembly where beer is being consumed, or does it mean that each individual has to get a permit, or is it granted to the head of the kraal?

Yes, that is right.

Well, then, when members talk about “streams of natives” going to the magistrate’s office for permits, it gives the false impression that each native has to have a permit. Instead of using the word “consumption”, I think it would be better to use the word “assembly”. There might be teetotalers amongst these people who don’t want to drink the beer!

They can have an assembly without beer.

I will go into that point before the report stage. There is a good deal in what the hon. member says.

Why not go into it now and finish with it?

Well, if the hon. member moves “assembly” I have no objection to accepting that.

A distinction without a difference.

That is not so, there is a difference.

Then I move—

Before this amendment is put, I would like to express my opinion on the clause. Generally speaking, I am personally in favour of the clause, but I foresee a lot of difficulties so far as obtaining permits is concerned. I have natives living 25 miles away from where I live, and they would have to come to me for a permit, and they would then have to walk to the magistrate 30 miles away, whereas there is a police camp two miles away from where the natives are living. In Natal it has been the practice that there was always a policeman present to keep order, I mean a native policeman, not necessarily a European policeman. I am of opinion it will be impossible to carry out this clause as at present. There are farms situated 80 miles away from the nearest magistrate. Take Vryheid. There are farms where the natives live 90 miles away from the nearest magistrate, and if this clause is passed, it will most certainly be evaded and there will be prosecutions from one end of the country to the other. I am not opposed to the clause as it is, but I think we should grant easier facilities to the natives to obtain permits. It seems to me, if there was a lot of trouble taking place in the district, the police would not grant the permits. I can assure the Minister this clause is going to cause a lot of trouble throughout the country. I speak particularly of my knowledge of Natal. You will find it will be impossible to give effect to this clause. If the facilities for obtaining a permit were made easier, it would ease the position considerably. Take the case of the owners of farms who are living away in Durban, and where there is not a white man on the farm at all. What is going to be the position if application is made to the owner, who gives a permit?

If there is so much difficulty, will they not drink beer on their own farms? That is the sensible way of looking at it.

It is part and parcel of their mode of living, and if you try and force the natives not to have these beer assemblies, and make it difficult, you will find that they are going to evade the law. They will have their beer drinks. There are areas where you have very considerable distances, and where it is going to cause a lot of friction and a lot of trouble. You will never be able to give absolute effect to that clause, because it will be evaded from one end of the country to the other.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Struben put and agreed to.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Anderson and Mr. A. S. Naudé put and negatived.

Amendments proposed by Maj. Richards and Brig.-Gen. Arnott put and agreed to.

I would like to suggest to the Minister that he should give this clause very serious consideration before the next stage of the Bill comes along. We have heard a great deal of argument about the necessity for putting some restrictions on these native beer drinks where large numbers of natives are assembled from different farms, and I quite agree that some restriction may be necessary, but this clause is very widely worded. If there are half-a-dozen natives drinking beer in their kraals and a stranger comes along they have either to chase him away, or if he partakes of any beer the whole of them are liable to criminal prosecution. That is a very drastic provision indeed. It is impossible for them to apply for a permit because they are drinking their beer, and this man comes along from another kraal and partakes of it.

Three strangers.

No, one. If there are more than three, and one of them is not a member of the kraal, they are liable to prosecution.

No, no. Three or more strangers.

An assembly of three or more persons not being inmates of the kraal.

There must be three strangers.

I think your interpretation is right. I think, if we, at a later stage, put in the word “including” instead of the word “of” before “three”—I will do that before the next stage. I think the hon. member is correct in his interpretation.

That shows how careful one must be in these cases. My experience was that when kaffir beer was made pure it was a most wholesome beverage, and that the great danger in connection with beer drinks where kaffir beer is used, is the adding of spirit or golden syrup or sugar, or something of that sort, which in the fermenting of the beer is turned into alcohol and increases its strength enormously. If enquiry is made in connection with kaffir beer drinks where fighting takes place afterwards, it will be found that it is generally in connection with cases such as I say. I know that is the case from experience, but when kaffir beer is pure it is a beverage of the natives for generations. All I say is that when you are dealing with natives in connection with the drinking of kaffir beer, you should be extremely careful, as hon. members have pointed out, that a native does not imagine that you are legislating to put an unnecessary penalty upon him, not for the purpose of encouraging sobriety, but simply because he is a native, to take no consideration of his wants and requirements. I hope the hon. the Minister will go into that, because it is a serious thing that on a farm where you have respectable natives and they have a friend and desire to have a little kaffir beer and make it without adding any other ingredient, that it would be a criminal offence.

I would like to ask the Minister to take into consideration, in the redrafting of this clause, if he does so, what he means by the word “kraal”. There may be a small farm with a dozen kraals upon it, and the natives are constantly going from one place to another.

It would be very bad farming to allow farms to be cut up like that.

That is a fact. They do not live in villages. What we refer to as a kraal consists often of a few huts in one part of the farm, and a few huts in another part of the farm. Sometimes a “kraal” consists only of one hut, The Minister must take into consideration when he is legislating for the whole of the Union that the conditions in the Free State do not apply to the rest of the Union. In referring to the word “kraal” the Minister must be certain what he means by it.

I appreciate the patience the Minister has shown in connection with this Bill, and I do not want to stress anything that is obvious, but I do want him to visualize the sort of life these natives lead on many of the farms. A native kraal head, a genial old fellow, says to his neighbour: “Come along and look into the small pot of beer my parsimony has provided.” The other man accepts the invitation and takes with him two other members of his kraal. They no sooner get together in this party—it falls under the term “beer-drinking assembly”—than, the number of three persons being exceeded, the owner of the kraal is liable to a penalty.

They all are.

Yes, they are all liable to a penalty. You can see the effect this is going to have on their social existence. The whole of their relations are immediately overridden by the law, and they feel that it is a law which pays no regard to their mode of living, or anything else. In other words, it is a cruel law from their point of view. I realize as much as anybody the evil of beer-drinking on farms, but for all that, I think we are going too far in this Bill, and I should like the Minister, with that sensible view he takes of these things, when the next stage of the Bill comes up, to bring forward something that is not going to cut across the life of the people as this section will, and I think the Native Affairs Department will give him valuable assistance.

I will consult the Native Affairs Department on that point.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 141

I move—

This clause, I think, very much follows the form of previous authorities. In the Transvaal it has always been to this effect, and I believe it has worked fairly well. The point has been made to me that the number of native and coloured employees is put at too high a figure, the figure of 50, and that there might be small undertakings, small cotton plantations, and things of that kind, in which a smaller figure would be the more correct. The figure of 30 was suggested to me. This is not a question only of mines or works. It is also a question of farming. It refers to all employees, not merely employees in mines or works.

It is another form of the tot system.

It is a system to-day in the Transvaal which has never caused any harm, but, of course, it can only be used by the large employer of labour. It is used in the towns of the Transvaal. I do not know of any place in the countryside in which it is used, because the ordinary farmer in the past has not had employees to the number of 50. The only point, I think, as far as this clause is concerned, is whether that is the right number or not.

What about sub-section (2), the sale of kaffir beer?

That is principally in connection with your collieries in Natal, where the position is to-day to that effect. The Natal law allows the position that is set out in sub-section (2), and it is really to meet the Natal position that sub-section (2) has been included. As far as I know, that position does not apply anywhere in the Transvaal at the present time. If it is not required in Natal, I have no objection to sub-section (2) disappearing, but the hon. member will find that, as far as the collieries are concerned, many of the owners have given contracts to people to sell drink in accordance with the ordinary law of the Transvaal, and, from the inquiries I have been able to make, that has acted fairly well. It has prevented the roaming about at the end of the week which we would otherwise have. It is only to meet the position in Natal that this section has been put in.

Up to now this committee has rejected all the clauses which permit any traffic in kaffir beer, that is the selling of kaffir beer, and if there is one thing more than another upon which the members of the Native Affairs Commission and the Secretary of Native Affairs himself were strong, it was this, that there should be no actual traffic in kaffir beer, that it should not be sold as a commodity. When we come to Section 142, we will have to deside whether we will accept the Minister’s proposals or the proposals contained in the Bill, which, if accepted, do allow the sale of kaffir beer. If those proposals are rejected, then the only form in which kaffir beer can be sold will be under sub-section (2) of Clause 141. I do not know whether the Minister will be prepared to accept a proposal that I would make, namely—

I would make another suggestion, if I might. I believe that these sales on the collieries have had a very good effect in Natal. I am prepared to accept an amendment allowing this clause only to apply to the province of Natal.

Would you allow that clause to stand over?

No. I am dropping it, as far as the rest of the country is concerned.

Can we not limit it to existing contracts?

Yes, then I think we must make a proviso.

Will you allow it to stand over until we draft some amendment?

Yes, but I am quite prepared to accept the position that this sub-clause shall only apply to Natal, and only to existing licences.

Motion put and agreed to.

On Clause 142,

To make the position clear I have placed on the Order Paper the substituted clause which, I think, should take the place of 142. When this clause is voted down I will move the new clause in a form excluding the rural areas also. I think I might make the reason clear why I think a clause of this kind will be of value in fighting the illicit liquor traffic in Johannesburg and on the Rand. My idea is it should only be used with regard to the Rand area and Pretoria; I do not think there is any necessity anywhere else. The first thing I think I ought to make clear is what is the kaffir beer that is referred to as the beer that can be sold in establishments of this nature? The beer that can be sold in establishments of this nature is defined on page 124. [Definition read.] Therefore, of course, where establishments of this kind are established in the town, the possibility of supervision is present, and the only drink that can be sold will be kaffir beer under 2 per cent. by volume, which means a very light drink indeed. The idea underlying that scheme is to see whether it is possible to wean the natives at present working on the Rand from the habit they have to-day of drinking very strong intoxicating liquor, and also to keep the new natives coming to the Rand from forming any habit of taking stronger drink, and to keep them to the drink which we have been told is both their food and drink in the kraal. When they come on to the Rand area they do not get that food and drink to which they have been accustomed, and one can understand, when they have been accustomed to that, and they cannot find it in the towns, naturally they will drink other forms of drink.

Why cannot that be done under the Urban Areas Act?

It is quite possible it might be done under the Urban Areas Act, but, as a matter of fact, it has not been done. My scheme is a scheme by which you have on your Rand area a certain number of these places along that area, decently built and proper places in which your native will be able to buy what he generally can get in a native eating-house and also kaffir beer. The reason I have introduced the provision with regard to what he can get in the native eating-house, is this. I have had some experience by inspection of what the present eating-houses are on parts of the Rand. Absolutely through and through fly-blown, without any conveniences, and dirty as these places are, you would naturally expect, if you went into them, a drinking den being established in the neighbourhood from a hygienic point of view. We found as a matter of fact, that actually happens on the Rand. Wherever you have one of these native eating-houses there is always, round the corner, a den. They are difficult places to raid; as one disappears another springs up, and it goes on continually. So you can say the native eating-house, under the circumstances in which it is run to-day, is a centre of the illicit drink traffic on the Rand. That is why, as far as the Rand is concerned, I do not wish to put any scheme of this kind in the hands of the local authority. From my experience of these places, and also certain cafes at which white men congregate and drink methylated spirits on the Rand, I have no confidence at all in the way they licence matters. One café in a disreputable neighbourhood was pointed out to me by Major Trigger, and he told me he had had a promise from the municipal authorities that no extension would be granted, and they would do their best to refuse a renewal of the licence. He then took me into the premises and showed me a miserable backyard where the municipality was allowing new rooms to be erected for the use of people who wanted to come there and sleep off the effects of methylated spirits.

What about Durban?

There is no intention whatever to interfere with the position in Durban. As far as Durban is concerned, their kaffir beer houses are very well conducted, and, I should imagine, are a model to the whole country. It would be rather awkward to say it shall simply apply to the Rand, but there is no intention of doing anything except in the Rand area. I think this experiment can be best made in Johannesburg. My first idea was that the State should erect these places on the Rand, but then one knows that as far as the State is concerned you always have the difficulty of providing sufficient funds to carry out an experiment on a sufficiently large basis. We would require, I think, something like seventeen or eighteen places on the Rand. Therefore, I am also making provision in the section for a tenderer to obtain rights from the State, and my idea is your tenderer will be obliged to put up proper premises to conduct them properly and also to have a certain space of land outside every one of these places which will serve as a place of recreation for natives who come there. There are places where they can work off their spirits in the form of games, in some form or another, as has happened in country clubs. Any hon. member who is in favour of country clubs is not going to object to this state of affairs. What happens to-day is they consume meat and they want skokiaan. A place that sells kaffir beer under 2 per cent. in volume is easily kept under supervision, and what is done can be tested. We will be able to prove whether it is possible to take a native away from the temptation of what he is to-day indulging in, and all the miserable things he drinks to-day. When one of these inventions is put an end to by the police, we have another. We had hopana. Although we keep control to a certain extent on the Rand and Pretoria, no one will be able to tell me a native is not able to get drink in either of those two places. My experience is, my natives can go there and get drink. Say your tenderer is not the right man, and he abuses this privilege, what will happen? In any contract of that nature, there must be a stipulation that it can be terminated without any reason being assigned—where there is suspicious conduct, or where there is failure, the contract must come to an end. Whenever the State wishes to take over, the contract must also terminate, on reasonable notice being given. I have safeguarded the Government so strongly in the contract that we will be able to test it and find out whether the experiment is a success. If it is a failure, we can put an end to it; if it is a partial success, the State can make a better success of it, and we can have suitable places for individuals to get kaffir beer. We know of cases of natives at ordinary kraal drinks who do become very drunk indeed, but there are cases where you can make the alcoholic content greater than 2 per cent. If a native drinks a calabash of kaffir beer, whose alcoholic content is not greater than 2 per cent., I would be surprised if he became drunk. You have no chance in any other case, except in a case where you make the experiment in the town. Any of us who know the conditions know that without something of that kind being done on the Reef and Pretoria, it is impossible to end the illicit liquor traffic. This may be a failure, but it is the only possible chance of success, and is allowing a native to obtain with his food drink of small alcoholic content under circumstances where the privilege is not likely to be abused, under the circumstances of the contract. It is the only scheme that has a prospect of success, with the additional factor of fighting the illicit liquor traffic on the Rand. As far as the evidence is concerned, Major Trigger was in favour of it. He wanted an extension which I thought was dangerous; he advocated that European wine and beers should be allowed to be sold, which, I think, is dangerous in connection with an experiment of that kind. I think the argument is much stronger that where a native learns to drink wines he may also learn to drink what is cognate to wine—brandy. I think it is a fairly far-fetched argument that if a native drinks kaffir beer, he will also drink stronger liquor. With regard to the municipalities, if the town council act in the same way as they have done with the native eating-houses, hon. members, who know the position with regard to the Rand, would say it is better if it was not done at all.

I move—

I move this, but I would like the Minister to say whether I understood him correctly that this clause will not apply to the countryside, but only to the villages. I will say at once that, if that is so, then I am very grateful to him, because it will remove many of my objections. I feel that I must, nevertheless, put my amendment, but if the countryside is excluded, then it lessens my objections. I move the amendment because we are not accustomed in the Free State to have anything forced on us, and because I feel that if I do not put my amendment, the Minister will force something on to ns which the great majority in the Free State object to.

Whether we agree with the Minister or not, I think we are all bound to express our appreciation of the manner in which he introduced this particular proposal and the motives which actuated him in doing so. I am at one with him in wanting to do something active, and if I thought that this would act as a real palliative of the evil from which we suffer, no temperance leanings of mine would prevent me from supporting it. If I thought it would do any good. I would stand behind the Minister. As it is, I think the proposal is a dangerous one, and one which can be positively riddled with criticism. I have noticed of the Minister that he is very quick to appreciate any criticism of any proposal of his, and so I address him with some confidence. In the first place, hon. members will remember that the original proposal in the first Bill of two years ago was Government shops for the sale of kaffir beer on the lines of the Natal system. In other words, the Durban system was to be taken over and run by the Government, in addition to municipal shops, and it was on that proposal that the select committee took evidence. The proposal was subsequently modified to this extent, that these kaffir beer shops would be given out to private tender. We have now got to the third stage—private eating houses to be given out by the Government by tender and with the right to sell kaffir beer. I don’t believe one single witness who supported the Durban system would support a system under which private individuals are allowed to sell kaffir beer to natives. The Minister speaks of Maj. Trigger’s evidence, but I do not think the Minister will find that this witness gave his advice in favour of private individuals having this right, but in favour of State shops run by State servants under strict control.

That is so.

Up to now not a single voice has been raised in favour of the Minister’s proposal, which is made at the eleventh hour. The country has had no opportunity of considering it, the commission has not considered it, and no evidence has been taken on it. In fact, the amendment appears on to-day’s Order Paper for the first time.

It is not fair to ask us, at the last moment, to consider an entirely new proposal. The Minister’s solution may be good, or it may be bad, but the country knows nothing about it. I don’t believe there are a hundred people outside the House who are really aware of what is implicit in the Minister’s amendment. On that ground alone the Minister should not press the proposal. Five years ago the whole question was referred to a select committee, and it was decided that the way to tackle the question of supplying beer to natives was that laid down in the Urban Areas Act, which gives to a local authority the power to decide whether it wants to extend the Durban system to its locality, in deciding which the municipality would naturally be guided by the wishes of the local inhabitants. These provisions are continued in the present Bill, so that the municipalities still have power to establish native beer shops within their own area. That has not been done up to now in the Transvaal, because public opinion is solidly against it. Yet, in the teeth of public opinion, the Minister says he is going to establish Government eating houses on the Rand and in Pretoria for the sale of kaffir beer. I believe that the great majority of the people on the Rand do not desire this particular solution. Kaffir beer as defined in the Urban Areas Act is 50 per cent, stronger than that defined in this Bill. Therefore, the Government may start eating houses with the right to sell beer of one kind, and municipalities may open beer shops with the right to sell much stronger beer. Then there may be private eating houses licensed by the municipalities. Under the Act of Union it was decided to leave to the provincial administrations the right to legislate for municipal bodies. They have left the question of eating houses to the municipalities, yet in breach of the spirit of our provincial system the Minister now steps in and says the Government is going to start—

We have to pay for the police and the gaols which are filled by the illicit traffic.

Do you think it sound to delegate to the provincial councils the regulation of municipal institutions, and then to step in ourselves and run institutions which compete with institutions licensed by the municipalities, simply because the Minister of Justice says that many of them are deplorable evils? The holders of these kaffir eating house leases will not require to be licensed by the municipalities, and will pay none of the licence fees the Minister of Finance laid down two years ago. It is a most Gilbertian situation.

They will have to pay much more to the State

If the municipalities run beer shops, all the profits go to a special fund for the betterment of the natives in the area concerned, but not a penny of the amount to be paid by these tenderers is ear marked for native development. We place a very heavy responsibility on the municipalities for native housing and control, but the Government will take all these profits. In other words, the Government are acting far more selfishly than they would allow the municipalities to act. Right through the Liquor Bill we have been careful to avoid the creation of any vested rights, but what is going to happen to these people? The right is to be put up to tender, and the successful tenderer will say that he has the vested right to run a kaffir eating house. Unless you give them a long period no one will tender, or erect decent, premises, so the period must be one of a considerable number of years. The Government will create vested rights, which will make it impossible to discontinue what is said to be purely an experiment.

It can be stopped at any time in terms of the contract.

You cannot get people to tender unless they have some security of tenure.

Then it will not happen.

The Minister of Justice told us some 17 or 18 will be required in Johannesburg. I do not know what the conditions of the licence are likely to be, but they will have to be stringent to cope with this difficulty. I think the case of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is a very strong one, and there are very few people in Johannesburg who want these licences. Let me quote from a telegram—

and it goes on to say “also to the tot system.” I think the churches have made themselves fully conversant with the contents of this Bill, and in a large number of cases they have very good objections. It is well known that I am not a Good Templar, or a teetotaler, and I am not a total prohibitionist either. I want to refer to a little book sent to all members by a gentleman interested in this subject, the Rev. Mr. Cook, and I propose to quote one or two paragraphs. On page 9 he refers to evidence given by Col. Vachel in 1918 before the Rooth Commission—

It has, in fact, increased it. Children get a taste for liquor, and eventually get to like it.

Are you still quoting?

No, the quotation ended at “drunkenness,” the rest was my opinion, and a very good opinion, too. At the bottom of page 14, and on 15, Mr. Cook refers to the conference at Bloemfontein in May, 1922, between the members of the Native Affairs Commission and representative natives from the four provinces of the Union. Dr. Loram said—

Then Mr. C. Dube, B.A., of Durban, said that “in the joint council of Europeans and natives in Durban feeling was now decidedly going against the municipal canteen system, two whites in ten being against it on the ground that it demoralized and injured the splendid physique of the Zulu people, while seven of the ten natives voted against it too.” Then lower down on the page Professor Jabavu, B.A., was quoted to have said—

Lower down Professor Jabavu said it was their intention—

Then again, a Mr. H. T. Msimang, writing in that native paper “Umteleli Wa Bantu,” supplied gratis to all members, says-—

And then he goes on—

The hon. member opposite said, “Why don’t you listen to us farmers, who know something about the native and kaffir beer?” We are entitled to ask, “Why don’t you listen to these people who know what they are talking about?” I hope the House will throw out the whole thing.

I asked the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) what he proposed in its place, and his answer was, total prohibition. We are seeking for truth and light. I have had considerable experience on this question, and I asked him what he proposed in place of the Durban system or what the Minister proposes. The hon. member rushes in and he knows nothing about the system; in fact, there is more than one system, there is the system known as the Bloemfontein system, and another one known as the Durban system, but this proposal is neither, and he has been quoting about a system which has nothing to do with the question. He has quoted about the Durban beer hall, but this is not the same thing, it is a new idea altogether. Personally, I do not know how to vote on the question, because I do not know whether it will be a good thing or not. I am not joking, because very few members in the House understand this system. The hon. member gets up and says “Let things go on as they have been going on.” Well, if you do you are going to have murders, rapes and assaults on women. We cannot allow things to go on as they are. We have to adopt some kind of system. In Bloemfontein we had a system where every native had a right in a location to brew up to four gallons of kaffir beer. It worked very well for years, then broke down completely.

Why?

I do not know. I wish I did know. It has only broken down during the last year or two. There are 24,000 or 25,000 natives in the location. No liquor is allowed in, or supposed to be allowed in. That system worked splendidly for years, and it has broken down hopelessly. The House has now to make up its mind whether it is going to have this or the Durban system. Everybody who comes from Durban says the system is an absolute success, but the magistrates who come from Natal say it is a hopeless failure. Mr. Hind, of Maritzburg, said it is not the Natal natives who are to blame. The Natal native, he says, is a sober fellow, but the trouble is due to the natives from elsewhere. Now you have three things to do—either total prohibition, which has broken down hopelessly; the Durban system, which the Durban people say is successful, but the magistrates say is not; and the Bloemfontein system, which, as I say, has broken down. Now the Minister comes forward with a new system, and says we must have beer in the eating houses. That may be the way out of the trouble if it is run by the State and not by private individuals. If it is run by private individuals, it is going to lead to “jobs for pals,” it is going to lead to beer halls for pals and all sorts of corruption. I want to move that that particular line should be taken out. Let the State have a chance of showing what it can do. The municipalities have failed, private people have failed, prohibition has hopelessly failed, there is no doubt about that. I think the Minister will be wise if he will take it under his own control. I will move it later.

I should like to continue the objections I was putting to the Minister against his proposal. I agree with a very great deal of the sensible speech of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), and admit that prohibition has largely failed on the Rand and in Pretoria, and we that are searching for some form of solution of the difficulties which exist. I regret I cannot see any solution in these proposals, but I would remind the House that we have tightened up the law very much in this Bill, and I think we should give the law as we have tightened it up, a chance to see whether its working will not improve the existing state of affairs. Let me get back to my criticisms. Let me ask does the Minister intend to give out these places to the highest tenderer, assuming there is nothing against the tenderer’s character.

The Tender Board will recommend.

Quite! Then let me tell him what will happen. These monopolies will be extremely valuable. I tell him that inside a year what will happen to these kaffir eating houses is what has happened to the concession stores on the Rand. They will get into the hands of one particular section of the population—of a ring—and I will tell him something else. The very holders of these kaffir eating houses whom he condemns to-day will be the people who will successfully tender for these particular places. Let there be no mistake. He will not be able to stop it. They will outbid any other competitors, and they will come along with unimpeachable testimonials as to character and everything else. If we must have it at all, it must be on the lines mentioned by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). The State itself must take the responsibility of running these establishments with its own actual servants. To give them out to tenderers is absolutely a suicidal proposal. The Minister asks us to give him a blank cheque. He says “Allow me to establish these houses, and allow me by regulation to be issued at a later date to lay down the conditions on which they are to be run.” Can we do that? Is it a fair thing to ask of this House? Surely he ought to lay before the House a detailed scheme and put before us the regulations to be scheduled under the Act. If we are to embark at the eleventh hour on a proposal never considered by the select committee, never considered by the commission, never laid before the country at all, surely at least we could be told in detail what that scheme is to be, and the regulations under which it shall be worked. We do not know, for instance, what is to be done as regards the hours of sale or sales on Sundays. We know nothing about any security to be given by these people that they will run their premises decently. We know nothing about supervision. I give the Minister credit for every good intention with regard to this. I have no doubt he would not propose the experiment if he did not intend to make it a success, but I say that in regard to a great social experiment of this nature he cannot ask the House to accept it and simply say, “Well, I will try and draft suitable regulations.” We ought to have a voice in saying what those regulations are, and we ought to know how this scheme is to be run. Let me tell the Minister earnestly that having carefully studied the evidence given before the select committee, I agree entirely with what the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has said, namely, that whatever success the Durban scheme may have had in Durban, that success has not been repeated outside Durban. The evidence from Maritzburg was to the effect that the system was introduced in 1908, and almost immediately effected a great improvement. The effect of that has gone off and oft until in the last few years arrests for drunkenness and sales of illicit liquor have gone on increasing year by year despite the fact that they have had this municipal beer shop. A police officer came to our committee and said, “If we had a homogeneous population like Durban, we might be able to get along, but Maritzburg has of recent years had an increasing heterogeneous population. It is a recruiting centre. They come in from all parts of Natal and we find we cannot control the liquor problem simply on our beer shop.” If that is the case in Maritzburg, what is the case on the Rand, where you have natives of every tribe, colour and shade drawn not only from South Africa, but from Central Africa and Portuguese territory? I say, therefore, that the Minister will not solve this problem by this proposal of his. I am afraid he will only introduce an additional problem. He would be acting quite unfairly to those persons who have sunk large sums of money in building kaffir eating houses, because he is going to introduce State competition and State competition with the dice loaded. I do not hold any brief for the keepers of these kaffir eating houses, but I do say that before you introduce State competition, and State competition with the dice loaded against them, you ought at least to have given these people a chance of knowing what you are going to do. I do not suppose that these people know even yet what the Minister is going to do under this Bill. I will tell the committee what will happen. Every kaffir eating house keeper on the Rand, who has not got these privileges, will at once become an instrument of the illicit liquor traffic. They will say that in sheer self-defence to protect their own capital investment, they will have to go into this business. I would urge the Minister to drop this clause from the present Bill, think it over and, if necessary, introduce a separate Bill on the question, but—

No more Bills on drink for me.

I am appealing to the Minister’s sense of fairness. This is a proposal which has never yet been considered by this House or the country. It is a proposal which comes along at the eleventh hour. It is a proposal which greatly interferes with vested rights. It would be the most trenchant interference with vested rights that I know of, for the Government to enter into the kaffir eating house business. The committee, I think, will agree with me that to let this out to private tender will be suicidal. It will be bad enough if the Government enters the kaffir eating house business. Even with the modification suggested by the hon. member for Bloemfontein North (Mr. Barlow), I think we should not adopt the proposal. [Time limit.]

I assume that the Minister means very well with the motion, and I agree with him that light kaffir beer containing at most 2 per cent., is no danger to the native. Here, however, the Minister is adopting a new principle without having consulted anybody, viz., to establish State beer halls passing by the municipalities while the provincial councils have the power to make laws affecting municipalities. I am not so fond of municipalities either, because I have had many difficulties through them, but that does not say that they do not exist and have responsibility. The Minister said that they have an opportunity, but have not used it. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has already explained that they made no use of it because they were afraid of assuming the responsibility. Now the Minister wants to experiment with State native beer halls on the Witwatersrand and Pretoria without any control by the local voters. The municipalities are elected by the voters. If the Minister were to move that the municipalities should have the right of hiring houses, then it would be another matter. If things went wrong then, there are the taxpayers, the electors, to deal with the municipalities. I have had no word from my constituents on the Witwatersrand as to their views, nor did they have a chance of expressing them because the new clause has only been brought up to-day. The members from the countryside ought also to express their opinion on this new principle of State control of beer halls. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also explained that there were no regulations about the keeping of beer halls. The Minister wants to keep everything in his hands for his decision. Is it right to put it into the hands of the Government over the heads of the municipalities. I do not go as far as the Minister with regard to the filthy state of the eating-houses, but I admit there are filthy places on the Rand. The Johannesburg public, however, can look after that. It is their duty. Who, however, will control the beer halls? The Government erects a row of boarding houses by tender, and it is wrong. We shall have the same history that we had with the old concession stores on the Witwatersrand which cost thousands and thousands of pounds and were afterwards sold by auction. The municipalities also have the whole health machinery and I think the Minister was not quite fair towards the Johannesburg municipality with regard to the sanitary position. I think that as the Government is going to institute this system and will have to employ a number of officials, it will be a sad state of affairs. Or is it the intention to give a lot of those loafing about there to-day jobs? I fear that this measure will not answer the purpose because the Government will have the greatest difficulty in keeping the place in order. Drop the clause and if the municipalities do not undertake it, then let the Minister introduce the necessary legislation. It is a very dangerous undertaking at present to build the houses over the heads of the municipalities.

I think the whole House listened with very deep appreciation to the serious and weighty reasons given by the Minister for putting forward this clause, and when we oppose it he will know we are doing so for reasons which seem to us weightier and even more serious. Some of us will be voting against the clause, because it involves what, to us, is a very bad principle, and that is control of places like this by the Government, or carrying them on by the Government. That is a very bad principle. In any case, we shall object to certain portions of the clause as it stands. In the first place, we should object to its being imposed all over the country, but the Minister is prepared to limit it to the Transvaal. After all, the only justification for it, if any, is the state of affairs on the Rand. What are the reasons the Minister has given? He says the eating houses on the Rand are in such a dreadful condition that the people who go there are practically forced to go to some other place to get strong drink, so as to take away the impression of the eating house The eating houses must be of a very dreadful kind indeed. Has the Government thought of establishing eating houses without any drink at all? I would have no objection to the Government starting model eating houses and seeing if that would have the opposite effect to what is suggested to be the position at present. If the Minister would indicate that he will do this, I, for one, would support him. But out of the enormous number of people who are convicted for selling illicit drink on the Rand, how many are sellers of kaffir beer alone, and how many are sellers of wine and brandy and other highly fortified products? I should imagine that a very large proportion are people who are convicted for selling something other than kaffir beer. The Minister is not going to cure that by providing the most model eating houses with two per cent. kaffir beer. He is not going to cure either the natural or the cultivated taste for something far stronger than their native drink. Is that not what you have to deal with, that the real trouble on the Rand is that these natives, having got facilities for getting much more vicious drinks, get a craving for them and will get them whether they have the most model eating houses or not to go to for their food? If you supply the most up-to-date eating houses with two per cent. kaffir beer, and you cure the evil in any form whatever? I am afraid not. I may be entirely wrong, but I do say from the experience of others, that the real trouble on the Rand is that the illicit seller provides for the artificial or developed and cultivated craving, which the native has acquired up there. It seems to me we can deal with the matter in two ways, by model eating houses on the one hand and by making it harder and harder for the illicit man to provide these kinds of strong drink. It does seem to me that if I am not satisfied with the course the Minister proposes as a cure, then I cannot depart from my previous views that unless you have strong justification it is an evil thing to put the Government in this position. It is degrading to put the Government in the position of carrying on a business of this kind. Still more so is the feature of this Bill, which provides that the Government can let the thing out to tender, and I shall vote, most heartily, against any reference in the Bill to this. The trouble about this clause is that you get it giving the Minister the widest powers which I assume will be exercised in an excellent way by the present Minister; but Ministers come and go, and there may be a Minister one day whose administration may be one in which I have not the least confidence. We are legislating for a long time. I think we are taking a most dangerous step, with the best intentions, in endeavouring to cure an evil by what I think is a worse evil, and, therefore, I cannot agree to that. Quite apart from the desirability of the Government carrying on business of this kind, surely the municipality of Johannesburg reflects the state of public opinion there? With the powers that the municipality has, and the public opinion of all those on the Rand who are and have been long giving such earnest study and attention to the subject, if they thought the municipality could cure the evil by a plan like this it would have been forced by the leaders of public opinion to deal with the evil in this way. We may infer and think that it is not thought by those who are in the position to know local circumstances and difficulties that the establishment of public eating houses of the kind now proposed is going to cure the evil; in other words, the evil would still remain, and those who have the craving for the European and native drinks, whether skokiaan or the other extraordinary things mentioned in the Bill, will get these drinks, unless some other steps are taken than those in the Bill. No matter how strong the contract which may be framed, the Minister will not prevent the evils that will almost inevitably arise if he lets this out to tender, and there will be a number of potential evils, quite apart from the principle, which will bring about almost as bad an effect as before, and these evils will not be cured.

I, too, am very strongly opposed to this clause. I strongly dislike the Government entering into a kind of bootlegging with kaffir beer, but, apart from that, there are also many other factors and considerations involved which the Minister, and certainly this committee, has not had time to consider, so I do not think the Minister should have sprung this clause upon us at the last moment. I do not know whether the Minister is acquainted with kaffir beer and eating houses on the Rand.

I went through several.

But I do take strong exception to the Minister’s reflection on the Johannesburg municipality. I know that comparisons are odious, and distinctions are invidious, and that the class that runs eating houses on the Rand is theoretically as respectable as any other class; but of this I am certain, as soon as tenders are called for a ring will be formed, and a year after this clause becomes law, it will not be the Government, but a ring, which will have the monopoly, and the Government will have only the odium of the sale of skokiaan. It will be a dyarchy, with the Government interfering with the municipality. I do not say that the Minister may not be correct, and that it may be a sound experiment, but there are so many interests involved, and so many complications that we should not be asked to pass this clause on the comparatively scanty information supplied. The Minister should look into this clause far more carefully than he has. He says this clause is to be used to meet a purely local symptom on the Rand. From what I have seen on the Rand, I do not think this clause is justified. That there are bad eating houses I have no doubt, but there are so many other evils that may arise, and in the event of an election there may be graft of a would-be tenderer. I do not say that no State trade is justifiable, but I do say this clause is an experiment sprung upon us at the last moment, and this committee should not pass it.

I am afraid that the effect will be the opposite of what the Minister intends. If 17 or 18 selected individuals are keeping kaffir eating houses with the right of selling liquor, it will accentuate the illicit liquor business. Others have to keep their customers. I think there are about 250 kaffir eating houses in the Johannesburg area. I agree with the Minister that in a great many cases these places are centres of illicit liquor traffic. If that is so, then the Minister’s proposal will not put a stop to the evil, for any man finding that his legitimate business is not paying will have to go in for the illicit trade. Thus, far from being a solution, this proposal will accentuate the evil. Another difficulty will be that even if the tenderers do not combine to form a ring, they will offer high figures, and then they will find that the legitimate trade of the eating houses is not sufficient to compensate them for the amount they have paid for the right to run these establishments, and in order to make up the shortfall they will also adopt illicit liquor selling. Whichever way you look at it, it will be a hopeless failure.

I am very grateful for the way in which the Minister has explained the matter and mentioned the underlying idea. I just want to ask, however, whether it is not possible to improve the eating-houses without them being given a licence to sell beer? My attitude is that I feel it to be of great importance for kaffir beer houses to be established in Johannesburg. We have the evidence here of Dr. Roberts, and he says very clearly that the natives never had the Europeans’ desire for drink long as they could get their own kaffir beer. It seems to be enough for the natives, and he is in favour of the Bloemfontein system if it is under good control. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) said that he did not know the Johannesburg conditions. I know them, and I assure him that we are creating a criminal population in Johannesburg. Tens and hundreds of poor whites are going to jail, and when they come out they are criminals.

How will this proposal improve it?

We know that the kaffir beer halls in Durban have improved the position. That was the evidence of local people, although they did not all agree. The kaffir beer satisfies the natives. The hon. member for Rondebosch spoke about the churches. I asked in the select committee if they had a solution. I pointed out that the natives mixed their liquor with vitriol and other poisons. The reply was that they knew nothing. The only solution seems to be the suggestion for the establishment of kaffir beer halls. It is our duty to find a solution. We cannot do anything else. Now the experiment of kaffir beer halls is proposed. If it fails we must try something else. We have had prohibition on the Rand for 20 years, and it has been a failure. The kaffirs to drink, and they drink poison, and the illicit drink traffic has sprung up. It is our duty to end it. The hon. member for Bezuideuhout (Mr. Blackwell) said that he was very nervous about putting the houses into private hands. I also am much afraid that it will lead to all kinds of irregularities, to bribery and other methods, to get hold of the business in order to make money. Therefore, I should like to see Government control. If we had that, there would be a chance of reaching a solution, and I would like the Minister to carefully enquire whether the transfer to private persons will not lead to all kinds of irregularities. I got into touch in Pretoria with the poor people who are in jail for selling a bottle of liquor.

That will not put a stop to it.

I am convinced it will help. Maj. Trigger, of the police, testified that he thought it would. It must, however, be under Government control, and I want to say again that we must he very careful about putting it into private hands. Dr. Roberts knows the natives well, and he favours it. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk), a member of the Native Affairs Commission, is also in favour of it, as well as Gen. Lemmer, who has ceased being a member. People who know the natives favour it. Kaffir beer is the natural drink of the native.

I agree that something must be done to try and get a solution to the evils of native drinking on the Rand. I think the solution must go further than merely providing kaffir beer, and setting up eating houses. Whether that will help at all, I think is a question. It certainly will not remedy the evil. We shall have to go a good deal further into the position of the natives on the Rand. We have hundreds of thousands on the Rand, and what chance of recreation do we give them? They are not allowed in the public parks; a band plays, and the natives have to stare through the railings. They cannot play games, and they cannot go to theatre or bioscope. What can they do but go to the drinking places? We shall have to tackle this question by providing some sort of recreation for the natives, and not by regarding them as beasts of labour. I have no objection to the public authority supplying the native with a reasonable amount of kaffir beer. I understand the Durban system has been a success, and it appears to be well managed and well fun. I do object to this being let out to private contractors. We know what happened along the Reef, and this will be much worse. I do not object to the State doing it, but I do not think they should do it over the head of the local authorities. That will be undesirable. If shops are established, there will have to be more than 17 or 18. There are 250 kaffir eating houses on the Rand, and you will have to compete with them. This should be attempted by the municipality, or, if they ask it, by the State, but not by the State without the consent of the municipality. We shall, however, have to go further and provide for the reasonable human wants of the natives. He is deliberately cut off from all forms of amusement and recreation, and you cannot be surprised if he finds his recreation in undesirable quarters.

I have had considerable experience of this question, as for three years I was chairman of the committee of the Germiston Town Council, which controlled the large municipal location. The mines of the district served out kaffir beer practically ad lib to their natives, and yet every Saturday afternoon and Sunday we had tremendous trouble with these boys coming to our location looking for strong drink. Exactly the same position will be created if kaffir beer is sold on the Reef, it will merely make the boys yearn for strong drink. I think the best thing is for the Minister entirely to withdraw this clause. I repeat what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) says. If tenders are called for the right to sell kaffir beer, the same people of whom the Minister complained about the carrying on of eating houses so badly will be the very ones who will tender for these stores, and the only alteration will be that more attention will be paid to the selling of beer, because it is more profitable, and less care will be given to the eating house side of it. In suggesting a solution of the illicit liquor difficulty, I think the supervision of the stores from which liquor is obtained might be more severe. We know a lot of these people who sell liquor to the natives do not do it because they want to, but because of economic pressure. But, bad as the present condition on the Rand is, I think the present position is preferable to the wholesale demoralization of the native, which this scheme will bring about.

We appreciate the Minister’s intention. We know our natives can get drink in Johannesburg whenever they like. Any of my natives can go out and get drink, and they never give the people away who serve them with liquor. I do not think this is going to carry us very far. On the mines to-day they can get their kaffir beer, but that does not stop the mining boys going out and getting all they possibly can. I hope the Minister will withdraw this clause. I do not think it is going to meet the issue. We know the fact that the mines give their boys this kaffir beer does not stop the mining boys from getting as much drink as they possibly can. It is the people who make the drink we want to get at.

I feel sympathy with the Minister’s desire to clean up the position that exists in Johannesburg. He certainly put up a very strong case for support, and I should like to support him, but he had to confess that it was only an experiment, We are going to take a step forward in carrying out an experiment which might be disastrous in other directions. If Johannesburg has failed to carry out its duties, as the Minister thinks it has, surely pressure can be brought to bear on Johannesburg without committing this House to something which may be disastrous. It seems to me that this is a matter which requires amending under the Urban Areas Act. We have dealt with the supply of beer in urban areas in that Act, and it seems to me undesirable that we should start legislating in another Act and putting the supply of kaffir beer to the natives under two different administrations. If it is felt desirable that local authorities should be compelled to make greater provisions than they make at the present moment, it seems to me that would be better done by an amendment of the Urban Areas Act rather than by putting it into this Bill. There is another phase with regard to which we ought to be warned where we are going in this matter. I think we have had in the past a considerable amount of scandal in connection with ordinary liquor licences. What kind of scandals are we going to have in connection with kaffir beer licences on the Rand? I can conceive that the people who are going to handle these licences, dealing with natives throughout, are not going to be so responsible, perhaps, as those holding high class liquor licences. It is certainly a step in the dark, and which we ought not to follow in view of our experience with liquor licences on the Rand.

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

I move—

I want to say, first of all, that I believe I express the feelings of all in this House when saying how much we appreciate the patience and the fairness of the Minister in charge of this Bill. His is no light task, to try to consolidate the liquor laws of the four provinces. He is doing his very best. The Minister knows me well enough to believe this—that I believe what I say in tendering this expression of appreciation of what he has done and what he is doing, and if this State ship foundered in sight of port the praise would still be due to the Minister. Having handed that bouquet, there are certain things I desire to say. The first is that I have little knowledge of Johannesburg, and cannot speak in confirmation of certain things said this afternoon descriptive of the scandalous state of things there through the drunkenness of the native people, but I know that this amendment of the Minister and the text of the Bill before us make no special mention of the Transvaal or of the Rand or of any particular area. It is general. It seems to me to be competent, in terms of the Bill and the amendment, to open these kaffir eating-houses with kaffir beer facilities in most parts of the country, apart from native areas. The force of circumstances may compel attention to be centred on the condition of things in Johannesburg, but I do want to be assured about the application of this when it becomes the law of the country in general. I very much deprecate the idea of the Government controlling or appointing agents for the institution and maintenance of places for the sale of kaffir beer. I think the Government ought to stand detached from all that; exercise its right in legislation, exercise all due control, tighten up the laws, and see they are observed; but there is something in me which rises in strong revolt against the idea of the Government entering into a business of this sort, either directly or through its appointed agents. I very much fear what would happen in this country if that parisitical type of humanity that exploits our native people again had an opportunity, under the protection of the Government and the laws of the land, of carrying on this most nefarious practice. I admit the cogency of the Minister’s argument that something must be done to improve existing conditions, but I do, with all respect, suggest this to him—that, not by means of this amendment providing for direct or indirect State control of these kaffir beer and eating-houses, but by an amendment on other lines, an attempt be made to improve this sad condition of things which is a disgrace to all the country. In short, I beg he will withdraw the amendment and Clause 142, and seek in some other way to secure improvement.

In answer to what the hon. member has said, I have already drawn the change I indicated in 142 (1), that—

and then the paragraph continues. That will confine it to the Witwatersrand area and Pretoria. I admit at once there is a considerable amount of force in the arguments used against this section. The fact, of which I think we are losing sight, is this—that we will be assured that, as far as these places are concerned, your kaffir beer will be sold of 2 per cent. or under alcohol. I cannot for the life of me see what harm can be done. The only point about which I am doubtful is how much good can be done. I don’t think it is absolutely necessary to ask why, if your mine natives can get any amount of kaffir beer upon the mines, why do they go into the towns? I think it is because, especially in towns, people like to get away from their home to have a drink. They get tired of their surroundings, tired of the mine. The natives when they get drink somewhere else will be able to get it in this way instead of getting this obnoxious strong liquor which is the curse of the natives on the Rand. I do not for a moment say this is going to be a panacea on the Rand, but I say it is a factor which is going to reduce the evil on the Rand. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) made the point that we should go further and that we should deal with the question of recreation grounds. I made it clear that I wanted to deal with that. Three things have to be dealt with together. You have the food consumed with kaffir beer containing only a very small percentage of alcohol, plus your recreation grounds. If the Johannesburg Council does it, it will not be necessary for either the Government or the tenderer to do it. If the municipality does not do it, I think the power should be given to the State to act in the way I have suggested. I do not for a moment say this is anything more than a factor in the matter, but if we think of the small alcoholic, content of the kaffir beer, then I say a good deal of the evil will be reduced. One of the arguments is that of wholesale demoralization. I think the kaffir beer shops are only going to reach a comparatively small proportion of the natives, and those they do reach will not be demoralized. Take Walker cider. I think it is about 4 per cent. They tell me that at some times of the day a stronger effect is produced on the human frame by water than whisky. I can see the time coming when this House will restrict the use of water. It is a dangerous thing early in the morning. It puts too much energy into the human frame; but, at all events, I daresay that all the good I anticipate will probably not eventuate, but I am perfectly certain that evil will not eventuate, because the idea is your native goes there and drinks this weak kaffir beer, fills himself up, and then, if he goes and drinks this hard liquor, there won’t be room for it—there is a practical consideration. Somebody, I think the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), said if he had a calabash of native beer he would not be able to walk into the House. I suppose if he had a calabash of water he would find considerable difficulty. The great dangers of this matter, I think, are largely non-existent, but I admit at once that there is great weight—and possibly the arguments will prove to be correct in the end—there is great weight in the arguments against this proposal, and, therefore, I gave the assurance that any contract would be subject to termination without any reason whatever assigned, because, if any of these evils result, I admit at once we should terminate any contract at once.

How can you get a commercial man to tender on a basis like that?

If they cannot tender on that basis it means nothing will be done. The thing will be dropped.

It does not need one solitary member of this House to tell the Minister the dangers of giving the power to eating-houses to sell intoxicating liquor. The Minister himself, within the last few days, has had to take very drastic action on the East Rand in connection with the supply of drink and in connection with drunkenness, and the section of the population there who run these places are complaining that the Minister is assisting in taking away their livelihood. But the mass of people in that vicinity must be protected. We know we have done everything possible to try and get the public concerned to assist the police in keeping it away, but it failed. The people who suffer are not the people who sell the yeast, who sell the liquor, but they are the white people in that vicinity. Women are afraid to take their walk on Sunday. They are afraid of being out after dark for fear of meeting a drunken native. After years of experience in public life on local authorities, in the Witwatersrand, I feel that this idea of allowing native eating-houses to sell liquor is a very dangerous thing. The Minister says he is going to have some clause in the agreement whereby the contract can be cancelled at a moment’s notice without any reason given. The Minister knows as well as we do that these people have built up what are known as vested interests.

They cannot, under such a contract.

The Minister forgets the voting power of those people and the evil influences that may be exercised in connection with any election by people who are anxious to retain something which will provide huge profits for them, because there will be huge profits in this trade, if run by people who, one might say, are not too scrupulous in their methods. If these people do trade in kaffir beer, you are going to increase the task of the police a hundred, or even a thousandfold on the Rand to keep these natives under control. I would ask the Minister how many more police he is going to give the Rand. Let us see how the experiment works out on the Witwatersrand, if the local authorities run the beer shops. I would point out that the Witwatersrand is not Durban or Natal; we have 200,000 raw natives, the majority of whom have been brought in from outside areas. In addition, to these, there are thousands of natives living in locations. While the supply of kaffir beer may have proved a success in Durban, we are getting quite enough on the Witwatersrand if we hand it over to the local authorities to deal with. The Minister knows what we had to do in Brakpan with the evil that existed there. Are these kaffir eating-houses isolated places? They are practically in the midst of thickly-populated communities, and however well they may be run, they will prove a nuisance to the people living in the vicinity. We have a number of townships—Brakpan and practically in every township on the Witwatersrand—where kaffir eating-houses on the mines are surrounded by the people living in married quarters. We have quite enough to deal with on the Witwatersrand now without going in for this sort of thing We, who have served for years on public bodies there, know that the greatest trouble we have had in connection with locations is the liquor traffic. Decent, respectable natives have been at one with us in trying to keep down drunkenness. I think, if the Minister was to take the concensus of opinion of all the respectable people on the Witwatersrand, he would be hard pressed to get one in favour of this experiment. Another thing the Minister has to remember is that when these people have this right of selling this “pure, sweet, wholesome kaffir beer” and “filling the native with wholesome food,” and the natives go home and sleep it off—we are going to have that right abused, and we will have the difficulties of the police increased a thousandfold because of the supply of liquor with a kick in it. The native wants liquor with a good kick in it. The unscrupulous man is going, under the cloak of the supply of this commodity, to supply liquor with a kick in it. Some put carbide and all sorts of things in it—things that will drive a native mad. If, in the hands of the municipality, it proves a failure, it will be more easily dealt with than if it is in the hands of private people. Let the Minister go slowly and take one step at a time, seeing that this is an experiment.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) waxed eloquent on the evils of the monopoly system in Natal, especially Maritzburg, and quoted certain evidence given by the magistrate, Mr. Hime and Major Hunt, of the C.T.D. [Evidence quoted of Mr. Hime, questions 3230 and 3212; also question 3204, evidence of Major Hunt.] Major Hunt said that he knew two systems—the Bloemfontein and the Maritzburg system, and he thought the Maritzburg system was the better. He has bad considerable experience in the Free State, and spoke with some knowledge and authority. As one who has had a considerable amount to do with the introduction of the monopoly system in Natal, I claim to say a few words upon it. From 1906 to 1908, the position in the various towns of Natal, in connection with shebeening, and the illicit liquor trade with the natives, was becoming intolerable. The late Sir Frederick Moor, the Prime Minister of the day, consulted the municipal authorities as to what steps should be taken to deal with this undoubted evil. The weekends at Durban and Maritzburg were practically pandemonium through shebeens, and through the introduction from outside of kaffir beer of a most murderous character. The most notable thing was the shimian. The monopoly system was introduced, and it has been an undoubted success. Native drunkenness in Maritzburg has been reduced from 13.5 in 1908 to 4.2 in 1927. The monopoly system in Natal provides that all the profit from the sale of kaffir beer shall be devoted to the welfare and uplifting of the native. According to the evidence given before the select committee on the Bill by Mr. Saunders, for many years Mayor of Maritzburg, the sums devoted to native hospitals, native hostels and native schools in Maritzburg were £11,837, while the capital outlay on buildings for the use of natives was £15,697, all derived from the profits of this monopoly. Under the circumstances, it is very undesirable that it should be interfered with, and it is not quite clear from the Bill that the system may not be interfered with, for in this schedule it is proposed to repeal the remaining clauses of the Natal Kaffir Beer Act of 1908. I have spoken to Mr. Landsdowne on the subject, and he says he does not think this will have the effect of interfering with the Durban and Maritzburg kaffir beer shops, but he will look into the matter before the Bill is reported. The Urban Areas Act governs the position. I agree with the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) that the trade should be left in the hands of municipalities, who are the responsible authorities. A great deal has been said about the kaffir beer monopoly, but it must be remembered that kaffir beer is a food to the natives, and this endeavour to force its sale into private hands will react on municipalities, so I hope the Minister will withdraw the clause and leave the local authorities to govern the position.

We are very reluctant to vote against the Minister on this or any other clause of the Bill, so I hope he will withdraw it. From that quarter of the House where you would expect State experiments would be welcomed, the clause is stoutly opposed. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) draws the line at the State management of liquor traffic. It must be remembered that 2 per cent. by volume is equal to 3 or 4 per cent. in proof spirit. The taste for liquor grows by what it feeds on, and the natives always demand that its strength should be increased. They want something that will bite like a cat going down and to scratch like a cat coming up. That is the sort of liquor they appreciate, and they will make every effort to have their kaffir beer made so strong that it will be far and away stronger than intended by the law. The Minister has not told us who has asked that this experiment should be tried. I don’t want to say anything about the Durban system, except that it has been copied in very few places. At East London the municipal council, on two occasions, voted unanimously against exercising the kaffir beer option in the Native Urban Areas Act. At a very large public meeting held at East London a resolution was passed condemning proposals for having Government, or even private, kaffir beer bars. The system of drinking at bars is altogether foreign to the kaffir’s nature. That is a part of our civilization that we would be unwise to force upon the native. It would be better to cut out the clause altogether. I am credibly informed that the ordinary ginger beer of commerce contains 2½ per cent. of alcohol on the average. That shows the absurdity of attempting to bring in a law under which the State will retail kaffir beer of only 2 per cent. alcoholic strength. I strongly endorse the opinion that it will mean a great increase in the police force. In view of the general expression of hostile opinion to this clause, I hope the. Minister will see his way to withdraw it.

I will not follow the member for Brakpan in his references to the Rand, excepting to say that I agree with much of what he said. What I am going to say will apply to the country districts, villages and towns. A native congress at Aliwal North expressed strong objection to these kaffir beer shops. They contend that kaffir beer shops do create a habit among the natives of drinking beer, and that it would lead to a squandering and dissipation of their earnings, which is disapproved of very strongly. With that I am in agreement. I think the Minister has’ been guided too largely in framing this Bill by police experts. The police point of view has been referred to very largely and frequently, which is quite right. The police point of view is aimed at making any infringement of law easily detectable, almost regardless of the inconvenience and cost to which it puts the people of the country. I had experience of that in an enquiry which took place when we were dealing with the Stock Theft Bill. Police officers of standing contended and insisted that if the farmer kraaled his sheep and counted them night and morning, his losses would cease, or be minimized. That sort of farming has been found to be quite impracticable. The Native Affairs Department is well qualified to deal with our kaffir beer question If it were left to the Native Affairs Department they would adopt administrative legislation to the various requirements of the areas concerned. You do not want a cast-iron law to be applied to conditions which vary as ours do. On the Rand you have one set of circumstances, and in the country you have other conditions. We cannot apply a law like those of the Medes and Persians, impossible of variation. No, the police are entitled to and should be consulted. But it must not be forgotten that their first or primary object is to make detection of crime easy, and that doesn’t always square with practical legislation.

I think one point in connection with this matter has been overlooked. We are all anxious to see law and order observed, but the Minister of Justice is in the peculiar position that he is responsible more than any other member for the maintenance of law and order. He has had four years’ experience of the conditions that exist on the Rand, and he has come to the conclusion that it is desirable to effect some improvement if possible. The Minister has brought forward a definite scheme. It has been objected that he must not try this scheme, but try something else, but nothing else definite has been put in its place, excepting the point raised by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston), and that is allowing the municipalities to deal with this matter under the Urban Areas Act of 1923. There is no doubt that in Durban and in Maritzburg the municipal system of running kaffir beer has worked well. In other places the municipalities have not taken advantage of the Act. It occurred to me that the Minister might give the municipalities of Pretoria and the Reef an opportunity of taking advantage of the Act of 1923. Give them a few months, and if there is no intention on their part to take advantage of the Act, then the Minister could put the powers which this clause gives him into operation. I, myself, fail to see why the hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider) should so strongly object to the Government dealing with kaffir beer while municipalities are dealing with it. He may say he objects to municipalities running kaffir beer shops, but they have been doing it for some time with comparative success, and if municipalities may do so, and it is unobjectionable from a moral point of view, I fail to see why, from that same point of view, the Government should not do the same.

I did not refer to municipalities.

I understand a number of members do not object to municipalities doing this trade, but they object to the Government doing it. I cannot see any difference in principle. I think it would remove a good deal of the objection to the Bill if the Minister were to undertake not to put this clause into operation if the municipalities on the Rand and in Pretoria will move in the matter. But I quite agree with him that the present state of affairs is very had, and that it is his special duty to try to improve it. I want to say a word about the municipal system in Maritzburg and Durban. I had a little to do with the initiation of that scheme, and there is no doubt at all that the people of both Durban and Maritzburg saw a great improvement in the position after the Act of 1908 was put into operation. There was a great deal of illicit liquor selling among the natives, and, consequently, a great deal of drunkenness, but after that Act was in operation both in Durban and Maritzburg there was a marked improvement. Although one cannot argue that because the system was a success, say, in Durban and Maritzburg, therefore it is bound to be a success elsewhere, it seems to me that, at any rate, it is an argument in favour of its trial, and, after all, we are engaging, if this clause is passed, in an experiment, and I think that the Minister very fairly met the opposition by undertaking to restrict the operation of this clause, if it is passed, to the Rand municipalities and to Pretoria, and only introduce it elsewhere if it is found to be absolutely necessary.

I should like to say a few more words on the matter. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) quoted the evidence of Senator Roberts this afternoon, and I specially took the trouble to speak to Dr. Roberts personally. He told me that he was in favour of the giving of kaffir beer to natives under proper control. He is not in favour of the Durban system, but of the Bloemfontein one. He added that I might use his name in this debate. Now the hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider) talks about East London, and the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) talks about Aliwal, but they see to forget that the natives in East London and Aliwal cannot only get kaffir beer, but brandy and wine. I cannot understand people advocating that natives in their constituency may drink brandy and wine—

Only registered voters.

Yes, only voters, but the hon. member must not forget that we have just as highly civilized natives in the Transvaal as he has in his district. I have the evidence here of Mr. Young, the magistrate of Johannesburg, who says that he thinks the trade in kaffir beer should not be left in the hands of private persons, but that it should be controlled by the municipalities or the Government. The magistrate of Johannesburg, therefore, says that such control is necessary. Now the Minister is meeting some of the objections of hon. members by saying that it shall only apply to the Transvaal, in fact, to Johannesburg, Pretoria and the Rand. It is very easy to get up here and speak against the proposal, when hon. members do not know the circumstances, but the police evidence clearly says that one of the greatest difficulties of the police on the Rand is the stopping of the drink trade. The majority of the policemen is engaged in controlling the liquor traffic. What happens? The native anyhow gets liquor to-day even although prohibition actually is in force in the Transvaal, and we want to make an alteration so that, instead of prohibition, there shall be control of the sale of drink. Let us look at the position of the natives to-day. They are taken from the Native Territories to the compounds and no longer get kaffir beer. They are taken away from their kraals and their wives, and it is easily understood that when they miss all that they take stronger drink when their ordinary drink is forbidden. We now ask hon. members from the Cape and Natal, where they give liquor to natives, to permit the giving of kaffir beer to natives in the Transvaal under Government control. As the experiments in Bloemfontein and Durban have been successful, let us try, in the Transvaal, to stop the illicit liquor traffic in that way. We consider it a very serious matter in the Transvaal, because to-day scores of men and women are in gaol there on account of illicit liquor selling. The Minister has met hon. members by applying it only in Pretoria, Johannesburg and the Rand, and I ask hon. members to assist us to try and solve the problem by the establishment of kaffir beer halls under supervision. If it appears that they are not a solution of the difficulty, then we can always try something else. The man who goes to gaol to-day for illicit liquor selling meets the worst class of people there, and when he comes out he is often an expert thief and burglar. Hon. members know that one may do it in the Cape and Natal, but in the Transvaal you go to gaol. Nevertheless, I want to ask hon. members to assist us to solve this problem.

You cannot solve it in that way.

How do you wish to solve it then?

I don’t know.

The hon. member does not know. He only says, as the churches do, that he can find no solution. We must try and find a solution, and experienced people think that it may possibly be a solution. I hope hon. members will understand their responsibility, and that they will assist the Transvaal to settle this difficult question.

I was hoping that the Minister would have excluded Pretoria from this, but in his new amendment he has now included Pretoria. Some years ago the Pretoria Municipality were anxious to cope with this evil, and they sent a deputation to Durban to inquire into the problem. The deputation came back prepared to advise that Pretoria should accept the Durban system, but they could not get a majority on the town council, and, since then, they have several times endeavoured to force this system upon Pretoria, but every time they have met with opposition. I think most of us sympathize with the Minister in his difficulties and in his endeavours to meet this, but I do not think the suggestion he has made will be in the interests of the natives or of the white population themselves, and, if he will not agree to the deletion of the clause altogether, I would suggest that he accepts the amendment of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). There will be this satisfaction that the Minister would then have control of the sale of kaffir beer, and there would be no incentive on the part of the person to whom he hopes to let this tender out to fill up the natives. There would be State control. The Government would see that the place was properly regulated, and there would be no inclination to make it, which it often is, just a cloak for illicit liquor. I hope, therefore, that the Minister, if he will not agree to the deletion of the clause, he will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow).

I accept what the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) said, and I give the assurance that no steps whatever will be taken under the clause until the end of this year, and if in any substantial way the municipalities do what they should do, nothing will be done at all. Supposing, for instance, central Johannesburg does something, it will be very difficult to deal with the question on the Rand or even Pretoria, but I am not prepared to go further than that, and I think we should vote on the rest of the matter, but I give the assurance that until the end of the year nothing will be done by my department in connection with the matter. My amendment is going to be the Rand area and Pretoria, and, as far as they are concerned, no steps of any kind will be taken by my department until the end of the year.

The Minister says he has accepted the suggestion made by the hon. member for Dundee. I say, candidly, that leaves me horrified. I am amazed at the hon. member making the suggestion, and at the Minister accepting it. Here is a threat being held over the community.

No threat at all.

What else is it?

I thought it was going to help. I am very sorry.

The point is this: that I think myself we want to tackle the subject in a different way. I stand back for no one in admiring the way the Minister has handled this Bill, and I am very strongly of opinion that nobody could have done it better, and we have got on extremely well, but I do not think it is right for us to pass a clause about which we say “It will never be applied if you do something.” That is a clear threat. The hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) very rightly said that something must be done. We all grant that, but I object to the provisions of this clause If the community itself objects to having beer shops, I do not think it, right for us to force it upon them. The hon. member for Pretoria (South) spoke of State control. It is not that which I object to in the slightest. I want to see more State control, more direct control of the liquor traffic, and better administration, but I do object very strongly to the State trading in liquor, and that is the difference. The clause says authority to run kaffir beer houses may be given to an individual, or they may be carried on “directly by the State.” Ample control can be obtained, even if the urban authorities carry it on—the State can still control it. I understand from my Natal friends that the Durban beer place is not controlled by the State in any way. I think the State should come along and have a distinct say as to how that and any similar business is done. It is not State control I object to, but State trading in liquor. The other provision, that of putting up these beer shops to tender, is the most appalling feature of the whole thing. If we have to have it, let it be under municipal control under the Urban Areas Act, or not at all. I want to see temperance placed on a sound basis and helped on in all ways possible. This is not going to help things very much. I do not think it right in any way and looking at it from any aspect that the State should come into this business, except as a director and controller, but not as a trader. If we take Clause 21 of the Urban Areas Act, I believe with a slight amendment that the end desired by the Minister and others could be obtained. A large volume of opinion, including that of the Minister, thinks that municipal kaffir beer shops are desirable. If that is the opinion, and the difficulty is Johannesburg, we do not want to hold a threat over their heads and say we will compel them indirectly by the provisions of this clause unless they establish those beer shops themselves. It is no use saying it is not a threat. Therefore, I think it will be much wiser to take Clause 21 of the Urban Areas Act and, instead of saying there shall be a two-thirds majority, you can reduce the proportion. If it is impossible to attain what is thought by many to be desirable, owing to the drastic nature of that clause, then alter that, but do not let us pass a clause here which is on the statute book for all time and with the hypocritical idea—I don’t mean that for any personal application—but with the condition stated by the Minister, which don’t let us camouflage by saying that it is not a threat, because I say it is a distinct one, and a very unfortunate way of passing a clause in an Act to say “It will never be used if you toe the line.” I think the matter could be met within a reasonable time in the direction I have suggested. The hon. member for Dundee said that the Minister had met the case very fairly by providing that this clause is for application only to Johannesburg and Pretoria. I do not think that it is fair. It is entirely a matter of degree. The principle is just the same. If it is a particular area that is considered obstinate, well, make it more easy for the expression of the views of what may be considered a reasonable proportion of the people of the community, and let them say whether or not they will have it.

It is the whole of the Witwatersrand.

I apologize to Brakpan, but when I think of the Rand, I always think of it as “Johannesburg.” I hope the Minister will realize that we are not enemies to the reforms he is bringing in. There is a strong body of feeling on this side that it is undesirable to proceed with Clause 142. I hope he will meet the objections that have been made and avoid doing something which will be far worse for the country than if this Bill itself were not passed.

I hope the Minister will adhere to the clause as printed in the Bill, subject to the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), because the weight of evidence before the select committee was to the effect that total prohibition, as far as the natives are concerned, has been a failure. The police evidence was that one of the things necessary to stop the illicit liquor trade on the Witwatersrand was to give the natives facilities for having kaffir beer, and the principle of that was that kaffir beer should be controlled by the State or municipality, and not given out to private contract, because that would mean that others would be forced into the illicit liquor traffic to compete with the people who are getting the concession. The only security against that is that it shall be done by the State. I object to extending the supply of kaffir beer to the kaffir eating houses; I think the two should he kept quite apart. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) pleading so logically and eloquently in favour of State trading, because I quite agree with him. In Natal this has proved a very great success, both in Durban and Maritzburg. The Johannesburg Town Council, on one occasion, sent a deputation to Durban, which reported in favour of a similar system in Johannesburg; unfortunately, private interests prevailed, and the Johannesburg municipality has not yet embarked on municipal kaffir beer shops.

I am much surprised at the opposition of hon. members to the Transvaal beer houses. I hope the Minister will not give in. It is so remarkable to me that the Transvaal is specially singled out for nothing to be drunk. The natives can get nothing there, but in the Cape and other parts of the country they are free to drink. The illicit liquor traffic is always increasing, and I hope the Minister will not delete the clause.

I hope the committee will not be misled into accepting the clause by the suggestion made by the Hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) or by the Minister of Justice. The hon. member for Dundee, in making his suggestion, quite overlooked the Teal point in the attack on the clause. What we objected to in this clause is what the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) alluded to, and that is that the Urban Areas Act (Clause 21) says that the local body has the power in this matter to decide on local problems; that is the essence of our objection. The local body is the best judge of how to deal with local difficulties. I assume, as I am entitled to, that the municipal council of Johannesburg is as aware of the necessity for dealing with these problems as anybody inside or outside this House. Let us assume that the local body has considered the very proposition the Minister is making now, and come to the conclusion that it is not one which is able to justify itself as a certain cure for the dangers and evils with which we propose to deal. In nine months’ time the municipality of Johannesburg will be in the same position. The local body is then to be overridden by the Minister of Justice, and an experimental thing has to be started which, in the opinion of many of us, is likely to do far more harm than good. The hon. member for Dundee overlooked that the Urban Areas Act provides ample machinery to deal with the matter. The hon. member, as well as the hon. member for Pretoria District (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) said, “What other course has been suggested?” As a matter of fact, we have said “Leave it to the local body to deal with.” It may be that the adoption of the course suggested by the Minister is worse than leaving the thing as it is at present. The hon. member for Pretoria District (South) says we might do a great deal to stop the creation of the criminal classes—created by opportunities for participating in the illicit liquor trade on the Rand. But is the hon. member prepared to go to the other alternative and repeal all prohibitions, with regard to the sale of liquor to natives there? Does he want the natives on the Rand to have absolutely free trade in strong drink I can imagine the horror of the hon. member if such a proposition was put to him. The problem before the Minister is to find out how to avoid the creation of those criminal classes without taking away that protection. Under those circumstances, I strongly urge the Minister to withdraw the clause altogether.

The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) has not had experience of the question. You have only to consult the Native Advisory Board, which is against the municipal system.

made an interjection.

The hon. member has also had no experience. The Native Urban Areas Act gives the right to the town councils to sell kaffir beer. The hon. member knows all about it, because he lives in a sugar cane field in Zululand. The people in the towns say the natives do not desire these facilities, and therefore they stop the town councils from opening kaffir beer shops. If a town council does not do it, the Government should have the right to do it.

The Minister’s assurance that he would delay the operation of the clause until the end of the year does not seem to meet the position.

It was made to meet the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt).

Under the Native Urban Areas Act municipalities are left to decide whether they will open kaffir beer shops, and if they decide that local public opinion is against this they should not be bullied into opening these places. Having listened to the debate, it appears to me that a great deal of false reasoning has been advanced by supporters of the Minister’s proposal. The hon. member for Pretoria (South) seems to forget that we have just passed through committee this up-to-date Liquor Bill, while the state of affairs they complain of arose under the old law passed 25 years ago. I do not know whether the Minister is going to make an admission of failure ab initio, but I am not. I hope the Bill will result in so great an improvement on the existing system that we shall not need to risk any doubtful experiments. We have stopped at the source the manufacture of kaffir beer. In regard to European liquors, the source of the illicit liquor is the bottle store. We have said that the bottle stores shall be controlled both as regards the liquor that goes into them and the liquor that comes out of them. That may not be 100 per cent. effective, but I shall be exceedingly surprised if it does not achieve a great deal of what we have been hoping for. Yet, side by side with all these improvements we have made, we are asked to take a leap in the dark and to accept a counsel of despair based on the assumption that an illicit liquor traffic will still continue in all its evils, and that nothing will be done to stop it. There the Minister is illogical. Let him give the Act a chance. We have done our very best to tighten up every screw in the machine. Should this prove ineffective after, say, five years’ experience, we shall then consider adopting his present proposals on a much bigger scale than now intended, or we shall have to face total prohibition for Europeans and natives alike. But don’t, while tightening up the machinery, declare that the machinery is bound to be defective. That is a confession of defeat that need not be made at this juncture; rather let us do what we can to make our Bill effective. We have done everything the police have asked us to do, and the measure is going to be a much better one than the Act it will replace. The Minister said it would be quite easy, once having started kaffir beer shops, to stop them. How absurd! He is going to call for tenders for well-built and nicely furnished places, and in effect he tells the tenderers that they may close down in the ordinary way one night, and on the following morning they will receive a letter telling them to close up immediately. Does he think anybody will put their money into such a venture on that basis? The Minister cannot have it both ways. The Minister is in another dilemma because he says that the kaffir beer will possess only two per cent. of alcoholic strength, but if it is as weak as that it will never act as a palliative, so the Minister will be forced to increase the strength.

What about the new natives coming from the kraals?

They do not come from the kraals, but from Portuguese East Africa, where they have been accustomed to much stronger drink. In every other clause of the Bill, when the representatives of any particular province or locality were unanimous in opposing it, the Minister gave way and met them. Ten representatives of the Rand and Pretoria have spoken on this kaffir beer proposal, and they are all absolutely against it. We will take the responsibility of telling the Minister that we do not believe in the proposal. We have spoken with the same voice. Not a single Rand representative has spoken in favuor of this proposal, either in its present or its amended form. Let the Minister act as he has done in regard to other provisions of this Bill by saying that if the representatives of a particular province or a large portion of a province do not want it, he will not give it to them.

Why single out the Rand for this experiment?

We are to be butchered to make a Roman holiday. He has told us he is steering a middle course.

If two per cent. kaffir beer is not a middle course, I do not know what is.

In the teeth of the unanimous voice of the Rand and Pretoria members this is being pressed. If the Minister carries this, he will carry it by the votes of platteland members who have not listened to the discussion, and who do not care two-pence about the Rand or Pretoria, and I beg him not to do it. Finally, let me tell him that the natives themselves are against it. [Time limit.]

They want something with a kick in it, I suppose.

I hope the Minister will stick to his proposal. We cannot take any notice of a person like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). He is an extremist against the sale of liquor. He said that if something or other were not done, the Rand would be dry after five years. It seems to me that I shall more probably see him hanging dry onto a pole, than that Johannesburg will be dry. There are thousands of people who think differently from him. Today there are two opposing groups and he belongs to the one that wants to take away all liquor. We have had total prohibition on the Rand for coloured people and natives for about 25-30 years, and it has been an absolute failure. That, everyone must admit who is not wilfully blind. The Minister is here making an attempt to stop the illicit traffic. Kaffir beer is the natural drink of the native, and if he cannot get it in a proper way he will be inclined to try to get hold of brandy and other drinks by smuggling. It is a shame, but the natives get liquor, that poisons them, by smuggling. Instead of pure drink they get such extremely disgraceful stuff. Let the native get his kaffir beer under proper supervision, then we shall be rid of the illicit traffic in the Transvaal to a great extent.

An attempt is being made to get everyone in favour of the sale of more wines and liquor in South Africa to vote in favour of this particular experiment. What would have been the state of the Witwatersrand if there had not been prohibition? One narrow stretch from Randfontein to Springs with 200,000 natives in from outside and 100,000 living on the Rand. I would like to ask the hon. member what the people of the Witwatersrand would have done had it not been for prohibition. We will admit it has not been a complete success, but I dread to think what would have been the state of affairs but for prohibition. If all the natives on the Rand could go into a bar and obtain as much liquor as they could consume, I say the Rand would be a very dangerous place to live in. Merely because the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) happens to be in favour of prohibition is no reason why any hon. member with any sense of responsibility to women and children of the Witwatersrand should vote in favour of placing this system in vogue on the Rand. The mere fact that any hon. member happens to be interested in the wine trade or in the extension of the sale of liquor throughout South Africa, should not tempt any hon. member to lose his sense of responsibility to the general welfare of the people of South Africa. That is what is being done. Some of these hon. members are going to support the Minister on this matter. If hon. members were to consider the welfare of the people this would be overwhelmingly defeated, but if, on the other hand, the vote is going to be cast from the point of view of self interest or by representatives of places not affected, but who are quite prepared to put this system on us, you will lose. I am sorry the Minister has not decided to withdraw this particular objectionable proviso in connection with this matter of private tender. If this vote were left to the hon. members who represent the areas most vitally concerned, this particular clause would not have a snowball’s hope. It is entirely unfair for the Minister to say to other members, ““We are not going to inflict it on you, therefore, you can support us in putting it on the other fellow.” We have to live amongst it with our wives and children, and we know the position that exists to-day oven in spite of prohibition, and we feel from the experience of local authorities on the Witwatersrand that this is going to be a very dangerous thing indeed. Once these things get their roots in it is a very difficult thing to dig them out again. Once these people get their system going we are going to have tremendous difficulty in eliminating it again. I hope the Minister will agree at least to limit this experiment to local authorities, and if it proves a failure, if it is not in the interests of the native and of the white community on the Witwatersrand, we can more easily withdraw it than we can after we have allowed it to come into the hands of private enterprise.

I think we can come to the vote on this matter now. I may say I have not the faintest idea how the vote is going, but I think we have explained the points to each other very fully from every point of view.

Might I make an appeal to the Minister? There is no doubt that this committee and the House deeply appreciate the manner in which the Minister has conducted this Bill in going through its various stages. I think I am right in saying also that he must equally appreciate the fair manner and non-party spirit in which this measure has been dealt with by the committee. There is no doubt also that the Minister and hon. members who sit here know that there are the strongest views held on this particular clause. Many of the Minister’s own strongest supporters are as much opposed to that clause as my hon. friend who sits behind me (Mr. Blackwell). Is not this a case in which I am justified in appealing to the Minister to agree to the withdrawal of this clause and try and let us get on with the schedule to the Bill, when the Minister will have performed perhaps the best work he has ever done since he has taken his seat in this Parliament? It will facilitate the passing of the schedule and most probably he will be able to go home to-night with a task accomplished which really is of a stupendous character.

I do not ask any hon. member sitting in any part of the House to withdraw his views in favour of mine. Is it quite fair to ask me, therefore, to withdraw my views in favour of those of any other hon. member? After all, I suppose I am entitled to some little consideration. I am only speaking from the point of view of my own vote. I am not speaking for anybody else.

Your vote is different to ours.

No, it is not different.

They only look where you are going to sit.

I do hope that we will now get to a vote on this clause.

Question put: That the words in lines 67 and 68, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—39.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Basson, P. N.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brink, G. F.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Havenga, N. C.

Heatlie, C. B.

Heyns, J. D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Krige, C. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, J. P.

Malan, M. L.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Oost, H.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Stals, A. J.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Hugo, D.; Pienaar, B. J.

Noes—45.

Allen, J.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Barlow, A. G.

Bates, F. T.

Brown, G.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Christie, J.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gibaud, F.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Kentridge, M.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Marwick, J. S.

McMenamin, J. J.

Mullineux, J.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Pearce, C.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Sampson, H. W.

Sephtoh, O. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Strachan, T. G.

Struben, R. H.

Van Rroekhuizen, H. D.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Waterston, R. B.

Watt, T.

Tellers: Alexander, M.; Blackwell, Leslie.

Question accordingly negatived, and the words omitted.

I will take that as a test of the whole of that clause. I will vote against this clause now, and also I will not move any amendment on that.

Remaining amendment proposed by Mr. Barlow put and agreed to,

With leave of the committee, amendment proposed by Mr. Keyter withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, put, and the committee divided:

Ayes—18.

Allen, J.

Barlow, A. G.

Brink, G. F.

Christie, J.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Du Toit, F. J.

Kentridge, M.

Pearce, C.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Rood, W. H.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Wessels, J. B.

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

Noes—45.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantiné, R.

Bates, F. T.

Brown, G.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Close, R. W.

Conroy, E. A.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gibaud, F.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Keyter, J, G.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Malan, M. L.

Marwick, J. S.

McMenamin, J. J.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, J. F.:T.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Strachan, T, G.

Struben, R, H.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Vosloo, L. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Watt, T.

Tellers: Alexander, M.; Blackwell, Leslie.

Clause, as amended, accordingly negatived.

On Clause 141, standing over, to which an amendment had been moved by the Minister of Justice.

With leave of committee, first part of amendment withdrawn.

I move—

I move that, and hope it will not he a long discussion.

I would like to point out that for quite a number of years since 1908 it has been the custom in Natal for the licensing authorities to issue licences to private persons for the sale of kaffir beer.

That is a thing we have just turned down as far as the Rand area is concerned.

That is so.

There must be some logic about it.

For the Rand you are providing for the future. Before 1908 there was a great deal of drunkenness going on—

Exactly as in Johannesburg to-day.

Under the Act of 1908 power was given to the licensing authorities to license premises on the mines; the colliery proprietors were sympathetic, and their wish was that this should be done in order to aid the natives to remain sober. They entered into contracts with persons under which these persons opened kaffir beer premises. There has been a very great improvement in the demeanour and habits of the natives in consequence, and it seems to me it is a retrograde step and unjust to wipe these shops out of existence after three years. I am not speaking on behalf of the licensees specially, but on behalf of the colliery owners, and if they find it is more to their interests as employers of labour, and more to the interests of the natives themselves to have these kaffir beer shops run by responsible persons instead of having them run by themselves, why should they be wiped out? There are 30 of these places, which are all well-conducted, and a considerable amount of capital is employed, and I do not think it is fair for this committee to wipe these shops out of existence at the end of three years. I hope the Minister will not insist on the three years. We permit natives to drink beer at their own kraals, and under the Native Areas Act we permit the municipalities to brew and to sell native beer. In some of these mines there are from 500 to 1,000 natives, who naturally want beer-occasion ally.

How do they do in the Transvaal?

I do not think that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is a better judge than the colliery owners themselves. We have made exceptions in the Free State and Natal in other respects, and I submit it is hardly fair to the people engaged in this business, which is a lawful business, has been carried on in a respectable manner, and has the approval of the persons most vitally concerned—the colliery owners—that it should be wiped out. After hearing the Minister’s amendment it is difficult to know what amendment to move to that amendment, but I think that the words “within a period of 3 years” should be deleted.

Is that not exactly the same as we have turned down?

No, it is not. We have just turned down a proposal to start something entirely new—

But there is no difference.

It is wrong.

I am dealing with something that is in existence—a system which has worked well. It seems unfair, with a stroke of the pen, to take away these licences after three years. These licensees have rights which should be protected. I move, as an amendment to the amendment—

I am not in sympathy with the existence of these beer-shops in Natal or anywhere else. I strongly object to this being made applicable to the rest of Natal. The existence of these shops on the coal mines will have to be allowed, I suppose, because of the contracts which exist, but they should not be extended anywhere else. If applicable only to these licences which are in existence, my objection would fall away.

I want to support the last speaker. Before we adopted the monopoly system we had shebeening all over the place, drunkenness and abuses of all kinds. I hope the Minister will not force this on Natal. We do not want it. If the Minister will keep it to the mines—

Mines or works; not as a ration; sales.

Authorizing mines outside urban areas?

Mines and works.

Indiscriminately?

The clause is to provide for the existing shops, but I have no objection to withdrawing sub-section (2) altogether. It means that the moment the Act comes into force, which will be about the end of September, these places will stop. If the sub-section remains, I give the assurance, as far as I am concerned, that the only places that will be continued will be the existing ones to give them time to wind up their affairs.

I have no objection to that.

No new licences will be granted.

That is the position I have taken up. I withdraw the amendment on page 513 of the Order Paper.

I move—

Coloured people do not drink native beer.

In many parts of the Transvaal the complement is partly made up by coloured people. If the words “coloured people” are deleted they might, in some cases, turn away coloured people.

I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment proposed by Sir Thomas Watt put and negatived.

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

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On the First Schedule,

I move—

After the first item under Orange Free State, to insert:

In the item “Act No. 9 of 1907”, on page 130, to omit all the words in the third column and to substitute “All the words in Section 2 after the words ‘one pound”.

After the fourth item under Natal, to insert:

Before the first item under Union, to insert:

Agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, put and agreed to.

On the Second Schedule,

I move—

I move—

This amendment is necessary, because in the Cape Province there are places like Newlands cricket ground, which have a retail liquor licence and not a sports ground liquor licence, which they will now exchange for a sports ground liquor licence, and similarly the Opera House will be able to exchange its retail licence for a theatre licence.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, put and agreed to.

On the Third Schedule,

I move—

It is not the Minister’s intention to get revenue for the treasury from wine farmers’ licences, but to keep a watchful eye on all transactions. When Minister Burton wanted to have registration of transactions in tobacco by farmers, he fixed the permit at 2s. 6d. only. Let the charge for the permit in the case of wine also be merely nominal.

There is a formal amendment on the Order Paper in subsection 7 of Section 75, but there is another amendment I wish to move which is of more importance—

So that in the case of wholesale liquor licences, the licence fee shall be reduced by one-half if local liquor alone is sold. Interesting facts have been brought to my notice by the Excise Department and also by people interested, with regard to the importation of drink, and what is happening to our drink in other parts of the world which, I think, makes it fair and necessary to delete this proviso, and to allow the customs to be the only taxing medium of drink coming in from outside this country. I find that in 1914 there were approximately 500,000 cases of whisky imported into this country. In 1926 that number was reduced to 165,000. In 1927, as against 1926, there has been a further reduction of something like 26,500 cases. The result is that to-day we are having a very much smaller importation of whisky than we had before. On the other hand, the Cape wines exported to the British Isles were 55,000 gallons a year in 1925 (1926?). In 1927 the amount was increased to 283,000 gallons, and I think in view of that enormous increase in one direction and diminution in the other direction, which is, of course, owing to people not consuming the same amount of drink they once did in this country—though I am always called a liar when I say that—and owing partly to the people taking more South African drink than they did, I think there is no justification for this proviso. Additionally, as a friendly gesture, if I may say so, I am moving the deletion of that proviso.

I would like to move—

My object in moving this amendment to reduce the licence fees is that these swinging licence fees are out of all proportion to the business that is being done in some of these smaller places. It may be quite right to charge in a place like Johannesburg, Cape Town, or Durban, a licence fee of £150 for the first year for an hotel and so on, and then charge half these amounts on renewals, but for the ordinary small towns, where at the present time a licence is paid from £30 to £50, these charges are crushing. They will make it almost impossible for some of these people to make a living. A country hotelkeeper, who at the present time in Natal pays £8 a year, will have his licence fee increased to £75. I do not think that is reasonable. It is all very well to make a fairly heavy charge on a business having a large turnover, but in these smaller towns, the business done is very small. The hotels are kept open for the convenience of the travelling public, and there is no doubt that the public will suffer if such heavy fees are charged in future. With regard to rural areas, it seems to me that it is quite indefensible to increase the fee paid by country hotelkeepers by 9½ times. If the fee were doubled, it might be reasonable enough.

This schedule has nothing to do with the question of drunkenness or the control of the trade, so I hope I won’t be accused, as I have been, of supporting drunkenness and so on. A great many of us have been subjected to this.

I did not.

The Minister did not. But I would point out that all through this Bill we have, to a considerable extent, put the licence holders under the harrow. Take the case of a bar. In ten years’ time we are going to abolish bars altogether, yet we are increasing their licence one hundredfold. Take all these licences, wholesale has been increased from £50 to £100, brewer from £25 to £100, bottle from £50 to £200, and so on, yet in every one of these cases we have put these licence-holders under very serious disabilities. I would put it to the Minister whether this whole schedule is not very unfair and very harsh. I would like to refer to another matter. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus), who is not here to-night, asked me to refer to a letter which he had had in connection with the agricultural show at Johannesburg. We are going to charge temporary licences at the rate of £5 per day. It is pointed out that the agricultural show at Johannesburg runs about six different bars on the show ground during the show. These six bars are really only one licence sub-divided for public convenience; they take out one licence and sub-divide it into six different bars. If this goes through they will have to pay £30 a day, and, as the show lasts four days, they will have to pay £120. I understand the same holds good in regard to the Turf Club, Johannesburg. There, too, they split up their licence. It is not six different licences, but one licence sub-divided for the convenience of the public. Race meetings I am informed, last only half a day, yet for this they would have to pay £25 to £30. There again it seems unconscionably harsh. Then in regard to the transfer of a licence, at the present moment the transfer of a licence costs £1. It is a mere formality. Yet here it is proposed to charge £25, £50, up to £100 for a transfer, which is a formality.

It is not a mere formality. The transferee must be a good man.

I am informed that it is practically a formality. I see here that for the transfer of a bar licence the charge is to be £100. Say that the licensee dies, or his health gives way, and he has to transfer the licence to somebody else. The State has just received £200 for this licence, and for the same object they are now going to claim £100. I would put it to the Minister that this whole schedule is far too high. I would move—

That is not an amendment. I cannot put that.

Surely it is a very useful amendment.

Not in that form.

I would suggest another course, if I may. I agree that these amounts err on the side of being too high. I may say there has not been much objection raised to the amounts.

The licensees are so cowed by this Bill that they have not had the courage.

That may be the true reason, but I will undertake to go into this before the report stage, and at the report stage I shall move from my own point of view several fairly substantial reductions. I will consider the whole of this schedule and move substantial reductions. I will have them on the Order Paper before we get to the report stage. I think that will enable us to get the Bill away so that we can have it printed. I move—

There are no kaffir beer licences.

I move—

I appreciate what the Minister has said but I would like my amendment brought before the House, although I do not want it voted on. The point raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) is well-founded. These bars are accommodated in different parts of the grounds and this will mean that you would practically do away with them in some cases. I am not going to delay the committee seeing the Minister is going into this at the report stage.

I believe it is so that many of these licences are on the high side, and they might suffer a reduction, but what I wish to point out is that we are here dealing with sources of provincial revenue, and we must be very careful in making reductions that we do not interfere with revenues assigned to them, otherwise we shall get into difficulties. I think the Minister will have to carefully consider the scales and bring something forward later on. It would not be wise for us to start chopping these licences now. I think they could be reduced considerably, but it is much better that the Minister should consider them.

I just want to draw attention to the third schedule. From careful calculations which have been made the increased scale of licences will bring in additional revenue to the amount of £174,000. You state here that for a new bottle store licence you have to pay £200, and for a renewal £100, which is very high indeed.

In view of what the Minister has said about reconsidering the matter, I beg, with the leave of the committee, to withdraw my amendment.

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

I would like to point out to the Minister, before he draws up a new schedule, that £200 has to be paid for a new bottle store licence. If you take £180 for salary and wages and £20 for other expenses, cleaning up and so forth, you have to pay £300 for a country licence. You must have a turnover or £1,200, and make a profit of 25 per cent. on that to pay for the Government revenues and salaries. I wish the Minister to take that into consideration.

I should just like to have the assurance of the Minister that in considering the figures he will bear in mind what the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) has already suggested, viz., not to forget the countryside. The turnover on the countryside is not one-third of that in the large towns, and I hope the Minister will bear the recommendation in mind. I cannot sit down without first expressing my disappointment that the Minister wants to withdraw the proviso in the schedule. As I said in a previous speech, we much appreciated the attitude of the Minister in preferring South African produce, and now at the last moment, the Minister comes and withdraws the proviso. I am not only disappointed, but all producers in South Africa will also be so.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Alexander and Mr. de Waal put and negatived.

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

Fifth Schedule and title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; to be considered on 16th April.

I move—

It is not necessary to explain this, and the Minister is willing to accept it. It is merely for the purpose of including the meat and food inspectors.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clause 5 put and agreed to.

Amendment in Clause 7 put and negatived, and the Bill, as amended, adopted and read a third time.