Can the Minister tell us what arrangements are being made through the High Commissioner’s office for the adequate representation on the Imperial Economic Committee of this Government? I notice that in one of the reports of the committee the name of Mr. Dimond appears as a representative of the Union of South Africa, while in a subsequent report the name of Mr. F. J. du Toit appears. It is a matter of very great importance that the Union should be well and continuously represented on that committee, because I think an examination of the reports will satisfy us that the work of that committee is going to subserve an economy of very great importance to South Africa. Among other things, the committee is interested in seeing that empire products are sufficiently marked and identified to be able to command a sale among those people who prefer to buy from the dominions than from foreign countries. The Baldwin Government has, since its accession to office, made an alteration in the Merchandise Marks Act of Great Britain, under which any person interested in any particular product can apply for an order-in-council to have that product marked in such a way as to differentiate between produce of that kind grown in foreign countries and grown in the dominions, and I am pleased to see that provision under that Act has been made for the marking of products in which South Africa is very keenly interested. There are orders-in-council in existence now under the amendment of that Act under which sultanas and raisins are marked with a distinguishing mark as between those grown in the dominions and those grown in foreign countries, and also eggs, honey, apples and pears, oats, oatmeal and rolled oats. These are all products in which South Africa is interested. I see that in the work of this Economic Committee provision is made for the participation of officers who are sent from various parts of the dominions with a special knowledge of any particular subject with a view to guiding the committee and stimulating their work in any particular direction. I hope the Minister will take into consideration the desirability of our sending from South Africa the best man we can produce in this country to assist and stimulate the committee in Great Britain in the direction of furthering the sale of products from South Africa. I think the visit of such a man from South Africa would do an incalculable amount of good for the produce of this country. They mention having obtained two men from Canada with specialised knowledge, and I think as this provision is in full force now, we should avail ourselves of it to its fullest extent. We never know how soon the policy of the present Conservative Government in Great Britain may be altered. There may be a change of Government or a change of policy. I take it I am addressing my representations to the Minister of Finance, under whom the High Commissioner comes. In connection with the Imperial Economic Committee, there is also the Empire Marketing Board, a very important body upon whom devolves the spending of the annual grant which is made from year to year by the British Government for the promotion of the objects which the Imperial Economic Committee have in view. I should hope that we might be able to send from some department or from some commercial or industrial concern in South Africa, somebody who is well-equipped with knowledge and who would give a step forward to the necessary work that is yet to be done in the way of availing ourselves of the advantages which this committee offers us. There is one other matter I would like to mention to the Minister, and that is the extent to which inquiry has been made in the High Commissioner’s office as to the work which was carried on by Mr. Brunt when he was there. It has been put to me that Mr. Brunt was responsible soon after he took office in London for a drastic change in the arrangements that existed at that time for the buying of materials and the buying policy of the High Commissioner’s office. He did away with whatever arrangement subsisted at that time, and substituted a board of which he himself was chairman, and with that board rested the question of buying in the High Commissioner’s office, for the remainder of the time during which Mr. Brunt’s tenure of office continued. If that is so, I think it ought to be wise on our part to hold a full enquiry as to the need for such a change and what has resulted from it, because it is also alleged, I think with perfect truth, that Mr. Brunt constantly visited Germany whilst he was in office; and the whole attitude of this department towards buying was one that demands some inquiry into the part of those responsible. I hope the Minister will not regard this as a matter that does not call for some inquiry. [Time limit.]"

I can only say that as far as the first part of his remarks are concerned, the hon. member has been discussing administration of policy which really falls under the vote of the Minister of Mines and Industries. It is quite true that the High Commissioner is an agent in London for all departments, and perhaps in that way the hon. member was in order in bringing it up here, but it would be more convenient if he would discuss it under the vote of the particular Minister concerned.

I will be ruled out.

No, the hon. member will not be. Mr. Dimond, who is our representative, is an official of the Department of Mines and Industries. We consider we are well represented on that committee by him; he is an able official and is acquainted with the conditions in South Africa. He has been doing exceedingly good work, and has an able assistant in Mr. du Toit. It was only when the former was here on work in South Africa that Mr. du Toit was acting for him. I do not know why we should go and drag in other people now that we have our own trusted people.

Canada is doing it.

Why should we do it if Canada is doing it? The hon. member said that this board is also to spend this £1,000,000 provided by the British Treasury. I think the hon. member is misinformed. We do not presume to lay down how this money shall be spent. It is spent in accordance with the dictates of the British Government. Our official is there to represent us, get better marketing methods and to advance the sale of our products. As to the committee to be established in the High Commissioner’s office as to buying, my department knows nothing of such a committee in London, and neither does the railway department. The position is that under the regulations our tenders are called in, and in many cases are returnable, in South Africa, not the office of the High Commissioner, but when tenders reach the High Commissioner’s office, they must be opened by some official there, and the details are cabled to South Africa. The only difference is with regard to buying rails, which the Minister of Railways and Harbours fully explained a few weeks ago, and that has been continued since the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) was in office. The reason is you have violent fluctuations in the steel market—it may have an upward or downward tendency. Inquiries are made, and people are asked to quote. These offers are not accepted in the High Commissioner’s office, but cabled to South Africa, and the decision is taken by the railway administration in South Africa. As to Mr. Brunt’s going to Germany, to which the hon. member referred, I know nothing about it, and do not know that he was ever out of the High Commissioner’s office and went to Germany, unless he was sent on some particular business. I do not know where the hon. member gets this information from; he seems to be filled with all sorts of suspicions.

Not unworthy suspicions.

If the hon. member will give us definite details, I will be prepared to go into them. All I can say is we know nothing of such a sort of commission, apparently actuated by considerations antagonistic to anything British, and visits being paid to the Continent to give preference to continental people. As far as the Railway Department is concerned, all the information is before the House, and we have debated that very often.

There is one other point on which I should like information—I asked a question at an earlier stage of the session with regard to Mr. Bowden, Director of Shipping and Stores. We know a recommendation has been made to the Minister of Railways and Harbours for his return to South Africa, and the Minister explained that his return was in connection with negotiations for the shipping contract. I am assured the recommendation was made with a view to his return to South Africa, and that recommendation emanated from Mr. Brunt, who made a definite recommendation to the Minister with a view to Mr. Bowden being sent back to South Africa.

Why?

I am unable to say why. I wonder whether the Minister has been able to hear anything further about it since the question was raised, because he said he was unaware whether any direct communication had been made by his colleague.

I can at once reply to that point, because I happen to be acquainted with the circumstances. The position is as I stated on a previous occasion. He came here in order that we should have his advice available in connection with the negotiations which were taking place. The actual invitation to the Union-Castle Company to resume negotiations was sent when I was acting here, and it was suggested that Mr. Bowden’s advice would be of assistance to the Government. The hon. member has now raised a different question about the permanent return of Mr. Bowden. The hon. member knows that as the result of the change we made in connection with buying and the placing of orders in South Africa—a very important change, which has been of benefit to South Africa—very little or practically no work is done in the High Commissioner’s office. It was felt that it was very uneconomical to keep a man of Mr. Bowden’s standing where he was no longer required, and efforts were made to absorb him into the South African service, but it was impossible to do so, so he returned to London. I do not know whether attempts were made by Mr. Brunt or others to get rid of Mr. Bowden, but I can assure the hon. member that the High Commissioner has the very highest opinion of Mr. Bowden, and the suggestion has been made that he should succeed Mr. Brunt. There is no question of any one in the London office wanting to get rid of Mr. Bowden.

Has the Minister had occasion to review the circumstances under which Sir Reginald Blankenberg was allowed to retire from the High Commissioner’s office in London. He was in the prime of his career, and was retired—possibly at his own request—before reaching the retiring age, and was well acquainted with the work of his office, with the result that we are now obliged to send a very useful and efficient officer from South Africa to take his place. I can see no reason why Sir Reginald should have been allowed to retire. I entirely concur in the choice of the successor to Mr. Brunt, but it is a most uneconomical way of dealing with the service. Our pension list is mounting up at a great rate. Was it not possible to have avoided the retirement of Sir Reginald Blankenberg? We have made a very bad bargain in allowing him to retire, and now we have all this subsequent trouble.

We have had no trouble with his successor in London, and we have had no trouble in the High Commissioner’s office in regard to Mr. Brunt’s services there.

I think there is a great deal of uneasiness about Mr. Brunt’s services there. Does the Minister not think it will be a good thing to have an enquiry to allay any public suspicion?

Enquiry about what?

As to the nature of his work in London.

This is the first suggestion I have had that there is any cause for enquiry about his work in London. There has never been any suggestion about that before. I do not know what the hon. member has in his mind.

There is no doubt at all that since the disclosures in connection with the Cape Requisite Store there is an uneasy feeling that possibly the methods adopted in the High Commissioner’s office during Mr. Brunt’s time there want looking into. The hon. member has not made any charge against any individual, but there is a general feeling throughout the country

Let us have the grounds for that general feeling. It is not fair to make a statement like that unless

I am telling the Minister that there is a feeling that the matter should be enquired into and the Minister should satisfy himself that the public interests are being properly protected in the expenditure of large sums of money. While certain changes have been made in regard to the purchase of material and although tenders are now accepted in South Africa, still large sums of money are being disbursed in London. There is also the question of raising loans running into millions of money, and I think it is in the public interest that the Minister, without trying to find any person guilty—it is the Minister’s duty in view of the disclosures—to enquire into the methods in force.

Are there not normal systems of enquiry taking place?

It is quite true, there is an audit always going on in the High Commissioner’s office, and it is true that there was an audit in the Administrator’s office in Cape Town, but things came to light that were not very creditable. Although I do not suggest that anyone in particular is to blame, in consequence of the disclosures, I think myself a good purpose would be served if the Minister were to satisfy himself by a method which he could adopt that things in London were being run in the best interests of the country. There is a widespread feeling of uneasiness about the matter.

I shall certainly consider it my duty to institute proper enquiries if any suggestion is made or definite reasons are given for instituting such enquiries, but I am perfectly satisfied that as far as the general administration is concerned, or the business is conducted, there is nothing wrong. We have had this unfortunate lapse on the part of a certain official, but I do not think there are any reasons for suspicion as far as the general system is concerned, that there is any ground for such an enquiry. If any member has any information which would make it necessary to institute an enquiry, I shall certainly do so, but nothing has come to my notice which would justify any suspicions which are apparently entertained by some hon. members.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 11, “Inland Revenue”, £150,117,

I see there has been an increase in the number of clerks and outdoor revenue officials.

The present establishment is in accordance with the recommendations of the Public Service Commission. The work of the department has been increasing, but our revenue is also growing, particularly as the result of the work thrown on the department by the provincial administrations.

For which you don’t charge them anything.

If we did we should have a much stronger wail than we have had during the last few days. We do not make appointments until they are enquired into by the Public Service Commission, and it is shown that the additions are absolutely necessary.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 12, “Customs and Excise”, £228,429,

I want to complain again of the delay in getting out the reports of this department. It is now the end of April, and the report for last year is not out. I think there is something wrong with the department. I think they ought to be out before this time. The figures for 1927 are not yet circulated.

I made enquiries after the matter was raised by my hon. friend the member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) last night, and I shall be very glad to submit to my hon. friend a copy of the report I got from the department. He will be very interested to see what our difficulties are. It is entirely due to the printing arrangements. Formerly these reports were printed by private printers. They are now being done by the Government printer. In the long run there will be considerable economy, but just with the change over, the type had to be set up anew.

That is 12 months ago.

It is entirely due to the printing.

A lame excuse !

No, it is not. Does the hon, member want to have this done by outside firms when we have our own printing works? We have considered it necessary to have these reports printed as we do with the Auditor-General’s report, and just now with the change over this delay is taking place.

Exactly the same thing was said six months ago. It is not only this report. There is the report of the Department of Justice for 1926. We have not got the report for 1927 yet. We have not got the report of the Minister of the Interior, and the Year Book for 1926 is not out even. We have the reports for 1926 from Australia, but we have not got our own.

I am not responsible for the other reports.

I am only giving examples of the slackness which appears to exist in that printing office in Pretoria. Other things are behind as well. We had exactly the same said 12 months ago as we have to-day. You will have to put a bombshell under them or something.

I think the hon. member will appreciate that we have one of the best men in the country running that printing office, which is growing and is a very well-run department. I think with the reorganization that has been taking place we are getting good value for our money. With our own huge printing works, it is naturally the policy of the Government to have as much as possible of our printing done there, but you cannot get everything done all at once. I am sure when I give the report to my hon. friend he will see all the difficulties We cannot debate it here now. The hon. member will see that as far as the Customs Department is concerned, there is no slackness whatever. As far as the printing department is concerned, they are doing their best under the circumstances, and I hope the hon. member will be a bit patient still to see what we can do later on.

I do not think the Minister realizes the necessity for getting out these statistics as early as possible. If they are behind time they are not so useful to the country and to the people overseas, who take a keen interest in these statistics. It would pay the country well to spend a little more and get these things done promptly and keep them up-to-date.

May I point out that there is a special vote for printing?

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance what procedure he is going to adopt in respect of the dumping duty on superphosphates. It has been reported in “Die Burger” and other papers that the Government intend to refund the dumping duty on superphosphates imported prior to the first of April. There is some insecurity in regard to the superphosphate business, and I would like to have the Minister’s reply.

With regard to representations made to the authorities regarding inadequate clerical assistance in the customs at Durban, of which place I can speak, I can assure the Minister that on my recent visit during the Easter recess, delay in clearance was very acute. The business of the public was held up owing to an insufficiency of clerks. I am sorry to say it is not an isolated instance. There has been trouble for a very considerable time. I will be very glad if the Minister will please take note of this and enquire into it, and get some relief for the mercantile community, who are seriously hampered by not being able to get their clearances through the customs.

The position with regard to dumping duties is that under the existing freight conditions, the duty will no longer fall to be collected, but we have been collecting duty on all shipments made prior to the 1st of April, and we have decided to refund all the duties on condition that the merchants who have paid the duties to us will pass them on to the farmers.

Quite fair too.

With regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Durban (Stamford Hill) (Mr. Lennox) the Customs Department has the necessary staff to carry out its work in all normal conditions, but the hon. member will appreciate that we have rush periods and when they come on we authorize the employment of additional staffs. I do not think it is a general complaint. The work is done expeditiously at the various ports, and it is in the interests of the department that it should be.

I should like the Minister when he returns the money to the merchants to demand a list from them with the names of the farmers to whom the merchants have returned it, so that we can control the matter. Otherwise the merchants will easily be able to say that they have returned it, although the farmers have not received it.

We cannot do that. Publicity will be given to the matter, and the farmers must see to their being repaid themselves. We cannot pay back the dumping dirties to all the farmers separately. We can only trust that the merchants will pay it back, but cannot erect any separate machinery for the purpose.

It is surely easy to get a list of the merchants, and instead of one cheque to make out more cheques.

The question of the trade returns has been under discussion this afternoon. I would like to point out to the Minister the diversity that exists in practice in the compilation of these returns.

How can I be responsible for the diversity amongst the various countries?

Not amongst the various countries, but among our various officials. It seems that the Customs Department of this country issues figures relating to our exports to the U.S.A. that are totally different from the figures issued by the trade commissioner in New York. The trade commissioner in New York issues figures which include the trade of the Belgian Congo and Rhodesia as South African trade and that tends to largely inflate the figures of the trade commissioner in New York when they are compared with the figures of exports issued by the Customs and Excise Department of this country. Then Mr. Pienaar drew attention to the fact that our trade returns are largely valueless. He pointed out how our trade returns did not bear comparison with the actual exports which we are shown to have in places like Belgium.

That is very natural.

There again it seems to me that the Customs Department are following a practice which is different from that of Great Britain in regard to the continent. The matter is explained in a semi-official communication which was made by an official of the Customs Department to the “Rand Daily Mail” in February last. [Quoted.) One practice is followed by the Customs Department in indexing its exports to the United Kingdom, and the reverse practice is followed in indexing their exports to Belgium. One would like to know why that diversity prevails. Perhaps the Minister will be able to give some information on the point.

Of course the hon. member knows that this is a very difficult question. It is a question that has been considered at Geneva at the economic conference and they are trying now to evolve an international bureau of statistics so as to try and get uniformity of practice in the compilation of these statistics. As the hon. member has pointed out, our ways of compilation differ from those of England, and also those of Belgium. You can only have uniformity if you have got some sort of co-ordinating body, an international bureau which would lay down, and all the countries acceding thereto, having a uniform basis. I think it is generally admitted that our statistics are as accurate as you will find anywhere in the world, and that our system is as good as you will find anywhere.

They are too slow.

No, they are not too slow. It is a question of printing. The fault does not lie with the department.

I would like to ask a question with regard to the item “Contribution towards the general expenses of training ship General Botha.” I see that this year only £11,000 is provided, instead of £13,000. In the first place I do not quite understand why that matter comes under this vote, but apart from that I would like to know why the subsidy has been reduced, whether the standards have been lowered on the ship or whether the reduction of the subsidy will have any serious effect.

I can at once assure my hon. friend that the subsidy has not been reduced altogether. This change is the result of reorganization on the ship, but it will not decrease the efficiency. I had a talk with Mr. Clough recently and he assured me that the full amount would not be required. This change should not in the least impair the efficiency of the ship. Why this matter comes under my department is this: I think it was originally put here because the Customs Department is responsible for the administration of our Merchant Shipping Acts. Although some time ago I tried to get rid of the responsibility it was felt that this was perhaps the best resting place for this expenditure.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 13, “Audit,” £71,250,

There was a statement not very long ago in the public press to the effect that our present Auditor-General had reached the retiring age and that his retirement was in contemplation.

Oh, no, it is to be hoped not.

I do not know what truth there is in it. It was a statement published in Pretoria and appeared to have been somewhat inspired, and one would be glad to be reassured that there is no truth in it, as we very highly value the services of the Auditor-General and hope that he will be spared for many long years to carry on his good work.

I can only inform the hon. member that if such a statement appeared, it certainly was not inspired by me. I believe the position must be well known that Mr. Roos is reaching the retiring age laid down by Parliament. I do not know the exact date, but I think it is probably some time next year, but the Government has not considered the question of his successor or whether he shall go at all. I take it it will ultimately be a matter for Parliament if Parliament wants to extend his services beyond the period laid down by legislation. That statement was certainly not inspired by me.

I hope the Minister will take this matter into very serious consideration. A question was raised from that side of the House as to what was said at the time of his appointment. I think the gentleman who is occupying that high office has proved himself one of the best men we have ever had in the service of this country. If there is any possibility of extending the appointment of that gentleman, I hope it will be done. I think there is not a single member who would not join with me in begging—praying almost—that the appointment be extended.

I should like to ask the Minister in whose power is it to extend the term of service of the Auditor-General if that was desired. Does it rest with the Government or is it a matter for this House?

Speaking on the spur of the moment, I think it would be a question for Parliament. I think there is legislation which lays down that he shall retire at a certain age, and that will require altering the Act. I know in the case of the retirement of Mr. Hunter, the Assistant Auditor-General, I had to bring in a special Act here to enable him to retire in terms of his wishes. But I am not quite sure whether it will actually require legislation. Naturally Mr. Roos is an officer of Parliament and it will rest with Parliament. The Government has no strong feeling in the matter, one way or the other. If Mr. Roos is willing and able to continue longer, and Parliament so desires, that is a matter that can be considered. I can give this assurance: we will certainly obtain the feeling of the House on the subject. The Government has no idea of appointing an officer who will not be acceptable to Parliament or to get rid of Mr. Roos if Parliament thinks he can do the work and he is willing.

I am glad that hon. members opposite raised that point. I know a similar case of a poor man who worked a long time on the railway and whose record is just as good as that of the Auditor-General. When that man was 60 years old they would not keep him a single year longer in the service.

The hon. member cannot discuss that now.

I am very sorry, but I regard the treatment of the Auditor-General just the same as that of an ordinary public official.

The hon. member opposite merely asked a question which was replied to, but the hon. member cannot make a speech about it, because the matter is not in close connection with the vote.

Then there is another point I want to mention. It is in connection with the extra allowances for subsistence in Durban. I want to ask the Minister whether the cost of living is so much higher in Durban than, e.g., in Johannesburg and Cape Town as to necessitate an extra allowance, or if it is due to the fact that the Durban municipality imposes such heavy rates on property that it also increases the costs of subsistence of officials.

Durban is not Namaqualand.

No, fortunately Namaqualand is not Durban, but it seems that all the difficulties come from Natal, yet it wants to share in all the blessings of the Union. We have not imported any people into Namaqualand and subsequently said that they were ruining us and that they must be expelled, as the sugar kings have done in Natal with the Indians. In Cape Town a new valuation has just been made with the result that expenses will rise so much that it will be difficult to live here. Now I ask the Minister whether the Durban municipality is also possibly spending so much that they have to levy heavy taxes which affect the officials, with the result that the Government has to pay an extra allowance. I should like to know this, because Durban is a pleasure resort where Johannesburgers go for a good time, and where they are fleeced, and it looks as if the Government officials have also to pay their share. We must see what can be done, and, if necessary, the wings of that municipality must be clipped a little. I therefore suggest the Minister should consider whether it would not be necessary to introduce a Bill to clip its wings.

I just want to say with regard to like treatment of public servants that Mr. Roos is an official to this House. As for the special allowances in Durban, we pay in all cases in accordance with the finding of the Public Service Commission. In all towns statistics are prepared of the cost of living, and the Public Service Commission occasionally refer to those statistics to settle the special allowance in accordance with them, and it appears from the statistics that the cost of living in Durban is higher than at other places. What the reason for that is it is very difficult for me to say.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 14, Justice,” £80,627,

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the scandalously congested state of the law courts at Port Elizabeth. Last month there were 120 contested civil cases on the roll for which there was not a single day open up to the end of June; in other words, not one of these cases could be heard sooner than some time after June. The Side Bar Association, I understand, has approached the Minister, but I believe that so far nothing has been done.

We have put an additional magistrate there.

I understand that up to now there has been only one magistrate, and he attends to his magisterial duties only three-and-half days of the week, as he has to attend the Rent Board and deal with other matters. The position is very acute. I have also been asked to put before the Minister the matter of circuit courts, and to ask whether he cannot arrange for three regular circuit courts every year. There were 5,800 criminal cases last year, and 7,381 this year, and so it goes on. Jurors have to spend more time than they can afford to do, witnesses have to spend days in the courts, and there is no waiting room for them. They have to hang round in the corridors. There is no court orderly. The conditions are causing very great inconvenience to the public, and public business is being held up.

I have a similar suggestion to put forward relating to the accommodation in East London. Part of the premises of the post office now in use will be vacated because of the completion of the new post office. Will the Minister tell us whether the premises to be vacated will become available for increased accommodation of the magistrate’s office?

I have a similar point to bring before the Minister with regard to the magistrates’ court at Johannesburg. It is an admitted fact that the number of cases tried there is enormous. If the courts were in a more modern building it would give a better opportunity to the public to attend; they would learn of the nature of crime and its punishment. The situation is really serious, and I think the Minister knows it. The expenditure of his department in 1926-’27 exceeded that of the previous year by £27,982. I hope the Minister will explain why there has been this extraordinary increase. It is said to be due to salaries, wages and allowance, and so forth, and is referred to in the Auditor-General’s report (page 143). On the following page reference is made to the expenditure in connection with the extradition of H. M. Jacobs, which was borne by the State and amounts to a large figure. He escaped to the Argentine, an application for extradition was made, which was refused. To whom is the neglect attributed for this enormous expenditure? In this case, apparently, money was expended needlessly to the extent of hundreds of pounds. An application of this kind should not be made unless it has gone through the hands of superior authorities. With reference to the appointment to the position vacated by Col. Sir Theodore Truter, in his place, I understand, Maj. de Villiers, an attorney from Cape Town, has been appointed. I have nothing against the gentleman, but again I urge on the Minister, “Why go outside the service?” I do not think it is correct that there was no one in the service who was competent to fill the post.

Which service? The police service !

Yes, as head of the police.

A returned soldier?

That is not the point—I do not wish to be deflected from my argument. It is just like the little donkey, who thought he would get the forage at the top of the hill, only to find on arrival there that it is denied him. I do not think going out of the service to make these appointments improves the service. Every nook and corner of the service should be searched in order to find a man to fill the position.

I quite agree with my hon. friend. It is far wiser to do what he suggests in the appointment of a chief of police. I know nothing about the gentleman who has been appointed, and have nothing against him. It is far better and more satisfactory to promote men, always provided you can get a good man.

It has never been done. I will give the explanation.

Then we have had a good many railway accidents recently—unfortunately. The practice has been to appoint a commission of enquiry, which is quite right, and the commission consists of one magistrate and two engineers from the Railway Department.

One engineer in the service, but not in the Railway Department.

I stand corrected there. But why cannot you go right outside for the third man? There seems to be a sort of idea that a full investigation is not made, and I am not exaggerating at all when I say that the public are considerably dissatisfied about these conditions. If appointments are not made from outside the service, people seem to think there is something to hide.

There is no doubt that there is congestion in the courts at Port Elizabeth, and we have arranged to send an additional magistrate there, and we have asked the Public Service Commission to despatch an inspector there as well. I think the position, however, has improved. What has caused the congestion is the extraordinary growth of Port Elizabeth. East London and Durban are also growing, and every year we have to increase the staff in these centres. It is very difficult to keep pace with the way in which a large part of the country is growing, but I am not going into the reason. I will see that special consideration is given to the matter of circuit court accommodation at Port Elizabeth. The accommodation at East London is not entirely satisfactory, and the Public Works Department is arranging to give us additional accommodation. As to the Johannesburg magistrates court, we have plans for new buildings, and if the matter rested with me and we could have found the funds, we would probably have erected the court, but I am keeping it in mind as one of the big places to be erected in the future. It might be argued that it would be better to do the work before the general election, otherwise my hon. friend who belongs to the Opposition will not be insisting on it. I, myself, with becoming modesty, would like it to stand over until after the general election, but if I am forced to do it, I shall have to do my level best to get it on to next year’s estimates.

Otherwise yon will not have a chance.

Then the place will never be built. The question of extradition is an exceedingly difficult matter to discuss in the House. I have a strong view that if we get rid of a criminal who has committed a very serious offence, we must cut our loss, as he will not return to this country; but we cannot carry that idea to the fullest extent, otherwise every man who comes here will think he is at least entitled as a loyal burgess to “one bite.” In certain cases, especially very serious ones, however, you must incur these extradition expenses. We had a very unfortunate experience in the case of Jacobs, in which applications and appeals were made in the Argentine, but they went against us. That experience has made me even more chary of shouldering the burden of extradition costs. Every case is placed before me, and I manage, I think, to refuse about half of them, but you cannot refuse in every case. However, I am watching the expenditure very carefully, indeed. As to the appointment of a commissioner of police, the bead of the police in England is always taken from outside the force, and that is the practice in South Africa. The reason is that in the police force men advance from stage to stage practically almost entirely in accordance with their seniority, although an exceptionally able man would not be bound entirely by that consideration. The result is that when the commissioner leaves, all the deputy commissioners are men who have reached a considerable age, and if you promoted one of them to the commissionership, in a few years you would have to appoint a successor to him. I am now beginning to think that a man of 40 is a youngish man. When Col. Truter was appointed, he was about 37 or 38. The present incumbent has passed his 36th year, and we expect to retain his services for a long time. I am not going into Mr. de Villiers’ capabilities, for they are admitted all round.

There is no doubt about that.

The chief commissioner of police should know something about organization, and law, should have taken some part in military action, but not be a soldier, and, lastly, he should be a good sportsman. It is exceedingly difficult to find all these qualifications, even in a member of this House. I have obtained an officer with as nearly as possible the full number of qualifications, but I do not wish the House to think that if I had a man high up in the police service and he had the proper youth, that he would not have been appointed. The police service itself accepts it that the man at the head of the tree should be appointed from outside. In England they are gradually expanding their opportunities for outside men to join the police service; men like qualified solicitors, and fairly outstanding men are being taken in, so that there shall be new blood in every stage of the service. We are very narrowly bound in South Africa, and I do not think we should be allowed to do this. The only new blood are our recruits, the commissioner of police and bandmasters and bandsmen. We have an exceedingly good man who is the conductor of the police band in Pretoria. He is an old conductor of the Coldstream Guards. You do not find as many musicians in the police force as you would like, and we have to introduce a few extraneous police from time to time. The runners-up for the Commissioner of Police are generally men who have reached a certain age and got into a certain routine, and they will do better work if a man to lead them is taken from outside. We have never had a man from the polite force as Commissioner of Police, and I think there are very practical reasons for that. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has referred to the question of railway accidents. The law places some inquiries in my hands, and I think those inquiries have been a success. The hon. member will remember the outcry which followed the Salt River accident, that we could not obtain any justice from an ordinary inquiry. What was the result? We had one of the ordinary inquiries and that inquiry found negligence on the part of some officer in the Railway Administration, and gave an absolutely just and unbiassed finding.

All the inquiries show neglect.

The inquiries have been quite fair. There is no case to which the hon. member can point of one of the inquiries being unfair. If a majority of the men inquiring were railwaymen, the hon. member would be entirely right, but there is only one railway engineer who sits there on account of his special knowledge of railway matters, a magistrate, and an engineer from some other branch of the service. My inquiries lie next to a number of other inquiries. If death results you have an inquest in which there is a very full inquiry. I think there is no need to increase the cost of this inquiry to the State unless it is proved that the inquiries have resulted in biassed verdicts, or that the verdicts have not been distinguished by any ability. I claim that the way in which the inquiries have been conducted has justified itself and there is no necessity to make any change.

I want to ask the Minister why it is that telephone facilities are now denied the chief officers of police at their residences in urban areas. It seems to me that if the reason for that is economy, it is false economy—a penny wise and pound foolish policy. I had a case brought to my notice a short while ago of a citizen who desired to get into immediate communication with the chief officer of the town. He found it impossible. There was no telephonic connection, and he had to communicate with the police office about a mile and a half from the chief officer’s residence, and by the time communication was established with the chief officer, his services were no longer needed. The damage had been done, and complaint was made to me about it. Regarding police dogs, there is a great demand for them in the Union. I see, according to the Auditor-General’s report, the number of nine were purchased recently at a cost of £231, and in view of the great shortage surely more than nine could have been purchased. I think it was only last year the Minister admitted there was a shortage of dogs, and I should like to know why they are not procurable, seeing they are not a very costly item.

The question of telephones is one on which I can plead not guilty at once. The facilities are not given by me. Telephone facilities in a large number of cases including these have been cut down on the report of the public accounts committee of the House and accepted by the treasurer, and it has been in force for a large number of years. There used to be a large number of officials who had their private telephones. It is not a matter only of this department. The public accounts committee went into the whole question and cut down those facilities very greatly. I know that to a certain extent harm has been done, but at the same time one has to keep a very tight hold on the purse-strings. I am not justifying myself in that regard, but I am trying to justify my hon. friend and the public accounts committee. We have eighty odd police dogs to-day in the Union, and we are increasing the number from year to year. I hope in time we shall be able to build up a force of police dogs that we can spread over the country, but hon. members must have some patience in this matter, because the training of a dog is difficult, and it is not every man who can work with a dog. We have also to take into account expense, but we are quite aware of the very great importance of building up that side of police work in this country.

I think we ought to improve the position of the magistrates of this country. I think the magistrates are a class we ought to be proud of, but our pride is not reflected in their salaries. I think considering the positions they hold the salaries given to magistrates are really on the mean and shabby side. The hon. the Minister knows the important duties magistrates have to undertake both on and off the bench. They are the representatives of the Government in their district, and they have to set a proper social standard. I am sure the public in general would not object to seeing these faithful servants of the State treated in a more generous manner. I often tremble to think of the position of those old magistrates who were retired in war time on salaries even smaller than those that are given now, and whose pensions were regulated accordingly. I think that they were a very deserving class of servants, who have not been well treated by the State. The Minister, I think, has made out a very convincing case for the appointment of Commissioner of Police. If I may endorse his statement as correct, it is the general custom to take the head of the police force from outside the ranks. It is felt that an officer in that high position, who has chiefly not to do police work himself, but to interpret the policy of the Government, should not be a man who is brought up in the ranks of the force, and who cannot see the wood for the trees very often. The worst possible Minister of War would be a soldier, and ex-professional soldier. No Civil First Lord of the Admiralty ever yet was a sailor, except, perhaps, in time of war, and then for only a short while. Our very excellent Minister of Finance, I believe, had no particular training in business or chartered accountancy or any of the cognate trades. I can even conceive that a Minister of Justice need not necessarily be a lawyer. I think very often it might be to the advantage of the State, though certainly not in the present instance, that the Minister of Justice should not be a lawyer.

What are the qualifications for a Prime Minister?

Having none of the others. I can conceive, say, a Minister of Labour, who had never done an honest day’s work in his life and so on. I believe it is the case that certain magistrates who were employed for several months in Cape Town on a most important inquiry recently, only got an allowance of 10s. a day. If that is so, it is very shabby treatment indeed. Here were officers engaged in conducting an inquiry of paramount importance to the public, involving a great degree of legal knowledge, infinite patience and knowledge of human nature. Having come from their own districts, where they enjoyed very small salaries, and being detained here in Cape Town, not a cheap city to live in by any means, they were, after the first few days of the work, given only 10s. a day allowance. If that is so, I would put it up to the Minister that he might make inquiries and endeavour to put it right.

I want to ask the Minister a question in connection with the trapping system on the alluvial diggings, which plays a fairly large part in the prevention of the illicit diamond dealing. Various diggers and farmers are punished for illegal buying of diamonds from natives, and it is quite right, but in my opinion the system is not working quite well.

Enough people are not found out.

The people who are actually guilty are not arrested. The native who steals the diamonds from the digger and sells them in most cases escapes free. I, therefore, think that a change in the trapping system is necessary so that the native shall he trapped just as well as the white man who buys the diamond from him, because, in most cases they are simple and stupid men who buy the diamonds and are arrested. Usually they have never bought diamonds before, and they are very severely punished when they are trapped. The native, who is the actual guilty partner, gets off so to say scot free. I know of cases, inter alia, one from my own son, where a native was trapped stealing diamonds. A detective was sent for, and he found four diamonds on the native. The native was prosecuted and sentenced to a month’s imprisonment or a fine of £5. The magistrate’s judgment was that the native stole the diamonds the better to provide a means of subsistence, while a white man in another case, who bought a diamond for the first time, one that was not of much value, was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment, notwithstanding the fact that he had a wife and children to look after. I think the illicit diamond dealing should be punished, because, in most cases, the diamonds are stolen from the poor, hard-working man, and the native sells them to another; but what I wish is that the trapping system should be applied, not only to the white men who buy the diamonds, but also to the natives who steal them. Why are not detectives appointed in those cases to buy diamonds from natives so that they will walk into the trap like the white men? If that happens the illicit trade will certainly diminish, but at present the natives escape. They go so far as to make false diamonds, and try to sell them, and yet they nearly always run free. If people went into the locations to buy diamonds from natives a stop would be put to the illicit trading. Therefore, I think the Minister should amend the trapping system in the way I have suggested.

We have heard through police reports and otherwise that crime is on the increase in this country, and it would be interesting to know to what the Minister attributes that and what steps he proposes to take to arrest it. We see that an increase of £22,000 is put down in connection with the police vote, and we know that throughout the country people are crying out for more police protection. What is the cause of this increased crime? It is a question of policy, to my mind. It does seem to me that unless the punishment meted out is adequate, there will be no cessation of it. If the penalty is inadequate it does not act as a deterrent. We are pursuing the wrong policy, and the country is being saddled with an unnecessarily large amount to put down crime. The Commissioner of Police told us in evidence that in Australia for a first offence—I am speaking of sheep stealing—the penalty was sometimes as much as ten years’ imprisonment. I do not want to advocate that, but I say the punishment must be befitting the crime. We know that when any aggravated form of crime breaks out it is necessary to deal with it in a special manner. We have, I am sure, a very lenient Minister—and I always appreciate a leniency rather than a severity—but unless the punishment is such as will operate as a sufficient deterrent, I do not think we are going to meet the case by simply swelling the police vote and spending more and more money in this way. In regard to illicit diamond buying, we had the old I.D.B. Act, which put a stop to the evil after it had got beyond the control of the police. The hon. member who spoke just before me pleaded for equal punishment as between whites and blacks. He claims that the black man gets off more lightly than the white man. That is not my experience at all, and it is not the experience of every witness who gave evidence before the select committee on stock thefts a few years ago. All the evidence went to show that the difference was almost invariably in favour of the white man. I would like to quote one case which is illustrative of a great many. Two cases were tried, one in the Free State and one at Aliwal North. In the Free State, a European convicted of having stolen 270 sheep, got off with a fine of £100. while in the other case a native, who was convicted of the theft of a horse and two saddles and a bridle, got four years’ imprisonment. That characterizes most of the cases that have been brought to light. The hon. member will find that as a rule the native is more severely punished than the white man.

I just want to bring to the Minister’s notice what a scandalous magistrate’s court the town of Riversdale has. Half the time the magistrate and others working in it are sick. It is a stone building with a flat roof, and I am actually always ashamed when I have to tell visitors that it is our magistrate’s court. I never go to the place, but the magistrate complains about the dampness of it. If the Minister wants to be fair he will improve things there. There is only room for 30 people in the office, and the secretary even said that it was full when I came in.

I do not represent such a modern town as Riversdale, nor do I require special facilities for myself in the public offices, but yet I would like to ask the Minister to make representations to the Minister of Public Works for a new magistrate’s court at Ladismith. It is an old building which, years ago, was built by a private individual. It was first of all hired, and later purchased by the Government. It has, I understand, long been on the list of condemned public buildings, and it is quite inadequate. Almost every year a little money is wasted repairing that impossible little building. Perhaps the Minister does not agree with me—he visited Ladismith recently—but he merely passed through it, and I do not doubt but that if he goes into the question he will find that, that building is quite inadequate for the beautiful Karroo village— Ladismith.

May I draw the Minister’s attention to the case of a very serious railway accident that occurred at the Shangwani tunnel on the Natal line? There, two railwaymen were very badly scalded and rendered unconscious, and, but for the presence of mind of the guard, who went to the rescue, the whole of the train would have been a total loss. These men had to be kept in hospital for a considerable period; their lives were despaired of, and their injuries were very serious indeed, and yet the Minister of Justice appointed no board of enquiry. It seems to me the Act is very clear in regard to the intention. It says—

Then it is laid down that the Minister has the right to appoint persons on this enquiry, one of whom at least shall not be in the employ of the Administration. That accident occasioned a great deal of public comment, and to this day the public do not know what was responsible for the accident. They do not know to this day the mysterious circumstances under which these men in pursuance of their duties were injured.

When was this?

In February last. A very unfavourable impression is being created. It is right that the public should know how this accident happened, and what has caused it. There is another matter; it has been suggested that our present Union trade commissioner in Europe is returning to take up the position of Government Attorney, the office he formerly occupied. Can the Minister tell us whether this is correct?

He was seconded by us, and never left my department.

Then there is the question of the offer of rewards for the discovery of the perpetrators of serious crimes. I quite realize that if a reward is to be offered as soon as any serious crime is committed, the process will be a very expensive one for the country, and I do not suggest that for a moment; but I do suggest where, in the opinion of the expert detectives of the department, no clues exist that would give any hope of detecting the offender, a decision should be arrived at early so that a reward may be offered. A reward offered after a month or two has elapsed seems to give very little chance of the discovery of the perpetrator of the crime, and the procedure is attended by so many difficulties as to practically render it useless to offer a reward at that stage. There is one other matter, and that is the policy of releasing prisoners. I hope the Minister, after his experience, has been weaned from this policy of releasing prisoners—a sort of Saturday afternoon recreation, which has caused a good deal of regret. I would like to urge upon him that that policy has weakened respect for the law, and generally among the classes who hold the law in disrespect it has come to be regarded as quite within the bounds of possibility that, although they may be committed to gaol to-day, they will be released at a very early date. I am aware there is a prisons board, that, perhaps, takes a more regular interest in the question of the prisoners, and from time to time makes recommendations to the Minister for the release of prisoners. But I think it has been found; and, perhaps, my colleague from Newcastle (Mr. Nel) will give details, that this board is too lenient, and advised the Minister to release people who have not proved suitable to have this extended to them. It was attended with the loss of life in one case. Then will the Minister consider the advisability of including a representative from Natal on the prisons board? Hitherto the appointment of a man from Natal has been avoided. The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) informs me that has been remedied, which I am, glad to hear; it is one injustice at least removed. But I would be glad if the Minister would think twice before accepting recommendations of the prisons board for the release of people who have been given an indeterminate sentence. It seems to me that that sentence, which can be imposed only by judges, should not be lightly interfered with when the sentence is being served.

But it is indeterminate. How can you serve an indeterminate sentence? It is not a perpetual sentence. What is the term of an indeterminate sentence? It is the term until the authorities let you out.

The Minister said they wanted an infusion of new blood in the police service. I quite agree with that. Good police men are born, not made, and the best police in the world come from London, but when we want them the language fetish debars them from joining this service. Honorary justices of the peace might be created to try people arrested on Saturdays for the committal of petty crime. Most of the people arrested on Saturday night, principally for intoxication, have not enough money with which the provide bail, and it would be a good idea if they could be tried on Sunday morning by honorary justices of the peace. The sooner you can get a man out of prison the better, and we should try to save these minor offenders from the contaminating influences of prison and the indignity of having to travel in a prison van.

The question of increasing magistrates’ salaries has been brought up, but that would have to be dealt with by the Departments of the Interior and Finance, salaries and grades being general questions for the whole of the public service. I admit, especially in the case of the lower graded magistrates, that their salaries are not as high as one would like to see them, but the ordinary member of the civil service forgets that he has a pension and other advantages. Our administration must necessarily be expensive as we have a large and sparsely-populated country, and our machinery is as expensive as that of a country with a larger but more compact population. It is very difficult to raise salaries above the scale however deserving a man may be. The matter is constantly being brought before me, but if all applications were granted we should be faced with the cry that the cost of administration is increasing every year. As to the allowance paid to magistrates holding the recent inquiry in Cape Town, the scales under which they were remunerated are common to the whole of the service, and are based on the salary drawn by the official concerned. I cannot say that officials of the Department of Justice should be on a higher scale than officials of other departments, although I think they deserve it.

†*The difficulty in connection with punishing the theft of diamonds and the illicit trade in them is that a large section of the people who buy diamonds illicitly are not trapped and punished. The majority of the Europeans are never prosecuted, and the reason is that it is so difficult to trap them. I merely want to say that I have little sympathy for the illicit buyer of diamonds. My hon. friend said that the native in the first instance was the guilty party. I do not admit that. On the contrary I say that the diamond buyer, who buys diamonds from a native for less than their value, is worse even than the native who sells them. The receiver is just as bad as the thief, and in this case even worse. I have referred to the figures, and find that more natives than Europeans are punished in connection with the sale of diamonds in an illicit manner. I cannot go into the special cases where, in one case a fine of £5, and in the other one of £9 was imposed, because I have not the papers before me. The usual punishment for a first offence of illicit purchase of diamonds is nine months to a year, but if there are previous convictions, the person usually gets more than nine months. In Kimberley the punishments are higher, and as much as three years is imposed for a first offence. The people in the Western Transvaal should rejoice that they do not live in Kimberley. If there is anything to be complained about, it is that too few people are caught. We should continually point out to the people how heinous their crime is when they buy diamonds from natives. It is one of the meanest forms of theft, because they know that the diamonds have been stolen from some digger or other who works next to them on the diggings.

†With regard to the increase of crime, that is due to a variety of causes. One cause is that a person who commits a comparatively small offence and is sent to prison for it becomes contaminated by mixing with more hardened offenders, but I hope that portions of the labour colonies will be available for the reception of first offenders. In other parts of the country the conditions are such that they make fees, and in one part of the Cape Province the ordinary wage that is paid to coloured people and natives employed by the farmers is 10s. a month, and I think a bucket of mealies a week. I advise those farmers to increase that amount and there will be less stock theft in those parts. The State is attaining more of the refinements of civilization, and there are more crimes created by statute, and I am afraid we place a large number of these in our statistics which are not really crimes. They tell me statistics prove that this is a criminal country, but it is not. Generally it is a law-abiding country. To a certain extent one can see signs of a want of discipline and people wish to live at a higher rate than they should live. Gradually I hope those reasons will be eliminated, but I think if proper conditions are created, and I think we are in course of creating them, our criminal statistics will show improvement. I suppose we all feel depressed at times when we see members of the best families you can think of in gaol, but to a large extent we may put our troubles down to a proportion of the population having received in the past education which did not fit them for their working life. You can educate people in such a way that the only way in which they can make a living will be to commit forgery. I know of one case when a native who was tried by the late Mr. Justice Mason was asked later by the judge what made him commit that offence. The native said: “What is there for me? I am educated. I can do that type of work, but what opening have I got? What is there for me to do if I do not commit a crime like forgery?’’ There are any number of reasons in this country, and I think it is the duty of all of us to try to eliminate them as far as possible.

†*My hon. friends, the members for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) and Ladismith (Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl), asked questions in connection with buildings. With reference to the magistrate’s courts, I want to point out that the building at Riversdale may last some time yet, and I can assure the hon. member for Riversdale that the building compares favourably with many other similar buildings in the country. The magistrate’s court at Ladismith was recently repaired. It is a neat building, and is still quite good. Dr. Bok, the secretary to the department, was there recently and he, as well as the magistrate, think that the building will be suitable for a very long time yet. I am glad to congratulate both hon. members on their satisfactory magistrate’s courts, and I hope that they will be able to use those buildings for a long time yet. As for the magistrate’s house at Riversdale, we experienced a little difficulty, and we are trying to get a better residence for the magistrate, because the pre sent one is not quite suited to the purpose.

†The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) referred to the accident that took place in the Shongweni tunnel. I cannot give him the information at once as to the reason why the in quiry was not settled. In these cases there is a careful enquiry made by my department to find out whether the railway enquiry will meet the case. As soon as we feel it will not, and we are rather inclined to favour these enquiries, an enquiry is held. I am informed that the belief is that it was found by the Railway De partment that a vacuum brake had broken and steam got into the engine driver’s cabin, but we will obtain those reports and have them published. With regard to the Government attorney, Mr. Pienaar, at the time he was appointed to Milan, was seconded to that appointment. He fell under the Department of Mines and Industries, but he had the right to come back to any department and we are able to absorb him. Mr. Pienaar is a qualified attorney, while Mr. Hoole was a qualified advocate, and his position will not be worse, but probably better after the return of Mr. Pienaar. There is not the faintest intention of dispensing with Mr. Hoole's services. The hon. member raised the question of reward offered by the department in connection with the sad and terrible case in Johannesburg. Immediately after that crime was committed, I saw the head of the department with the head of the C.I.D. in Johannesburg. Within a week of the occurrence I authorized them at any time they thought necessary to offer this reward of £500. Col. Truter and Col. du Toit told me at the time that it would be best for them to decide on the best time to offer that reward. One does not like to issue a reward too soon, because you might be given false clues, and evidence obtained in that way is always suspect in court. It was rather difficult for me at a later stage to deal with the criticisms of the press. On two separate occasions I asked the police whether they thought the time had not arrived to offer this reward. After the third occasion, they said they thought the time had arrived. From the start the department decided that this reward should be offered, and we left it to the technical men to decide on the proper time. The hon. member also referred to the question of indeterminates. There was one case in which an indeterminate was released where a murder had been committed in the northern parts of Natal. The law gives rather stronger rights to your prisons board in regard to indeterminates than in regard to any other type. No indeterminate may be released until there is a favourable report from the board. Your trouble is that your prisons board are continually investigating the cases of indeterminates. After all, the whole principle of your law is this—that, where there is a fair chance of your indeterminate having reformed —certainty you can never have—he should, after a certain period, be released. Your prisons hoard, constantly dealing with the matter and seeing the men involved, report, and your Minister is very much bound by that report. He has not had the chance of enquiring into the matter himself. He cannot, for a moment, say whether they are optimistic or pessimistic in regard to any reform that may have taken place in these prisoners. I think I can assure the House that your prisons board is certainly inclined to extend the time for the release of the indeterminates beyond what is was before. There was a day when your indeterminates were very readily released after four or five years. I do not think you would find that today. We have on the boards men of very large experience. Generally speaking, our boards have always been a bit pessimistic about the chance of your native indeterminate reforming. They say the percentage is very low. They do not put the percentage very high as far as the Asiatic is concerned. They say that, as far as the European is concerned, there are better chances of reform. Whether they are right or wrong I cannot say; I merely give the House the information they have given me. I do not think one can complain that prisoners are released too early in South Africa. I think we can generally say that your periods of imprisonment are less in South Africa than they are in some parts of the world, and if that has a bad effect one would have to reverse our policy in South Africa on that point. I, personally, do not think your are giving a man the best chance of reform, apart from the indeterminates, by keeping him for the longest period in gaol. The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Rockey) raised the question of the special justices of the peace sitting at the end of the week, and that they should deal with these petty offences as far as possible to avoid the Monday morning congestion in the courts. That is, I think, a matter of special importance as far as Johannesburg is concerned, and the department has tried to deal with that congestion in various ways. We tried the experiment of night courts. We then tried the experiment of sending your magistrates under the name of special justices of the peace, out different points about Johannesburg, and trying the cases on the spot. The last experiment has been a comparatively large success. The department is always considering by what means that type of congestion in the courts can be relieved. We have permanent special justices of the peace, a smaller form of magistrate, in the service, and these special justices of the peace are used to doing that.

I would like to know from the Minister what the position is in regard to the Native High Court in Natal, whether he proposes to continue this court or whether it is his intention to abrogate it. There is a considerable amount of perturbation in Natal in regard to any possibility of action by the Minister in abrogating this court. The court has done very good work, it may be necessary to reorganize it, but generally speaking, the court has served a very useful purpose, and I think it would be a very great mistake if it were abrogated. Another point I wish to mention is in regard to the release of these indeterminates. In my opinion the prisons board has been a little too lenient. The figures I have before me go to show that of 36 prisoners v/ho were released 13 failed a second time, and the man who committed a murder had actually been released a third time. There are other cases where prisoners who have been released a third time have been recommitted for crime. I hope the Minister will scrutinize very carefully these recommendations which are made by the prisons board, because if prisoners are to be allowed at large in some cases they become a danger to the community. Another point I wish to raise is that I understand that a considerable number of prisoners; in fact, all the prisoners in the country, are expecting the Minister to release them on the 31st May. I would like to have a statement from the Minister as to whether that is his intention. I understand that on the last occasion when the Minister released the prisoners, within three weeks practically 33½ per cent, were back in gaol. I hope the Minister will not take that course again. Personally, I feel that when a man has committed a wrong and been convicted, he should stand the punishment of that wrong. I would also like to raise a point in regard to the fines imposed upon the people recently in Krantzkop for wrongs they committed in burning goods on the I.C.U. premises. I hope the Minister, in that case, will take into consideration the reduction of the fine.

How much was it?

A £5 fine was imposed upon the men who burned some of the books at Krantzkop.

That is rather contradictory to your previous argument.

Here there are special circumstances, and I think it is right that this House should know those circumstances. What happened was that a man called Glass, who is, I believe, one of the leading Labourites in Johannesburg, and a communist, came on to the scene and he was accompanied by Champion, secretary to the I.C.U. in Natal. Naturally, the people there were very much disturbed about the desecration of graves which had taken place, the damage having amounted to between £30,000 and £50,000. These unfortunate people when they found a European was with the I.C.U. secretary—they may have been wrong in thinking the I.C.U. had anything to do with it—got it into their minds that the I.C.U. was at the bottom of it, and the police gave Glass the tip to get away. They followed Glass from Greytown to Krantzkop, and that was how the burning of the papers took place at Krantzkop. I hope the Minister will take into consideration the circumstances in connection with that fine, and will consider the reduction of that fine. The fine is not being paid by the culprits; it is being paid by public subscription by the people of Umvoti county.

In answer to the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Boshoff) the Minister touched upon a particularly important point, namely, the difference between judicial punishments in connection with the illicit diamond traffic in the Cape Province and the Transvaal. I can assure the Minister that a great deal of astonishment and dissatisfaction prevails in connection with the making of that distinction. The people in the district that I have the honour to represent feel that it is much easier to commit crimes in connection with the diamond trade south of the Orange River, than north of it. The Minister himself mentioned the difference between Kimberley and the Western Transvaal. I cannot understand why that distinction exists, particularly why there is a difference within the Capo Province between that province and Griqualand West. A view prevails among the diggers that the law is more severely applied north of the river to protect De Beers. I do not support that, but I think an unsound position exists, and that it is a serious complaint that there should be a difference in the administration of justice. There should be uniformity, in any event as far as the Cape Province is concerned. My second point is in connection with buildings. I intended to bring it to the notice of the Minister of Public Works, but I see the Minister of Justice has answered objections by the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) and other hon. members. I want to call attention to at least two places; first the magistrate’s court at Britstown, which is neglected. The Minister of Agriculture, who was there two years ago, promised to call the attention of the Minister of Justice to it, but the position remains as before. A matter, however, which weighs much more with me is the small building which is used for the sessions of the circuit court at Postmasburg. It is a small building which is also the post office. It is modest and inconvenient, and if the Minister knew the conditions he certainly would not allow it to continue.

I would like to thank the Minister for his answers to the various questions I have raised. He omitted, however, to answer just one question, the excess of expenditure of £27,962. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron), the magistrates’ pay, I hope we shall have the promise of the Minister that he will go into that very carefully and see if he cannot possibly afford some relief. I know there are people in other services, not on a par with the magistrates, who receive much higher pay. There is another matter I wish to refer to, and that is in connection with the reformation of prisoners. It is a pitiful sight to see these unfortunate men maching through the streets. I would like him to see if it is possible to find some method whereby people need not be sent to prison, but can be reformed, and if he can do that he will have done a great service to humanity. I will admit I have tried to find new methods, but I have not succeeded, but he is in a better position than I am to obtain information on the subject. There are many people who are sent to prison for first offences. He will remember that for first offences in regard to illicit liquor supply they were all to have been sent to gaol, but I was able to induce the House to alter that. I would like him to see if there is not some method by which the unfortunate position of these people can be ameliorated.

It is one of the greatest social problems of the time to know what to do with men who have taken a false step and find themselves in the clutches of the law. The difficulty is not so much in the administration of prisons, but in the attitude of the public towards these men. You have your Prisoners’ Aid Society, and I believe every branch in the country does its best, but what is its best? If you secure a situation for a man discharged from gaol, and if he forfeits it within three months of getting it, the Prisoners’ Aid Society can do nothing more for him. What we need—and I wish the Minister would give us the benefit of his experience—is some way of influencing public opinion to be more merciful towards these men. That would mark the beginning of true reform. I have not had experience as a prisoner, but for several years I was a gaol chaplain, and 95 per cent, of the cases that came under my notice in the East London gaol were there through drink. It seems to me we must look to public education to deal with the causes that lead to crime. I do wish it were possible for the public to take a kindlier, more merciful and humaner view of men who have made one mistake and who do not profit by gaol discipline, but who are contaminated by gaol associations, to use the phrase the Minister used. If we could only devote a full-dress debate to this reform we would spend the time usefully.

I want to make a request to the Minister about the housing of the police at Harrismith and Witzieshoek. Unfortunately, no provision has been made for the men, and from year to year they look out for something on the estimates for that purpose. It is an important station, with a sergeant and two policemen, who look after practically the whole southern portion of Harrismith. All the ground there belongs to the Government, that is the ground on which the magistrate’s offices are built, and the people are quite prepared to pay rent. The difficulty is that they have no opportunity of hiring houses there. The, station lies amongst the natives, and they merely live in rondavels.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a case in which a certain amount of consideration should be shown. There was a native charged with a certain crime and the sentence involved lashes, which, I understand, are never administered while an appeal is pending. This native gave notice that he wished to appeal. The gaoler gave him the necessary form to fill up, which he did. He made a mistake in the address, and instead of addressing it to the clerk of the court it was addressed to the clerk of the peace, and there was a certain amount of delay. The gaoler knew that the appeal was lodged, but the man was lashed. The conviction was quashed, and the man cannot get any redress whatever. Surely this is a case where some compensation should be awarded. He has not only had to undergo indignity, but he has had to suffer pain and his health has suffered.

Last year the Minister of Justice closed up quite a number of police stations in the Free State, inter alia, unfortunately, one of the most important stations in my constituency.

They were superfluous stations.

That may be said, but the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) must remember that people on the countryside have a lot of trouble with stock and other thieves, and they have to go 100 miles to find a policeman, while in Cape Town there is a policeman at every corner, and policemen are even employed to undo a chain to allow motors to pass through Parliament Street, and yet the few policemen we have are taken away from us. In Parliament Street an abuse is being made of the police. I want to point out the need for police on the countryside. I received a flood of letters and telegrams from all the farmers associations to ask the Minister to re-establish the police station. The Minister said that he would experiment for twelve months in abolishing police stations. I want to remind him that the time is over, and it is a proof that the police station is actually necessary there. In the case of theft of a sheep the farmers have to go to Bothaville, 40 or 50 miles, to get a policeman, and when he arrives the spoor of the thieves is already lost, with the result that it is very difficult to follow them. I hope the Minister will give his attention to this urgent request for police protection.

I just want to draw the Minister’s attention to the condition of the public buildings at Prieska. I want to invite his special attention to the necessity for a better magistrate’s court. It is very much needed, because the existing building is too small, inconvenient and unhealthy. The Inspector of Public Works visited it, and he saw how inadequate the building was, and reported to that effect. I hope the Minister will look into it and meet us in the matter. The municipality of Prieska is prepared to give land gratis, and to break down the old building and level the ground. I have seen the Minister about it several times and he said that there were many buildings which needed improvement more, but the improvements at Prieska are urgently required.

I want to ask the Minister whether anything has been done, or is in contemplation, regarding the establishment of courts of native commissioners in the Eastern Province in terms of the Native Administration Act. 1927.

That is really native affairs.

Well, I wish to put my point and would ask the Minister to bring it before the Cabinet when these courts are being established. I would urge upon the Government the advisability of establishing a “Court of Native Commissioner” to serve the large native population situated in the Peddie, Fort Beaufort, Alexandria, Bathurst, Bedford and Albany divisions. I would suggest that a suitable place for such a court would be Grahamstown, where the Eastern Districts Local Division of the Supreme Court is. There is no doubt that such a court would fulfil a need in that area, and would prove satisfactory to all concerned. In order to assist the police to cope with the increasing number of cases of stock theft, two things are urgently required— a Stock Removal Act and a Brands Act. The Minister of Agriculture brought in a Brands Bill some time ago, but it did not go through the House, because he withdrew it. I am not a lawyer, but magistrates and others have told me that they have great difficulty in keeping themselves posted up with the laws, owing to the large number of amendments made from time to time to Acts of Parliament. I suggest that our laws, which are in force, be re-printed in a revised form, omitting all the obsolete clauses of the Acts, for this would assist in the administration of justice. If all Acts which are in force cannot be so reprinted, at least all Union Acts might well be.

There is no intention to do anything as far as the native high court in Natal is concerned. I was under the impression that its work had greatly diminished, but really it is increasing. One of the judges is on leave, and we thought that the remaining three judges could do the work, but we find that that is impossible. For many a long year the native high court will continue to function in the way it is functioning to-day. In regard to indeterminate sentences, when a person who has received an indeterminate sentence is released but commits a fresh offence, however small, he has to return to goal, and then you have to wait for another report on the case by the Prisons Board. There is no proof that the two failures mentioned were of any magnitude, and the Prisons Board might say that after a year’s interval the offenders might be again released. As to releases of prisoners on May 31 next, it is the worst thing possible to put new ideas into a person’s mind when he is looking for something to do, but now the point has been raised, I shall have to consider it. I am going into the Greytown case and if there is the faintest justification for reducing the £5 fine, I shall do so. That is the one practical matter that has been brought up by hon. members today. The trouble is that I have also had petitions, documents and letters from the I.C.U. and others, saying that the punishment was too small. I have no doubt whatever that the magistrate who inflicted the punishment took into account the state of public feeling, owing to the desecration of graves in Natal. I believe the magistrate acted perfectly rightly when he came to the conclusion that the actions were committed under the stress of very strong public feeling. That feeling probably should have been directed against others and not against this organization, but I think the magistrate acted properly. If I could stop Glass going to Greytown, I would do it, but I am afraid I have not the power.

†*The hon. member for Hopetown ( Dr. Stals) expressed surprise at the differentiation in punishments in connection with the illicit diamond traffic, especially at Kimberley. There is not much difference between the laws of the Transvaal and the Cape Province in this respect, but the reason the punishments are so high in Kimberley is probably to be found in the old history of the Cape Province. The penalties were introduced at a time when the illicit diamond traffic in Kimberley was particularly rife, and to an important extent this probably still continues. I do not think that we can speak of De Beers being protected. We find, even in the Western Transvaal, diamonds from De Beers being sold illicitly as if they came from the alluvial diggings. As for the court buildings at Britstown, Postmasburg, etc., I can assure hon. members that the need will be given proper consideration. Hon. members must clearly comprehend the way in which they can be built. First, the capital expenditure for the year is discussed, and a definite sum allowed to the Department of Public Works, which in turn distributes the available amount over buildings in the various departments. Consequently every Minister gets about one-tenth of what he needs for buildings. If we were only to build all the buildings asked for, the loan fund would have to be increased to an alarming extent. We can, therefore, only deal with about one-tenth of the requirements every year. The housing of the police, especially in distant parts, is a matter of the greatest urgency. The position with reference to housing of the police is a disgrace to us; the difficulty is that my predecessor and I get very little money for this. All the other buildings are less necessary than the houses for the police. Some of the buildings asked for are possibly a little bad, but in many cases the people want beautiful buildings rather than official ones, and the people and the town councils plead for beautiful buildings.

What about Wale Street police station?

A new police barracks is being built near the magistrate’s courts. I think speaking from memory, it is a building of something like £90,000. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan), asked about excess expenditure. That was the-increased cost of litigation—over £20,000. The receipts are not mentioned.

Did we lose all those cases?

No. About three-quarters of the Government cases were won. I do not know whether that is a matter to be proud of, but it is a fact. The question of the reformation of prisoners is a very, difficult matter, although to a large extent one cannot say it is a matter that this department should deal with. Another department deals with the neglected children by means of industrial schools. Reformatories are very much the same as Borstal institutions in other parts of the world, and they are doing useful work. Prisoners are assisted by suspended sentences, and in the prisons a certain amount of education is given, and they also have chaplains in all the large institutions in the country. I think the primary need is that we should try to keep the men out of prison. I was waiting for our labour colonies or something of that kind, and when they are ready I will introduce legislation to allow first offenders to be sent to them.

Has anything been done in connection with labour colonies?

Some preliminary steps have been taken, but we have none actually running.

†*As for the housing of the police at Harrismith, I just want to say that there may be dissatisfaction, but that there are places where conditions are still worsen I shall, however, consider the matter.

†The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) raised the question of the native who unfortunately suffered the punishment of lashes. As a matter of fact, that has been a subject of correspondence between my department and the hon. member. No real notice of appeal was given. Unfortunately it did not reach the proper authorities before the sentence was carried out. Although it was not a proper notice of appeal, I believe the sentence should not have been carried out, and there was some question of inexperience in regard to the warder; I am now speaking from memory. The attitude of this department is that we do not accept liability for carrying out any process of law under orders of the court, whatever might be the policy of the Minister of Native Affairs. If we did the next step would be that where prisoners were found to be innocent we should be told to pay their costs. Where a man is found not guilty after having been in custody, there is a strong claim for compensation if we started compensating, but if we did that we should have to compensate in other cases and the result would be impossible.

†*If it is necessary, and funds are available, the need for a better police station at Hoopstad will be attended to. With regard to the complaint that the police have to raise chains in Parliament Street, I felt at once when I saw it that it was work for which my police should not be used. On the return of Col. Trew I at once said that from tomorrow, the police were no longer to put up and take down the chains in Parliament Street. As for myself, I do not mind whether the chains are there or not. I am insured. My only fear is that the police will mutiny if they have to do this kind of work. As for the magistrate’s offices at Prieska, I can assure the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. du Toit) that the matter is receiving my very special attention.

†The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Strugen) referred to the native commissioners at places like Grahamstown, and I will bring that to the notice of the hon. the Minister of Native Affairs. He also referred to the Stock Removal Act and the Brands Act, and I will take up those matters. We have something in the nature of a Stock Removal Act in the Transvaal. With regard to the compilation of laws, an official in the Department of Justice is preparing post-Union laws and the department is considering whether we can do anything with regard to pre-Union laws. I hope in a couple of years we shall be able to rectify that position too.

I also have a request in connection with my district, and I have raised it before. I hope the Minister will go so far to-day as to promise that a special justice of the peace will be appointed at the Swartfontein police station in the district of Marico. There is already a police station, and I believe that at one time it was said that there was a shortage of water, but I can assure the Minister now that another borehole has been sunk, and that there will shortly be all the water which the special justice of the peace will require to quench his thirst when he gives judgment. I only want to say that Swartfontein is in the neighbourhood of two large native locations, and that about 40 or 50 miles from there certain Europeans live who daily have small actions at law with the natives of the adjoining locations. Many difficulties are caused in consequence. Only recently I received a letter from a man who went by motor bus to Zeerust; this means he was absent a week from his home and farm work without any result. If a special justice of the peace is appointed, it will pay for itself. There will be more cases and enough funds will come in to pay the justice of the peace. I now come to a difficulty on which I feel strongly. I think that in recent times throughout the Transvaal, the experience is that native cases in the magistrate’s court are not having a good effect. Too long speeches are made before judgment is given, and many of the speeches urge the natives to make further communistic propaganda. I should like to call attention to one instance, and shall be glad if the department would send a circular to magistrates warning them not to talk so much when they have native cases before them. In Potchefstroom—this is the case I want to take —a native named William Thebeite was charged with addressing a meeting of natives in the location, when expressions were used— according to the charge—which were calculated to stir up bad blood between the natives and Europeans, and which were forbidden by the 1927 Act. I quote the following from the newspaper report—

That was the charge. In the course of his summing up, the magistrate said—

Then he continued—

I have nothing against the judgment. If the law is so, it is quite right, but the consequence of the long speech was that the native agitated to make more propaganda. He was carried out of the court and put on a buckwagon in the square in front of the court, and he used such language and so irritated the Europeans, that it led to a fight. All that is due to the magistrate’s speech, which I regard as much worse than that of the native. They were encouraged to make further propaganda. I have no objection to the natives being organized in the proper way, but 90 per cent, of our natives are still too undeveloped to be able to understand communistic methods. They exaggerate, and the result may be that the whole country will become full of unrest. I hope the Minister will follow my suggestion.

I would like to ask the Minister for some information on a point which is referred to in the Auditor-General’s report, which states that Mr. R. S. Becker, a first grade Posts and Telegraphs assistant, on scale £425 to £500, was selected by the Minister for appointment as Deputy Inspector of Prisons, that being a new post created by the Minister. The Auditor-General says—

That seems the only apparent reason why the appointment was made, that he serves as a link. Possibly the missing link as is suggested here. It seems strange that the Minister should draft an official from the Posts and Telegraphs Department to the Prisons Department unless he has some special qualification for the post, and one wonders why if he has not some special qualifications, the Minister should have done that, I would like the Minister to tell us what the duties of this officer are, and what his special qualifications are. If he has no special qualifications, why was he drafted from that department to another to the detriment of a large number of officials serving in the Prisons Department? This officer has superseded a large number of aspirants for promotion in the Prisons Department, and it seems a very unfair appointment to make, unless the Minister can give special reasons.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he can give us some information with reference to the prosecution of the person who was considered to be responsible for the Milnedale disaster near Newcastle. A preliminary examination was held in the magistrate’s office against the person who was accused of negligence, of having turned the points, with the result that the mail train to Johannesburg ran into a siding and collided with a standing goods train with serious consequences. The information I have here, and a summary published in the Press, is that the accused put up the plea that he had suffered from mental aberration and turned the points when in this state of mind. I believe the accused was under the observation of the district surgeon.

When was it?

About two years ago. The evidence of the district surgeon was to the effect that the man was perfectly sane and in possession of his senses, and on that evidence he was committed for trial. Subsequently, it is stated, with what truth I am unable to say, certain medical officers, one or more, were sent from Pretoria to examine the accused, and as a result of the examination of the accused, the Minister terminated any further proceedings.

Was Dr. Dunston one of the doctors?

Mr. MARWICK I understand they were railway doctors and sent at the instance of the Minister of Railways and Harbours. If this is true, substantial justice has not been done in this case, and the man ought surely to have been called upon to stand his trial, after a competent court had committed him for trial. There is a considerable amount of feeling about this case, because it is stated that the man is guilty of serious neglect of duty, in consequence of which he has been punished, and only reinstated on writing to the Minister direct. Then there is the question of deportation of persons who have been convicted of various crimes. I understand that a considerable number of people have been deported within the last 18 months who have frequently been convicted of offences under the liquor law. Is it usual for men to be deported under these circumstances? It seems to me a drastic punishment compared with the misplaced leniency of the Minister in discharging so many people from gaol.

Surely not misplaced.

That was to save expense.

That was one of the reasons.

†*As for the first question by the hon. member for Marico (Mr. J. J. Pienaar) regarding the special justice of the peace at Swartfontein, I want to say that the matter is still under consideration. With regard to the magistrate’s judgment, I grant that such incidents are not desirable, but the magistrate’s judgment was right. Unfortunately I cannot agree to the request to issue a circular. I have no right to dictate to officials on the bench what they are entitled to do or not to do.

†As far as Mr. Becker’s appointment is concerned, I wanted an official from outside to fill a new post. He was appointed partly to satisfy the department, and partly to be an additional check on the running of the different establishments. The appointment has been a very fortunate one, and there is practically no dissatisfaction as far as the personnel of these establishments are concerned. Every other department takes many more from my department than I take from theirs. The man is doing the work efficiently.

Is Mr. Becker responsible to the Minister direct?

No, to the director. He has the right to see me, but that right he has exercised only once in six months. Everything he does is done in conjunction with the Director of Prisons.

Was provision made for this appointment in the estimates?

No, the money was obtained out of savings, and the appointment was agreed to by the Public Service Commission and the Treasury. He can see me independently of the director.

Is he the only one who has that right?

No, in my department I see everyone who wants to see me. This is the first I have heard with regard to the stopping of the prosecution in Natal. The only person who could have stopped the prosecution at that stage was the Natal Attorney-General. I suppose, as it was a question of enquiring into a man’s mental state, it is likely that Dr. Dunstan would be sent down. I will enquire into the matter. Persons can be deported for a variety of offences, including liquor offences. The matter of deportation concerns the Minister of the Interior, who acts on the report of the Commissioner of Police. My department is concerned only with the deportation of insolvents.

I would like to refer to the rather unsatisfactory position of police in Natal. Can nothing at all be done to see that police in constant contact with natives and in native reserves are able to talk to the natives in their own language? We are going to lose contact altogether with a large native population if we do not ensure that the police can communicate with natives in their own language. It seems to me some method ought to be devised of encouraging the police to learn the language either by rewarding them for efficiency if they learn the language, or recruiting from amongst those who are able to converse with natives. The Minister knows the state of affairs in the country, and if something is not done you are going to put a great handicap on all native administration which must necessarily be in the hands of the police.

The hon. member has previously brought this matter to my notice and I have brought it continuously to the notice of the commissioner of police. He tells me there is a considerable smattering of police in Natal who know the language, but I admit there are not sufficient. I sincerely hope we shall have more recruits offering from Natal with that qualification, and I shall certainly see that they are taken into our service.

They are not bilingual.

No, it is because our initial salary is not an inducement to the rich people of Natal. I have mentioned that we took men into the police force who were not bi lingual, but who know the Zulu language. I will give that undertaking that if hon, members will see that a few useful men make application, I will see that they are taken into the police force.

I communicated with the Minister a short while ago with regard to a man who had several years’ experience, who left the police with fine testimonials and who asked for re-employment in the force. He was bi-lingual and had passed the test of character and efficiency, and the Minister wrote and told me he could not give him employment.

It is difficult to reconcile that with what he has just said.

I cannot remember that case, but the hon. member will clearly understand my position with regard to men leaving the force. They made a convenience of the force. There are men who go on pension for their own purposes, and if I adopted the practice of re-employing men who had left for their own purposes, I would be saddled with men who had been out of the force for five or ten years, and I do not think it is a fair complaint.

I would like to impress upon the Minister the desirability of encouraging the acquisition of the language on the part of the police employed throughout Natal, not from any narrow idea that it would facilitate the performance of their police duties, but because their political influence amongst the natives is then so much larger. I think our difficulties with the natives are largely of a political character, using the term in its widest sense. Therefore, the encouragement of the acquisition of the language is going to be invaluable from the point of view of the moral suasion which they can exercise on the native, and it is going to save us money in the long run, because fewer men will be needed to carry out the duties in our part of the country. While they would be more efficient as a police arm, I am looking really to the promotion of a better mutual relationship between police and natives than exists at the present time.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.7 p.m.

I wonder if the Minister remembers an Act called the Act to Facilitate the Recovery of Certain Small Debts. It was a Cape Act passed in 1905 and unfortunately, it was repealed eventually by Act 22 of 1917. This small debt recovery Act was of great value and convenience to the mercantile community.

Is the hon. member suggesting an alteration in the Act?

No, I am speaking of the Transkei, where we have a system of proclamations. I would not ask the Minister to introduce legislation to extend it to the country, but I think I am in order in suggesting that by proclamation it would be quite competent to extend it to Griqualand.

But that also involves legislation. Proclamation is also legislation.

Then I must take up another matter which I want to draw the Minister’s attention to. I know he will say I have brought it to the notice of the department, but I think it is of sufficient importance to the country to warrant ventilation. I want to remind him of the case which occurred very recently. A native servant was convicted of stealing furniture. He was charged and I think got a matter of a few days’ imprisonment. He immediately returned to his master’s farm, broke open the store-room and took arsenate of soda and put that down in the cattle manger. One valuable cow and one bullock died. He was sentenced to five months’ imprisonment. All the farmers who heard about it, strongly felt that that sentence was entirely inadequate. Cattle poisoning is not an uncommon crime; unfortunately it is far too prevalent. There was a case in my own district where 80 head of cattle were poisoned in one day and no conviction recorded. It was known who the culprit was, but you could not get proof. That is just the trouble in a large number of cases. I do ask the Minister if it would not be possible in some way to increase the severity of the punishment in a case like that. I was much struck by a case recently brought in Cape Town where a man was charged with putting sand in the engines of a trawler. There was £9 worth of damage done. The case was tried before a judge, and this man was found guilty and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment with hard labour. The report says that upon Hearing the sentence his wife collapsed. Possibly the severity of the sentence might have caused the collapse of the wife, but I think it is a sign that the crime was more than adequately met. I would ask the Minister, are you going to compare the deliberate poisoning of valuable stock with the paltry damage of £9 to the engine of a trawler? It is so difficult to get convictions in these cases, the crime is so often committed, that I do ask the Minister if it would not be possible in some measure to increase the penalty in these cases. I know that he will sympathize with us in cases like these. It might be possible, through a gentle hint being dropped by him to his officers, that they may regard matters of this sort in a far more serious light than they are regarded at present.

I may at once deal with that case. It was the case of a native who was charged and got nine months’ hard labour for poisoning two cattle of the value of something like £25 or £30. I am not at all certain whether any of us sitting as a magistrate would have inflicted a heavier punishment than nine months. The report that I have is that the case was largely one of circumstantial evidence. I can tell my hon. friend (Mr. Gilson) that it is quite impossible for me to give any instructions on the quantum of punishment in the case of judicial officers. Furthermore, I am not prepared to admit that this magistrate erred very greatly in that sentence.

I should like to ask the Minister if he cannot instruct the police in the outside areas to take additional precautionary measures in connection with the inciters to unrest and violence who go round amongst the natives. I have heard of cases not only on my own farm, but also in other parts of my district. Last year as the Minister knows we passed the Native Administration Act. It is an excellent Act, and one of the sections says that the farmer must send in a list from his farm to the native commissioner giving the names of all the natives on the farm. The intention of the Act is a good one. There are always vagrants and fugitives in the kraal of a farmer without anyone knowing of it, and they pay no taxes. Now the native commissioner sends lists to the farmer to fill in. The list requires the name of the native and the number of his tax receipt. In the Transvaal the natives have no residential passes, therefore the only identification number is the one appearing on his tax receipt, that is the only number by which a native can be traced in the commissioner’s book. Then the question is asked how many years the native has been employed, and in which kraal he lives. So reads the form, and I do not see that any one of the questions is superfluous. I am now talking of my own farm, of the manager of my farm, and my children. The native commissioner asks for the numbers of the natives, the law says that the farmer who does not complete the form can be fined £10, and to my utter surprise and astonishment half the natives on my farm were unwilling to state their numbers. I was in this House at the time and was surprised at it, because the tax had been paid by me, and I handed the receipts to the natives, who subsequently refused to state the numbers of the receipts although some of them have already been living 20 to 30 years with me. I could not understand it, but what did I learn later? Two natives from Johannesburg, or some other town, had gone around the district and they had incited the natives not to take their receipts to their masters. It is said that the two natives went round among the others and asked for 10s. a year as a kind of contribution, for which they would regularly go about the farms to explain what the laws of the country were, what the rights of the natives and of their masters were, and what the obligations of the natives were. I believe that we have here to do with members of the I.C.U. In any case, they were two natives who belonged to the intellectuals among them, who went about the farms and asked the natives for 10s., in return for which they would explain the laws of the land and set out the rights and duties of the farmer and the natives. On my farm they advised the natives to refuse to exhibit the receipts, and their advice is so far right, because the native laws say that there is no obligation on the native to show his receipt to anyone but a policeman or a native commissioner. The master on a farm is not mentioned in the law, therefore, the advice is legally sound. I think it ought not to be permitted that the native work people should get into trouble with the master, because they do not want to go away. In cases of a difference with the master and their having to go to a location they have always preferred to remain on the farm. There are natives who have been living on my farm 20 to 30 years, but they have been instigated not to produce their receipts, and I would like the Minister to give instructions to the police in the country districts to keep a sharper lookout for natives from the towns who go about as agitators on the farms.

My reply is that the question mainly falls under the Department of Native Affairs. All I can do is to have a watch kept whether itinerant natives make public speeches, then they can be brought under the Act which we passed last year, but otherwise it is a question for the Minister of Native Affairs. As for my share of the matter, I can assure the hon. member that I will make enquiry along the lines he wishes.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 15, “Superior Courts”, £233,903, put and agreed to.

On Vote 16, “Magistrates and District Administration”, £609,818,

I see the Minister has increased the number of his magistrates by four, 256 instead of 252 last year, and there is an increase of 23 clerks, clerical assistants and so forth, altogether under this head, will the Minister kindly explain the reasons for these increases?

Does my hon. friend mean what has made it necessary to increase the number? I think I dealt with it partially earlier in the day. Several of our town areas have become considerably larger and require more magistrates. We find it necessary to increase the staff at Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Durban and other parts. The increase in the number of magistrates is very narrowly scrutinized by the inspectors of the Public Service Commission. We try to resist the claim as much as possible, and we fight as much as we are worth against additional personnel. When the claims are too exigent we send the Public Service Commission to find out what the position is. I do not think it can be said we are increasing the personnel of the magistrates unduly; if anything, I believe we are understaffed at the present moment. We are trying to keep the expenditure down as much as possible.

Will the Minister tell us what the position is with regard to the Johannesburg magistrates’ courts?

It was dealt with earlier in the day under “Justice”.

Have any particular magistrates been appointed to deal with juvenile courts? There is a very serious need for the appointment of a magistrate to deal with the juvenile courts alone, especially in the Peninsula. The whole modern tendency is to increase the number of courts which deal with juvenile offenders only.

That has been dealt with already, for some years to a certain extent; where the work justifies it, a magistrate deals with juvenile work alone. In Cape Town Mr. Harmer dealt with juvenile cases, but also with other cases. In large places we are fast coming to the position that one magistrate will have to deal with juvenile matters alone.

I should like the Minister to go particularly into the question at Cape Town, where the magistrate has been doing excellent work indeed, but has not been devoting himself entirely to that work. I know Mr. Harmer is away on leave at present. What I want to put to the Minister is for him to appoint a magistrate purely for work of that kind in an area such as the Cape Peninsula, so that the whole of the juvenile cases of the Peninsula will come before him. It is work which Requires special training and qualifications.

I want to ask the Minister whether he will not appoint a magistrate at Garies. Garies is 72 miles from Springbok, and its people are much inconvenienced. The Minister is now sending additional clerks to Springbok because the magistrate there cannot cope with the work. The Minister had better appoint a magistrate there. It is very inconvenient for the public. They have to go to Springbok for all kinds of things, and it causes much inconvenience, travelling expenses, etc.

If the hon. member will make an application the department will enquire whether the work at Garies justifies the appointment of a magistrate there. Where Garies is, what it is like, and what it is, I cannot now judge.

Is it intended that the Native Affairs Department shall in future appoint the magistrates in native areas in Zululand? Unfortunately, some of the magistrates in Zululand cannot speak the native language, with the result that there is no proper control of the natives. In purely native areas magistrates should know the native language and customs. I thank the Minister for making the change at Weenen, where they had a magistrate who did not understand the natives.

The question of placing the Zululand magistracy under the Department of Native Affairs is under consideration. That department has approached us, and we will have no objection to the change being made.

The Minister says that the department can make a recommendation to him, but they will never do so. That is the point. The magistrate at Springbok will not recommend it. I want the people who are suffering so much inconvenience to have a say in the matter also.

All that is necessary is for the hon. member to write me a letter, then the matter will be investigated. How can I judge here whether a magistrate is necessary at Garies?

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 17, “Prisons and Reformatories,” £727,500,

We are asked to vote £57,300 for reformatories, and, although the amount is £2,640 less than last year, still it is an alarming one because it reveals the existence of so much juvenile crime. A few years ago we heard strange things about Indiscipline in certain reformatories. Can the Minister assure us that things are better in this respect, and that these institutions really do do something to reform the character of those on the way to becoming hardened criminals?

I can give that assurance. Any member who wishes to have first-hand information on the subject should visit the Tokai reformatory which is near Cape Town. Judging from what I have seen, it is excellently conducted. Then we have a place near Heidelberg, Transvaal, which is very well conducted by a superintendent who has an absolute passion for the work, and the results have been exceedingly good. The inmates of these institutions totalled 805 in 1926, and 813 in 1927. I have very great hope of the work done at the reformatory. The majority of the boys do good work there, and we do not find that they return to criminal courses. These places are very much on the lines of Borstal institutes, and I think that is the best way to deal with the problem.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 18, “Police”, £2,582,449

Is the police department taking steps to minimize the many fatal accidents that are caused by motor-cars and motor-lorries? These accidents are becoming a very serious menace to the public safety. The way in which motorists and drivers of motor-lorries speed along narrow streets, sound their hooters and rush into people waiting for tram-cars is very alarming indeed. A great deal more ought to be done by the police than they are doing in bringing the offenders to justice. The other day when going to the station I saw a motorist coming up Adderley Street. He sounded his hooter, and rushed along at 25 miles an hour, scattering people who were waiting for a tramcar and just by the narrowest margin avoided running over a lady. A policeman who was standing by took no notice of the incident. I see that during the last six days there have been no less than eight fatal accidents in the Cape Peninsula owing to negligent driving by motorists. Steps ought to be taken by the police to put a stop to this by trapping or some other way. The public are becoming alarmed.

From time to time we resort to trapping to see what speeds cars are travelling at, because most of these accidents are due to speed. I will give special instructions so far as Cape Town is concerned, for it seems to be having the worst record in South Africa. It is a very bad record indeed. I think we should tighten up the trapping of vehicles.

I am very glad to hear it. You sometimes see motor-cars going round the corner of the Old Supreme Court buildings at such a speed that should an unfortunate person be in the road, it would be impossible for the motorists to avoid running over them. The police do not seem to take the numbers of offending cars. The members of the Royal Automobile Club of South Africa will give every assistance to the police in this matter.

May I ask the Minister whether he can ask magistrates to impose more severe sentences? I think if a man is found guilty of exceeding the speed limit, the first time his licence should be endorsed, and the second time his licence should be taken away, because he is a dangerous man to careful drivers like ourselves. I know the Minister is thinking that last night he nearly ran over somebody— that was in a taxi. I think the town council of Cape Town should assist the police. I wonder if the Minister could not arrange with the town council to regulate the traffic. I live at Muizenberg on the main road—the speedway of the world. I think it is the worst place in Africa. Cars travel at 50 and 60 miles an hour and every mother is in fear and trembling about her children. A child going across the road has not a hope. The police cannot take the numbers because there are few police at Muizenberg. I think they might waken up all the town councils in South Africa. Johannesburg is pretty bad, and Bloemfontein and everywhere is bad. If horses and carts ten years ago had killed people we should have scrapped them. Here we kill eight people in one week and nobody takes the slightest notice. In England men have been put in gaol after the second or third case, and if we did that in South Africa once or twice we would stop the road hog and save the lives of a large number of promising young men. They get on motor-bikes and go 60 miles an hour. I would do away with motorbikes if I had my way. I certainly would not allow young men to ride them.

A great deal is made of speed, but I hope the Minister will not devote all his attention to devising speed limits. It is the ignorance and gross selfishness and “impossibility” of so many people on the road, not speed, that is the real danger. I would like to see speed limits done away with. Driving to the danger of the publc is the only test. Driving at ten miles an hour might be road-hogging in certain circumstances. The onus ought to be on the driver to answer for his driving. Buses stop suddenly in front of you without any warning, and they usurp three parts of the road by keeping away from the kerb. The town council ought to make heavy vehicles, which should be more slow moving than they are, keep to the side, and give a car a chance to get past. Three of us were very nearly piled up behind a bus this afternoon. Much could be done in educating the public in road manners. The Automobile Club and the press might help. Licences are granted to people when they really do not know the first thing about a motor-car. The last matter I wish to mention is not the speed of the cars, but the state of sobriety of the drivers. In the case mentioned to-night in which several people were killed in one accident it appears there is good reason to believe that they were all inebriated. It is better that they killed themselves, but it is purely chance that they did not kill a large number of other people.

I always have an extraordinarily pleasurable feeling on those rare occasions on which I find myself in agreement with the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). This is one of those occasions, and I hope the hon. the Minister will be actuated to take some of the steps the hon. member has suggested. I agree that the hon. the Minister cannot interfere with the decisions of magistrates, but I think this is a case in which the Minister of Justice can have a circular issued from his office with his authority, calling the attention of all magistrates and assistant magistrates to the serious state of affairs occurring from reckless driving and the number of accidents which have taken place. That, I think, would be within the province of my hon. friend. He might also call attention to the fact of the extraordinary minimum sentences that are very often given, especially in the case referred to by my hon. friend when men have been driving motor vehicles to the danger of the public and they are inebriated. Their licences should be taken away for at least twelve months. It is only by methods of this sort that you will ever put an end to the reckless driving that takes place. We have talked about reckless driving in the city, but on the country roads it is equally reckless. You see men coming down cross-roads into a main road at 30 and 40 miles an hour without blowing the hooter and the only possibility of avoiding an accident is that some other car does not happen to be there at that particular moment.

This is an unanimous and combined attack on motorists. I am very much in accord with what is being said, but there is another aspect of the question. There is also a responsibility on pedestrians. It is wonderful that more people are not killed because of the manner in which pedestrians either slither across the streets and form knots for conversation in utter disregard of the traffic. Take Johannesburg, where there are places marked out for pedestrians to cross. People ignore those places and traverse the streets diagonally and most leisurely. I would urge an amendment of the law so that if the pedestrian does not cross at the appointed place he should be subject to some penalty. With all this change in locomotion there is a greater obligation on the pedestrian to see that he does not take up more than his share of the public road, and that he recognizes that an obligation is cast upon him also to use the public streets for what they were intended for, namely, for crossing, and not as promenades.

That this question of reckless driving is being discussed in the legislative assembly of the country is, I think, sufficient proof of the seriousness of the matter, as well as that the public feel that something must be done to put a stop to it. Hon. members have already spoken a good deal about it, and I do not want to repeat what has been said by them, but there is no doubt that the public is becoming very uneasy at the way in which motors are driven, not only in the towns, but also on the countryside. I want to say something in connection with motor-bicycles. Particularly in Cape Town, but also in other places motorcycles are driven in a scandalous way. The noise is terrible. There are laws against them, and I cannot understand why they are not prosecuted. With a tremendous noise they travel at any time of the day or night along Adderley Street and other streets, and often prevent people sleeping at night so great is the noise they make. The Minister of Justice ought to instruct the police to take careful note of the matter, and to keep their eyes and ears open, because it is unsafe and disagreeable for the rest of the public. There is another point in connection with the police I want to deal with— the speeches by natives in Cape Town. I asked the Minister of Justice a question recently in connection with a speech I heard in Van Riebeek Square shortly after the session opened. About 100 to 150 natives were collected and were addressed by a native, and I noted down a few things that I heard. I mentioned them in my question. The following words, inter alia, were employed by the speaker—

I asked the Minister whether he knew that such speeches were being made. He replied that he was not aware of them, but that the department was keeping an eye on the position. Shortly thereafter a friend of mine, who did not know that I had a question on the order paper, and who did not know that I had listened to the speech, came to me and said that we ought to speak to the Minister about those speeches, and he then mentioned words similar to those I had heard, which were uttered at the same place on a subsequent occasion. I never heard anything more after I had put the question. If the police really took an interest in the matter, I could surely expect that they would come and ask me for some details. We know how dangerous it is when the natives go about in this way agitating, and I think it would be a good thing if the police authorities would give special attention to the native meetings, and the speeches made there. We know what such things may ultimately lead to.

We are told, and I believe the statement is true, that we have a highly efficient, well-organized, capable police force. I saw in a Cape Town newspaper a week or two ago, a statement made with all apparent gravity, about a police constable in this city, that he was so shocked with the dress, or abbreviated dress, of a young lady that he put her into a taxi cab at his own expense and advised her to go home. I would like to ask the Minister if that action is likely to spread, if police constables are to be appointed as directors of morals and designers of dress?

I may say at once that I deny the imputation, that smirch on the character of the police. They would not act in that way under those circumstances. After all, we have no sumptuary laws in this country, and it would only be by carrying out sumptuary laws that we could do anything in that way. I believe that story is entirely incorrect. It might have been some other sort of person in uniform and the gentleman could not distinguish uniforms, one from another. It might have been one of the inspectors of the S.P.C.A. As regards this motoring question, this is, of course, a difficult question all over the world. I think the point raised by the hon, member for Albany (Mr. Struben) is perfectly correct, that drivers’ certificates are granted too easily without any inquiry, but I am told (I do not know whether I am right in saying so) that in England the certificates are granted without any examination whatever. The real trouble there is that even where there is a fairly strong defence in a prosecution against a motorist he has not got a hope, at least that I have been told. Even where he is nearly in the right, he has not got a hope. I am told that is more or less the tendency. That would, of course, prevent accidents, if, when any accident happened, the motorist was found guilty, whether he was guilty or not. A large number of points have been raised in this debate, and I have no doubt that the magistrates will take notice of the feeling in this House that the punishment should be more severe. The right hon. gentleman (Sir Thomas Smartt) is correct in saying that the circular he suggests is one that could be sent to the magistrates, but I believe this discussion in the House will be very efficacious as far as the magistrates are concerned. The point raised is a very important one that your buses are reaching extraordinary proportions in the towns. The towns, sooner or later, will have to lay down what the size of these things must be, because they are growing every year and sometimes you have two or three buses running side by side. There is another thing which we might give as a hint to the town authorities. It might not be an unwise thing not to start your traffic from one point, but to let some of your buses start at one point and some at another. The two main things are the speed at which your motor cars run and the speed at which your motor cycles run in Cape Town. It is correct that in some places speed limits have been abolished, but in what other practical way can a person cope with the traffic problem? In Cape Town, take these cases, if you do not deal with the question of speed, what general action can one take to deal with this motor car trouble unless you deal with the speed of these vehicles? Your man on the spot cannot always say whether people are driving dangerously, but you can always test a certain stretch of road and find out whether cars are travelling on that stretch of road at a dangerous speed. It seems to me you can meet the difficulty in that way and by the method of imposing greater penalties. I believe the police, whenever they see cars passing them in a dangerous way, take the numbers and have a prosecution. I have seen here in Cape Town, when prominent men have been prosecuted in the courts, they have always defended themselves, and what chance has the poor policeman against the prominent man who tells the court that he is innocent? Col. Truter tells me that there have been cases where prominent men have come into the court and contradicted the policeman’s evidence. If prominent men in Cape Town would have the decency to plead guilty, when they have committed an offence, that would be of very great assistance. The whole of the population of this country should assist in this matter. I admit that I do not think the police have done as much as they possibly could have done of late, and we will certainly see that that is tightened up to a large extent, but we expect the population to help as well. With regard to the point made by one hon. member in regard to the pedestrian who crosses the road to his own danger, I think these gentlemen who in other parts of the world have earned the name of “jay-walkers” seem to be in greater numbers in Cape Town than any other place I know. The number of men in Cape Town who are trying to commit suicide the whole time is something enormous and, knowing that Cape Town is such a pleasant place, I cannot understand why. That is a matter that can be dealt with by the Town Council of Cape Town. They can have rules and regulations applying to people who act in that way.

What about the withdrawal of licences?

I think the powers are there to-day for the magistrates to do that. The hon. member is perfectly right in saying that is a power that should be exercised more frequently. Where somebody has been found guilty of being drunk while in charge of a vehicle, he should not have the chance of being a danger at any future time. I am not certain that I attach too much importance to this particular type of speech that the hon. member here referred to. Take these meetings at the bottom of Adderley Street. The department never attaches much importance to these speeches. There is much less danger to be apprehended from them than from those in other parts of the country. We must, to a certain extent, take notice of the fact where these speeches are likely to cause trouble. I think any amount of steam can be blown off in Cape Town without doing much harm to the countryside. It is a compliment to the population of Cape Town—not meant in the other way. If there is the same type of speech where there is a large native population in a more or less barbarous state, then those speeches would tend to be more dangerous, but I do not think it fair to expect me to instruct a prosecution in respect of any speech in which my name is referred to.

Your time would be rather taken up, would it not?

That is more a thing of the past than of the present. I hope hon. members see I appreciate the importance of this question of the motoring public and I shall certainly see whether that matter cannot be tightened up as much as possible.

One thing the Minister seems to have lost sight of in regard to this motor traffic question is that while we are here in the House of Assembly discussing the better administration of the law, we do not make the laws. They are made by the Provincial Councils. I think the maximum penalty that can be imposed under the provincial ordinance in the Transvaal is £5 for exceeding the speed limit or driving to the danger of the public, at any rate for the first conviction. There you get the futility of this dual government we have in South Africa. The Union Parliament is responsible for the police system and for the carrying out of these traffic laws and the laws are made by the Provincial Council, which has no control over the police. We have really no voice whatever in these traffic laws. I agree with the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) that the mere imposition of a speed limit will not cure this evil. Take the case my hon. friend has mentioned of cars that come round the old Supreme Court building. They may only be travelling at 10 or 12 miles an hour, but they are far more dangerous than the man motoring along the De Waal Drive who opens the throttle of his car to 30 miles an hour. You get your police traps for speeding very often on wide open stretches of road where there is every temptation for the motorist to go fast, and little danger in his doing so, but in the actual streets of the city, here, and in Johannesburg and elsewhere, where the road hog really is a danger, there is no control. I saw that this morning; a little girl was driven over in the street at Woodstock and killed. There are no speed traps in Woodstock or Adderley Street, and a speed of 20 miles per hour might be a highly dangerous speed on the main road between Cape Town and Salt River or Cape Town and Sea Point, yet there is no way of preventing it. On the other hand, the difficulty the Minister has is that so nebulous an offence as driving to the danger of the public is an exceedingly difficult one to prove. Two policemen with a stop-watch may be able to prove an actual breach of the speed limit and yet the question of whether a man is driving to the danger of the public must always be a matter of opinion, and magistrates will be loath to convict. I have often thought over this problem, especially in regard to motor cycles, which are the biggest curse this century has produced. They are responsible for more accidents than any other kind of vehicle in South Africa. I often wonder why the Minister does not appoint a commission to go into the whole question. The Provincial Councils could be represented. It has become such a scandal that it is going to be one of the gravest problems we have to deal with in our modern life. One goes in absolute terror. I have only one boy, and I made him promise me years ago that on no account would he ever ride on the pillion of a motor cycle or ever accept from a friend the loan of a motor cycle.

He will do it all the same.

I dare say, but still I have instilled that into him. The speed at which you see motor cycles go along the main road to Sea Point and to Wynberg is sometimes absolutely appalling. There was a case in Johannesburg the other day of a motor cycle with a pillion passenger which crashed into a stationary motor car and split into half the spare wheel of that car. I had one case in my own professional practice, where a motor cycle crashed into a cart and horse coming from a side street, and crashed through both shafts, cutting off the horse from the cart. You open the paper every day and read of an accident. Both as regards the noise motor cycles make and the speed at which they travel, one wonders how we can get effective means of control. What is everybody’s business is nobody’s business. It is partly the Union Government’s business, partly that of the provincial authorities, and partly that of the municipality, and between the three bodies nothing is done. The discussion comes at an appropriate time—in Cape Town there were eight fatalities last week. The sum total of our losses through these accidents equals that of the losses of the South-West African campaign and the rebellion. It is something on our national conscience. Much as I spoke about commissions, I think the Minister would do well if he gave consideration to the appointment of a Government commission to go into the question of motor traffic and the regulations. In our discussions here we sometimes seem to be a sort of super town council of Cape Town, but we are here for several months of the year, and perhaps see things which councillors do not notice. There is the motor bus traffic, and the way in which motor buses come round the General Post Office is an absolute scandal. Sometimes they go two or three abreast. The rate at which they come is a scandal sometimes. Policemen could be better employed running in some of these motor bus drivers than having speed traps on lonely roads, We have not policemen on motor cycles as they have in America, where I am told if you go too fast you are chased by a motor “cop” on a motor bicycle and brought to book however high your speed is. But we have two police men with a stop-watch, and the word is passed to motorists that the police are out. We have to tackle the evil in another way. I suggest that the Minister should give us the assurance that he will take into serious consideration going into this question of the traffic laws, and their better enforcement.

The Minister, in his amiable and humorous reply, made a remark of some truth, but I hope be does not wish it to go out as his considered utterance.—To say that a policeman has no chance before a magistrate. It may be a reflection on the magistrate.

There are two cases I know about, and very hard to decide. I am not reflecting on the magistrate.

We have a perfectly fair and impartial magisterial bench, and I would be very sorry for such a reflection to go out from this House. I am sure the Minister will put that right.

The onus rests on the prosecution.

I think it a most undesirable thing that from the Ministerial head of the department, which has control of magistrates in all sorts of ways, any suggestion should be made about their judgment and penalties, and what they ought to be. The discussion in the Press is a proper one, because it shows magistrates what is considered by the public the proper penalties to be given; but it is a different thing for the head of the department to send out a suggestion what magistrates ought to do. Magistrates feel that if they do not act in the spirit of the circular they may be made to suffer in some way. With regard to the general question of traffic, I have heard from other people with regard to the conditions in Johannesburg, and I have been to Johannesburg myself. There is one particular corner where I have stood from five to ten minutes at a time, when I was perhaps more agile than I am now, and was unable to cross because of the furious driving.

You are quite right.

These illustrations are all right, and we are speaking from our experience.

There is no comparison.

I quite believe that the motor traffic evil will have to be put down by means of punishment, and I hope magistrates will do more to cancel licences. If I were a magistrate on the bench, one rule I would make, is that if I found a man guilty of being drunk while driving, I would cancel his licence for good— no matter who the person was. I quite agree the police have a very important and sometimes unpleasant part, and the public have to support them as much as they can. It is difficult to know what makes an accident happen sometimes. Take that broad stretch of road between Salt River and Observatory the broadest stretch we have in Cape Town, and they have had some of the most terrible calamities there. It is difficult to know why they have them. No amount of police supervision is going to check that, nor do I think the examination of a person to prove his fitness to drive is going to be a remedy. There is no examination of motor drivers in England. After driving about England it struck me that the great difference between driving there and in South Africa was that the motorist in England seemed to have more consideration than the motorist here. Our drivers should cultivate a sense of consideration for other users of the road, whether pedestrians or motorists. We require not only supervision of traffic and punishment of offenders, but co-operation between road users and the cultivation of a sense of road courtesy. I agree that the penalties are much too light, and I hope magistrates will be influenced by what has been said here rather than by any expression by the heads of the department which might be construed as a threat.

I just want to ask the Minister whether it is his intention next summer—at the moment we are enjoying a delightfully cool winter—to try to supply our policemen with better uniforms of a more suitable colour than those they wear now during the greatest heat. To-day they stand, e.g., in Cape town, in their blue uniforms in the full glare of the sun to regulate the traffic, and in addition they wear black helmets. I therefore ask if it is the Minister’s intention to introduce cooler uniforms in summer than those the police have now.

Has the Minister paid heed to the somewhat alarming figures regarding the increase of crime? It appears from the last police report that the number of serious cases reported to the police were in 1921, 31,000; 1922, 33,000; 1923, 34,000; 1924, 41,000; 1925, 50,000; 1926, 51,000. Juvenile crime seems to be steadily increasing from 1,174 convictions in 1922 to 1,625 in 1926; liquor contraventions increased from 53,000 in 1924 to 68,000 in 1926. Although the police commission, on which two distinguished members of this House served, cost £3,004, only one of its recommendations was adopted by the department. It seems a very costly business to have a commission and to accept only a small recommendation regarding the standing of inspectors. The commissioner expresses he hope that this will be the last effort made to alter the administration and organization of the police so long as it maintains its present high standard of efficiency. He rather assumes that the force is beyond improvement in the matter of efficiency. I believe three members of the House lost their watches last year.

Were they in bad company ?

They were the Minister of Defence, the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) and I was the third victim. I rejoice to say that through the remarkable vigilence of a police officer who has the King’s medal, my watch was recovered. I entirely agree as to the danger of motor traffic. Last night a distinguished priest of this town was heard to say that he hesitated to use Parliament Street lest through becoming a casualty he might lead to the removal of the Cathedral from Cape Town.

With regard to the prosecution of motorists, what hope has a policeman if a very prominent citizen says his evidence is wrong? Without casting the faintest reflection on the court, it is perfectly clear that the chances are in favour of the motorist being acquitted. In order to secure a conviction you must prove a case up to the hilt, and where a prominent citizen was concerned, his word would be accepted or a doubt would arise in the mind of the magistrate. There are cases in which I have very little doubt the accused was guilty, but in these cases I would have exactly the same doubt as the magistrate if I were sitting in his place. I would have a doubt as to whether the facts were proved. I agree with the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) that one has no right to suggest to a magistrate that his punishments are inadequate, but the hint of the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) seems to me not wrong, when he said that one could circularize magistrates and point out the increasing frequency of motor accidents. I will go into the question of the suggested commission of inquiry, but I doubt whether such a commission should be appointed. I think we can collect data from the police, provincial administrations, magistrates and town councils to find out what the position is. With regard to police commission, there is more than one recommendation that will in time be put into force, although it is not wise to do it at once, but there is a large amount of very valuable matter in that report. You remember we made a test of white angora hair uniforms in Pretoria. We find that the material shrunk in the wash and the uniforms were not satisfactory. We are experimenting in colouring that material and trying to get it so that it will not shrink. We hope we shall be able to evolve a lighter uniform for summer wear. So far the experiments have not been successful. The first and second days on which a policeman appears in his white uniform he looks very well indeed, but after a couple of washings his uniform looks bedraggled and sloppy generally. I think the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) dealt with the most difficult problem of all—criminal statistics. I do not think there is an increase in crime. But I think we have a lack of discipline in South Africa which we have had for years and years, and in addition to that, the people try to live up to too high a standard. We have not a saving population, but a spendthrift population in most parts. I do not say only in South Africa, but it is very common in South Africa. In Johannesburg you will find the whole population living up to or beyond their means. I must say they are much more attractive than the man living within his means, but still it is a bad thing for the man himself and for the country, and leads to crime, because if you are living beyond your means you are incited to supply the deficit. I admit the figures are disquieting as they stand. I think the principal lack we have in South Africa is a lack of self-discipline, and if that could be made good by getting something back into the people’s character that was there at one stage, by means of religion, or something in place of that religion,—a high morale—I think the position would greatly improve. I think you will find a larger proportion of crimes detected to-day on the whole. The proportion of detection is very high to-day in South Africa. I am afraid I have no golden means to suggest to solve the difficulty. I am only hoping that if the population pulls its weight, we will get out of the drag into which we have got during a number of years. There have been circumstances in the past of South Africa when people were taken away from the places in which they lived, and wars and droughts, which have contributed to the toll that is being levied upon us in this way to-day. Fortunately we are living in quieter circumstances and I believe we shall find that that will cause a great improvement in our position.

I think we had the assurance last year of the hon. the Minister, that he would do his best to increase the number of police. What has been complained of to-night in regard to the danger of motor-cycles and so on is largely due to the fact that we have not got enough police. From every part of the country comes the same cry of the inadequacy of police.

If you doubled the police force, the same cry would go on.

There appears to be a decrease. In the uniformed branch there is one less sub-inspector, 30 fewer head constables, 1 more first-class sergeant, 2 more second-class sergeants, and an increase of constables by 18. If we take the reduction of head constables, we find that while 22 are added 30 are taken off, so that there are now eight less in the uniformed branch. Of Indian, coloured and native constables, the department has taken on 22 more. What is becoming of our white labour policy with fewer Europeans and more coloured?

When did I make that promise? I made a promise that at the end of this financial year, which ended on March 31st, I would increase the number.

Well, we see that the police are put in an impossible position. You are expecting what you cannot get. The whole system needs reforming, and the Minister, no doubt, will object to anything like a commission of enquiry. I notice that Ministers do not want any sort of independent enquiry, and they are too busy themselves to go deeply into things. For four years we have been at administration and find that the matter of insufficient police has not yet been remedied. As far as magistrates’ sentences are concerned, when we have police enough to deal with traffic danger, then the only deterrent is for the magistrates to suspend drivers’ licences. Those who are driving motor-cars and motor-cycles insure themselves against third person risks and the offence of exceeding the limit or careless driving is not brought home to them by any fine imposed by the magistrates. Unless licences are suspended we will get no redress whatever. But the whole difficulty is one of police. After deducting the number required for point duty and those who are required for evidence at the courts daily and in service for court purposes, there are not enough to assure protection to the public. However, reduction in taxation and increased service are impossible of reconciliation.

I may say in regard to the increase of police that what the House can object to is that I am not carrying out the promise that I gave to the House last year. I told the House last year that I was going to try and bring down this figure of the cost of police to £2,500,000, because this country is already bearing a very heavy weight for police. There was so much pressure brought to bear, and I have had so many requests for justifiable increases that so far from bringing down the figure to £2,500,000 it has gone up to £2,582,000, and the result of it is that I am increasing the personnel during the present year by 116. I do not think there is any part of the world in which your police force is up to its requirements. It is impossible to have it, I should imagine that in some parts you have a very inadequate police force, but I would ask the hon. member, can we go further than this figure? It will probably reach the £2,600,000 figure in the course of a few years, but you must call a halt somewhere. You cannot go on piling it up. You would not be able to put that amount on the estimates if it were not for the gold mines of South Africa. If the gold mines petered out, you would probably have to reduce the force by one-half. As far as being Minister in charge of the police is concerned, the Minister himself would, of course, like to have as many police as possible, as well equipped as possible and as well housed as possible. The equipment is all right, but the housing and numbers are inadequate. We have not the money in South Africa to increase very largely our expenditure in this connection. Your complaint will remain exactly the same even if you double the police. If you double your force, obviously it will still be inadequate in South Africa on account of our large distances. You will have some hon. member getting up and telling us that there are not enough police in Garies, for instance. I was hoping to fix the amount at the £2,500,000 figure, but it looks to me as if that dyke is broken and as if I shall be driven to the £2,600,000 figure.

Vote put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

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

Before the second order is read might I make an appeal to my hon. friend, the Minister of Justice? You have had a wonderful day to-day. The Minister of Finance has got his estimates through and the Minister of Justice, whose estimates generally take two days, has also got his through. I do not think it would be fair to the House, or fair to the country, that the Minister of Justice should now proceed after this exhausting day, to the various amendments made on the Liquor Bill, and I would appeal to my hon. friend under the circumstances to adjourn. Then he will come back to-morrow full of vigour.

The House will also be full of vigour, but if my hon. friend will allow me to proceed with a few very innocuous and non-contentions clauses we might be able to adjourn at 10 o’clock or shortly afterwards. I will see that nothing contentious is brought on in this jaded House.

There is no such thing as a non-contentious clause.

There is nothing before the House at present.

I merely want to support the appeal to the Minister for an adjournment.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

On Clause 3,

Amendments in paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

New sub-section (3) put and agreed to.

I move—

The Minister will remember that when the Bill was in committee I mentioned that this clause repealed the existing laws and at the same time it gave protection to licences actually issued under the laws which are proposed to be repealed by this clause. It has been the custom in the Cape Province, at any rate, to issue certificates for licences on certain conditions. For instance, if an application is made to the licensing court and the memorials are in proper order, then the police can inspect the premises and the grounds upon which the licence is sought to be established. Then if the premises are found to be inadequate, the court gives an order that provided the applicant within a specified period completes such premises which would be considered in the opinion of the court sufficient to meet the case for such a licence, then the court would then issue a licence upon production of a certificate. Such an order of the court is not protected under this clause, and I know of two instances during the sittings of the licensing court in the Cape Province during the last month, where such orders were made and certificates issued. I know of one case in which time has been given to complete the hotel premises up to the end of January, but the new court established under this Bill will hold their court in December prior to the expiration of the time allowed, and it is to meet cases of that sort that I have given notice of this. I believe the Minister has no objection to it.

seconded.

I am prepared to accept this with one amendment. I believe it is provided for in the section, but to make it quite clear I would like to insert the word “lawfully” before the word “granted” in the second line. Then there are two verbal amendments. I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendment as amended put and agreed to.

Amendments in Clause 4 put and agreed to.

I think at this stage perhaps the House is becoming a bit overburdened.

On the motion of the Minister of Justice debate adjourned; to be resumed to-morrow.