I want to assure hon. members that I will not needlessly detain the House. I know the Minister and the House generally are tired of this Bill, but I just want to bring a few thoughts about the motion to the Minister's notice. As the clause stands at present we ask something of the policeman which he is not competent to do. If my hon. friends will just read the words they will see that the policeman cannot comply with that demand. If the registered medical practitioner certifies in writing over his signature that a patient is suffering from a disease, and that liquor is necessary for his recovery, then the police must judge whether the liquor is necessary for the recovery or not. I think it is clear that the policeman, however advanced he may be, and with whatever experience, cannot possibly judge about a disease, and decide what treatment is necessary. It is said that he must judge whether the giving of liquor to a patient is a bona fide necessity for the recovery of the patient. With the best intentions in the world he cannot do it, and as we have recently laid down that the treatment of the sick shall only be entrusted to registered medical practitioners, and have protected them against unqualified persons, we are now doing something which is in conflict with that principle. I pointed out yesterday that the status, the development, and the education of the policeman is not such that he is in a position to form a judgment. I want to suggest to the Minister that this clause as it now reads actually casts an undeserved reflection on the medical profession. I do not think the Minister intended it as such; I am not speaking personally, but I think the Minister will agree that the medical profession is second to no other. It is a charge against the medical profession, as if they prescribed liquor excessively where it was not necessary.

That has taken place.

I admit that there was one case, but it is not right on account of that one instance to suspect the whole profession of a similar offence.

Only one case was proved.

I do not want to argue with the Minister, but I want to point out what the position is in connection with that abuse. Immediately after it was discovered that medical man was struck off the roll, and I think I can speak authoritatively when I say that, if a doctor is guilty of such an offence, he is immediately struck off the roll. I appeal to the House to delete that charge from the Bill. The charge is unreasonable, and suggests that the doctor is not qualified to judge what a patient needs because it is left to the police to say whether the patient requires liquor as a medicine or not. I think it brings the medical profession into bad repute. I want to point out again that I do not believe that that was the Minister's intention. I want to point out to the Minister that that provision is not only unreasonable but also futile, because a policeman cannot judge about a disease, and he will only make himself ridiculous if he tries to decide whether a sick person requires liquor to recover.

I second that.

Are we going to waste time on this section, too?

Supposing a doctor visits a man ten, twenty or thirty miles away from a town, and gives a certificate that liquor may be supplied for his ailment, how could a policeman be sent 30 miles out to see whether he requires it? The difficulties here will not be met by this provision and, under the circumstances, I hope that what the hon. member asks for will be deleted from this clause.

Amendment put and negatived.

In Clause 102.

This is an amendment which is necessary in view of the definition of parliamentary voter—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendments in sub-section (2) put and agreed to.

In Clause 103, Amendments in sub-section (1) put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

On new sub-section (3).

I move, as an amendment, In lines 63 and 64, to omit " issue to such person a certificate exempting him " and to substitute " subject to any regulation made under sub-section (5) grant to the applicant a letter exempting him within that district "; in lines 65 and 66, to omit " within the district" and to substitute "therein"; in lines 67 to 69. to omit " subject to regulations made by the Minister, which regulations may vary for different areas "; and to omit all the words after " made ", in line 1, on page 80, to the end of new sub-section (3).

seconded.

Agreed to.

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

I move—

To add the following new sub-sections to follow sub-section (3):

1. (4) Any letter issued under this section may at any time be cancelled by the Minister, or in the case of a letter granted under sub-section (2) or (3) by the person who granted it or his successor in office, and such power of cancellation shall not be limited by any regulation made under sub-section (5).
2. (5) The Minister may make regulations, which may differ in respect of different areas and of different classes, prescribing the conditions necessary to be complied with before any letter or class of letter referred to in this section may be issued and the circumstances in which any letter issued under this section shall be cancelled.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Omission of Clause 104 put and agreed to.

In Clause 105,

I just want to call the Minister's attention to something which it may be necessary to put right in another place. It has been represented to me that in view of the decision not to allow natives to have any liquor at all in some provinces, and the leaving out of Clause 104 and Clause 105, section 3 (b)—I am glad they are being left out unless you make some provision making it quite clear that a native will be allowed on bar premises for cleaning, doubt may be raised whether he is allowed to do any more cleaning. I am aware that in sub-section (3) of the next section you have made provision for the access to any part of the licensed premises of any native for the performance thereon of any lawful service. The Minister may consider that sufficient protection.

Amendments up to line 20 on page 82 put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendment in lines 33 and 34 put and agreed to.

On new sub-section (5).

In Section 4 (b) there is an amendment in line 26. That of course, makes the position clear that the question is the ownership of the business, and not of the licence. I move, as an amendment—

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has an amendment to insert " to the extent of not less than 25 per cent." I am prepared to move, and I do so—

seconded.

I am prepared to accept that.

Amendments put and agreed to.

If it is carried on by a man and his wife, how are you to say how much?

The rights are defined by agreement.

New sub-section (5), as amended, put and agreed to.

Amendments in Clause 106 put and agreed to.

In Clause 107,

I move—

It has been pointed out to me that in the event of a dinner being given in a club or a hotel dining room, it sometimes happens that a temporary bar is erected in the dining room, and under the Bill it might be held that a lady might not be allowed to have dinner because of the presence of the bar.

Will the hon. member add the words—

Certainly.

seconded.

Amendment put and agreed to.

My amendment has been rendered unnecessary by the amendment which has been adopted in an earlier section.

It is unnecessary, for I am moving that " restricted portion " shall not include the dining room.

In Clause 108,

Amendments put and agreed to.

I move—

In some areas it may be practicable to do what is laid down in this clause, but during certain hours of the day it would be impossible to comply with these conditions. My amendment would empower a licensing court to determine in each particular case what should be done to meet the requirements of the clause. It may be that in certain cases it may be necessary for all the particulars to be given in the sale register, but in other areas it may not be necessary. At certain times of the day when there is a fairly big rush on at a bottle store, it would be impossible to do all the detail work required under the clause.

seconded.

I think it is impossible to accept the amendment. The requirements are very small. It is at the rush hours that we want full particulars to be given, and without these conditions the licensing court may say that all it requires is to be given the date of sale. They may say that you cannot give the quantity and description of liquor sold. What is also of very great importance is the name and address of the purchaser, and also the question with regard to exemption permits and certificates. I think these are minimum requirements. It is not so much the licensing board that says this is necessary as the State that says it is necessary through this legislation.

Amendment put and negatived.

In Clause 109.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

On amendments in Clause 110.

I move—

We have had the discussion on this clause. It is what is known as the whiskey ring clause.

seconded.

Agreed to; and amendments made in Committee of the whole House dropped.

Omission of Clause 111 put and agreed to.

On new Clause 108,

I move, as an amendment—

They are all verbal amendments. There is nothing that changes the principle of that clause.

seconded.

Does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) move his amendment?

No.

Amendments put and agreed to.

New clause, as amended, put and agreed to. New Clause 109 put and agreed to.

In Clause 112,

I move—

I am not going into the question of giving credit for liquor. Here it is absolutely forbidden. What I say is if you forbid credit for liquor on licensed premises, why exclude the club, especially when we know there are tremendous memberships? Why should they be allowed to give unlimited credit on their premises for liquor supplied when it is forbidden on every other licensed premises. My hon. friend says they do not do it, therefore my amendment is necessary in order not to encourage them. After all what justification is there for saying that a man who belongs to a club can go and run up as much credit as he likes for liquor when he cannot get sixpence worth of credit in any other licensed premises. Either allow credit in all places or forbid it in all places. In most clubs with which I am personally acquainted you have practically to pay for your liquor in advance because you have to buy a book of coupons. Well-organized clubs do not require this concession to allow credit. It is only large drinking clubs which may possibly find it useful to give credit for liquor, and that it what we do not want to encourage.

seconded.

In the same sub-section I have an amendment: in line 27, after " therein " to add " who does not pay for it at the time when it is supplied."

Are you accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street)?

No. I will confine myself to that amendment. I do not think it will be wise to accept it. It runs counter to what has been the practice in South Africa for a considerable time.

Amendment put and negatived.

I will now move my amendment—

I do not think you need move it.

I won't insist upon it.

Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House put and agreed to.

In Clause 113,

I move—

It has been pointed out that there is a difference of opinion between the legal advisers as to whether this clause, as it now stands, does not provide for coupons. To place, the matter beyond doubt, I move this amendment. It is the practice of all well-regulated clubs to use these coupons. They are a check on the sale of liquor and a check on the person who is supplied with liquor. That. I think, is in the interests of the clubs, and the public.

In seconding the amendment, I would like to say that these coupons are really equivalent to cash. They have to be bought before they are handed in, and they act as a check upon the servers of drinks and so forth. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment.

I do not wish the divergence between clubs and hotels to be too great. If coupons are quite all right in clubs, I do not see why they should be wrong in hotels.

Hotels do not have the coupon system.

They may not have the coupon system, but there is no reason why they should not use the coupon system in the same way that it is used by clubs. I prefer either " hotel and club " in this connection, or neither. I, personally, prefer neither. There are many more people living in hotels than live in clubs. I would like to see the words " hotel liquor licence " added to the amendment.

Would it meet the Minister if, instead of putting in the amendment that he suggests, he adds to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) after " bankers " the words " prior to the purchase of the liquor." You are not going to get any hotels that want to utilize that system.

I support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti). There is a vast difference between the coupon system in clubs and the coupon system if applied to hotels. The members of a club visit their club at least once daily, and they buy a book of coupons for 5s., 15s. or 20s., as the case may be, hut a person might go to an hotel and stay here merely for a day, or perhaps for one meal, and there is no necessity, nor do the hotels desire to have the coupon system. It is a convenience to members of a club, but it would not be a convenience at all to hotel proprietors, and, as one connected with clubs, I like the coupon system because they get a considerable amount of money in advance, and it enables them to finance a bit.

There are people who stay in hotels all the time, and if it is going to be any convenience if they do not have to provide cash, I do not see why they should not have the same advantage as it is proposed to give to clubs. I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

That will kill it.

I understand the hotel-keepers do not want it under any circumstances.

Is the hon. member seconding the amendment?

No.

As far as my amendment is concerned, I will accept the assurance of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) that hotels do not require the system under any circumstances. After that expert opinion, I will withdraw my amendment.

There being no seconder, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) drops.

Do I understand this amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (East)

(Mr. Giovanetti) to mean that in your club you cannot sign a card for a book of coupons any more?

You will pay cash for it. You cannot sign a card for a book of coupons.

At the present moment, in the majority of clubs, you can sign a card for a book of coupons. In others, I know, you have to pay cash. I understand that if this goes through you will have to pay cash in all clubs, a very wrong principle.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Giovanetti put and agreed to.

In Clause 114,

I move—

I cannot see the reason for this clause. On the one hand we are trying to encourage the bottle store over against the hotels, and now we are making it practically impossible for the bottle store keeper to carry on his business properly. I understand that, according to the clause, a bottle store owner as soon as two months have passed must issue a summons against the debtor to retain his claim.

Three months.

It comes to less than three months, namely, two months and a day. Then the bottle store keeper, to protect his rights must immediately issue a summons. How will this work in practice? Take a newly married man. After the marriage is over he goes on his honeymoon.

And then he spends all his money.

No, but he goes on a journey, and if the bottle store owner wants to retain his rights he must issue a summons against him or any other person who goes away from home. The bottle store keeper is compelled to summons the man. This practically means that the man is compelled to pay his liquor account before he pays for his bread and meat. I hope the Minister wil see that such a clause is impossible.

I second and support that.

I can really see no reason for this section. Presumably it is intended to act in protection of the man who buys the liquor, but you are practically telling the bottle store keeper: " Within two months you have to sue that unfortunate man." What has this to do with protection of the liquor trade? It seems to me a very harsh provision, and an extraordinary one. The Minister himself ruled out Clause 110 because he said it was unfair intervention in the internal affairs of the trade, and yet he is going to dictate to the bottle store dealer when he must sue. It seems to give undue preference for debt run up for liquor. Any others may wait, but first of all must be paid you debts for liquor. In a way it constitutes undue preference. What is the reason for that? Take the instance of a member of Parliament living in Johannesburg who has ordered beer from his bottle store. He has to come down here, and in two months time he is sued up there. The bottle store people have no option. It seems to me a most drastic interference with the private affairs of a trader. Why on earth should a man be forced to summons anyone else within a given time? If he does not want to sue a customer, if he finds a customer is shaky and won't bear suing, why should he not nurse him through like any other business man? These pernicketty little things seem to be the blemish on this Bill. The Minister surrenders on vital principles and then he seems to try and make up for them with these pernicketty little provisions.

I admit too many have been conceded.

We seem to be swallowing whales and straining at gnats. I do not see why these little pin prick restrictions should be imposed which have nothing to do with the control of the trade, and are simply going to react harshly on the unfortunate debtor. I do think a clause like that could safely be moved out.

I agree with the hon. member when he says I have allowed too many big principles to go against me. I do not propose to do any more of that. But as far as this section is concerned, I think it is a principle in all liquor legislation to prevent sales on credit. We have passed several sections with regard to that, although I admit we have never had a clause in regard to bottle stores in South Africa, but it is only an extension of a principle that is applied to other types of liquor sales. I think it is a very useful principle that where a bottle store knows a man has to pay within a certain time, they will not give credit to people who are not good marks, and where they are good marks, like most members of Parliament, they won't trouble about enforcing this provision, and they would trust that those members would pay their debts when they return to the Free State or the Transvaal. I think this is a very necessary clause. There is a further danger. In the committee stage there was an amendment that we should make it the first day of the second calendar month, and another amendment making it five calendar months. I can understand the argument that the whole of it should disappear, although I do not agree with that, but if we start tinkering with the time limit no one will be satisfied in the end. We have arrived at a fairly just estimate of the time.

It will be a very good clause for the lawyers.

It is only the drink bought right at the end of the month when the credit is for the two months. Two months is the minimum. I think this is a very useful clause, and I hope the House will pass it.

I have entire sympathy with the views of the Minister, but from a practical point of view I think he might accept an amendment that instead of being the first day of the third calendar month it should be the last day. I will explain my reasons for that. Suppose anyone buys their require merits on the 30th April from the bottle store. That account is sent in some time in May. Most people, unfortunately, do not pay their accounts immediately they receive them, and that bottle store cannot possibly start worrying that person, at any rate during the whole of the month, because it is only due for payment on the 31st May. Then on the 1st June, the whole business will be upset with suing these people who have not paid during May, and it seems to me to be tightening it up very severely. I do not think there will be nearly the same objection from the point of view of working the business if they could start worrying people in June, and then on the 1st July handing it over to their good friends the lawyers, who will be sending in their letters for payment. I suggest that the Minister, for these practical reasons, should make it the last day instead of the first day. I quite agree with putting every reasonable restriction on credit for drink. I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

seconded.

I suppose there is nobody who welcomes this provision more than the lawyers. I can see the courts crowded with litigation for the recovery of debts incurred in connection with the giving of credit for the sale of liquor. I do not know why the Minister introduced this unless it is the broad principle of not giving credit at all. I have seen an article in an important commercial paper about introducing legislation dealing generally with the giving of credit. Why single out the bottle stores? I could well understand it if the old Cape law were allowed to stand as it was. Supposing no action is taken and the creditor goes to the debtor and says, " Unless you pay on the 31st of the third month, I will take action against you; I will not, however, if you give me an i.o.u."

Amendments put and negatived.

In Clause 115,

On new sub-section (4),

I move, as an amendment—

seconded.

Agreed to.

New sub-section (4), as amended, put and and agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 118 and 119 put and agreed to.

In Clause 120,

I should like to ask the Minister what actually is the intent of this; does it mean that the ordinary licensee cannot send an agent round to tout for orders, and the brewer can? Does it mean that the licensee can have an advertisement in the paper, or is it prohibited? What is the difference between soliciting by word of mouth and by an advertisement? I do not understand the difference. Why should a brewer be allowed to send a man round, and not a big distillery. Take these big firms like Sedwwick & Co. I see that wine farmers sometimes have advertisements with regard to hampers of wine; is this prohibited?

No.

It seems an anomaly to me; why should the brewer have this right, and not the other man? I do not remember the discussion of the clause in committee, but it does look extraordinary to me now.

The matter was dealt with by me when it was introduced, and I pointed out the danger with regard to canvassing, which has taken place extensively on relief works, the diamond diggings and places of that sort—the poorer parts of the towns. Canvassing by word of mouth is a more effective instrument for inducing people who have no intention to buy liquor to buy a bottle. It is more powerful than an advertisement. The bottle stores have only themselves to blame; it became a scandal; one bottle store would have as many as 18 touts on the fields at Lichtenburg taking orders, and giving orders where orders had never been taken. This leads to illicit selling. I am told you have the same system in the poorer parts of the towns where an enormous amount of canvassing is done, and people are induced to buy liquor who otherwise would not have done so. As to the distinction referred to by the hon. member, there are smaller brewers dealing with family trade. There is a smaller brewery that is restricted to doing the family trade and nothing else—the Stag Brewery. There is a small one at Queenstown. The big breweries would not canvass for the family trade and beer does not play a part in the illicit liquor traffic of the Transvaal. I think they are very cogent reasons for leaving the brewer out.

This cuts out the ordinary ... canvassing for the family trade?

Yes.

I move—

The Minister has mentioned certain areas in which abuses occur, but the best way to deal with that would be as proposed in my amendment which provides that the Governor-General may prohibit canvassing for liquor in certain areas. On the Rand there are at least 100 men engaged in soliciting orders for liquor, and some of them have been doing this for twenty or thirty years. It would be distinctly unfair to deprive these men of their means of livelihood, through no fault of their own. It will not reduce drunkenness, as the man who abuses drink takes good care to see that he has an ample supply. At any rate, these canvassers should be allowed to continue, as the barmaids are to be allowed to continue, even though no one else should be allowed to enter the business.

seconded.

Amendment put and negatived.

Amendment in Clause 120. omission of Heading " A " of Chapter XI, omission of Clauses 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127 and 128, amendment in Clause 130, omission of Heading " C ", and omission of Clauses 131 and 132 put and agreed to.

On new Clause 122,

I move, as an amendment —

There is no intention to prevent him determining his tenancy.

seconded.

I move, as a further amendment—

After taking away the very full protection given under the deleted rent clauses the protection is now limited to persons transacting an on consumption business. Bottle stores should also be protected in regard to their tenancy.

The bottle store is an ordinary shop.

No, it does not come under the ordinary shop legislation, except as regards half-holidays. There is no reason why you should give special protection to an on consumption licence if you do not give it to bottle stores. I see no difference in principle. So far as the necessity of giving them security of tenure is concerned, they are both on the same footing. Either both are entitled to protection, or neither is entitled.

Mr. STRACHAN seconded.

I submit this is quite unnecessary. When I interjected that the bottle store is an ordinary shop I meant in regard to premises, for the holder of a bottle store licence can easily find new quarters. No bottle store keepers complained that they were being subjected to hardships by their landlords. The whole case made out was in regard to hotels and in order to afford them some measure of relief this clause was drafted.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander put and negatived.

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

New clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Omission of Clause 133, the omission of Heading " E ", and the omission of Clause 134 put and agreed to.

On amendments in Clause 136,

In committee the Minister inserted in sub-section (c) of sub-section (1) the words " other than malted Kaffir corn." I want to put it to the Minister that this is a very serious amendment, and may have consequences I do not think he dreamt of at the time he moved it. Of course, the Minister stated when he introduced the Liquor Bill that the really urgent thing was to take some effective steps to put an end to the state of affairs existing in our large centres of population right throughout the Union, where the natives were making these various concoctions and brews. The Bill originally stated " no person shall supply to any native malt in any form." Then I understand pressure was brought by some farmers on the Minister, and he added these words, " other than malted kaffir corn." In other words, you may supply to a native malted kaffir corn. I do not want to initiate a long discussion at this stage, but I am seriously perturbed about the effects of this amendment. I am afraid it is going to undo a great deal of the reform which it was intended to initiate by the introduction of this clause.

I think subsection (2) gives a lot of safeguards.

It does. I am not going to press the matter too much now, if the Minister will promise me to consider the position between now and the resumption at another stage, and if the police tell him that in this form the position will not adequately be safeguarded I am sure the Minister will give due consideration to that aspect. Will the Minister make a note to read Questions 4070 to 4079, where the whole question is discussed by Inspector Mitchell of the C.I.D., who gives his experiences in regard to the use by the native of malted kaffir corn? and will he also make a note to look at Appendix A to the evidence, where a somewhat quaint letter is put in from the Secretary of the Transvaal Agricultural Union to the Minister, which winds up with a somewhat ingenious admission that the reason they are keen on this exception is that their weevilly kaffir corn, which they cannot get the grain elevator to accept, they can pass off to the breweries for the purpose of being malted, and kaffirs will take that and turn it into kaffir beer? I will read what it says—

Sub-section (4), amendment by the Minister.

I am not moving that.

Amendments put and agreed to.

On amendments in Clause 138,

That is a question we are still going to deal with, if I am not mistaken. I will not move it now, but if 142 is deleted, I shall delete this provision in another place.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Omission of Clause 139 put and agreed to.

In Clause 140, Omission of words in lines 13 to 18 put and agreed to.

On amendment in lines 18 to 20,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to; and amendment made in committee of the whole House dropped.

Amendment in line 23 put and agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

On amendment in lines 25 to 28,

I move, as amendments to this amendment—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 141,

I was going to move that this clause stand over. The Minister wants—

No. Of course if the Minister wishes it to stand over I would have no objection, but I think myself that a clause ought to be taken in the order in which it appears in the Bill.

I would like Clauses 141 and 142 to stand over. I think they both refer to kaffir beer shops and if the hon. member has no objection, I would prefer that they should stand over, and if they stand over, they must, I understand, stand over until the end of the Bill. I move—

seconded.

Do I understand that these clauses will be postponed until to-morrow or the day after?

No; until the end of the Bill.

I hope we will get to these clauses this evening.

If these clauses are to stand over, I think the Minister might give us an assurance that they won't be taken until tomorrow, because there are a number of hon. members I know who will not be here this evening and who contemplated that these clauses would be taken this afternoon. These are the only difficult clauses which have still to be considered.

I may say that I am very anxious to get this Bill out of the report stage to-day. We have spent a lot of time over this Bill, and I was very confident that the House would assist me to complete the report stage to-day.

Many people will not be here to-night.

It is not one section of the House alone that leaves the House on Friday night; it is all sections. The pairing of members is extraordinarily easy on Friday nights, I have always found, much easier than any other night of the week.

Motion put and agreed to.

Omission of Heading " C " on page 108, omission of Clause 143, and amendments in Clauses 144, 145 and 146 put and agreed to.

In Clause 148,

I move—

1. (a) is authorized thereto in writing by the magistrate of the district concerned, or
2. (b) holds a certificate under the hand of a registered medical practitioner setting forth that he is suffering from the illness stated in the certificate and that it is necessary for the restoration of his health that liquor should be administered to him of the kind, in the quantities and at the intervals stated in the certificate, or
3. (c) holds a certificate under the hand of a magistrate that he is a minister of religion recognized by the Government and bona fide requires, for administration to persons in the course of any sacrament, wine of the kind and quantity stated in the certificate, which shall not exceed one quart,".

I think that, as far as the first part of my amendment, (a), is concerned, the Minister will accept that. That applies to any European who shall be residing in a native area, and I think the Minister probably realizes that a great many of the traders are the legitimate channels for trade in the country, and that they are residing in the native areas for the general good of themselves and the public as well. As regards to the other portion of the amendment, I think the Minister, in drafting the Bill, has overlooked the fact that the exemption granted only referred to prohibited persons. My amendment will put that right.

seconded.

I am prepared to accept this amendment with one alteration. I am not prepared to accept (b). That is the question of a certificate under the hand of a medical practitioner. If the patient of a medical practitioner requires anything of that kind, there is no reason why the matter should not be explained to the magistrate, and he can act under (a). If the doctor thinks it is necessary, all he need do is to send this certificate to your magistrate and your magistrate acts as he feels inclined. I am prepared to accept (a) and (c). I would move, as an amendment to this amendment—

The Rev. Mr. HATTINGH seconded.

I think this will meet the position. I would only point out to the Minister that in Clause 98 we allow a prohibited person to get it under certificate by a medical practitioner, hence the reason for putting this in. However, if the Minister is satisfied, I am.

This amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendment in Clause 150 put and agreed to.

In Clause 155,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clause 170 put and agreed to. In Clause 175, Omission of paragraph (c) and new paragraph (c) put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Remaining amendments put and agreed to.

In Clause 176,

I move—

The reason is this is the penalty clause for 110, which we have deleted, and, therefore, consequentially this must be deleted. It is the whisky ring penalty clause.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clause 177 put and agreed to.

In Clause 178,

I move—

I had an amendment on Clause 177.

I am Sorry, but the hon. member was not here.

I am sorry. It has been the practice of the chair to call an hon. member.

I could not call the hon. member when he was not here.

I move—

The object of this clause is to see that a person who sells for " on " consumption shall not evade the law by allowing liquor to be consumed off the premises. I do not wish to interfere with that, and I leave (a) entirely alone, but in regard to (b), I ask the Minister to leave out the last few words—" at the time when it is sold or supplied." Take a man staying at some hotel with his wife. At meal time he may like a whisky and soda, and she may like a bottle of wine. She cannot consume the whole bottle, and it is not advisable that she should do so. The custom is very common of giving the unconsumed portion of the bottle to the hotel steward to take away and put on again at the next meal. Under this clause that will not be allowed. The hotelkeeper cannot sell a bottle of wine unless she is prepared to consume the whole bottle at the time. The Minister may say: " Will the police take notice of a thing like that? " You cannot put people in the position of committing a technical crime. This has been put to me as a very serious thing indeed. Then again in regard to " corked or stoppered bottles," in (c), that is not necessary because it is still an offence if a man sells more than can be reasonably consumed. Take the case of a person having a little bridge party, and you have a decanter of wine sent in for the party. Under this clause it means that it must be consumed at the time it is brought in. In the ordinary way they would spend three or four hours over it. Are you going to compel them to drink it at once? Is that the intention? Well, that is undoubtedly the interpretation of this. The word " reasonably " can have only one interpretation. It might be said you would only supply a bottle if it can reasonably be consumed at once. We know when these things come before a court the strictest possible interpretation is given to the law. If a man has a room at an hotel and he wants a bottle of whisky, he is not going to consume it at once. If he consumes it immediately it will not be an offence.

made an interjection regarding nips.

If a man has not much money he would rather buy a bottle than many separate pips. I may say that this matter has been brought to my notice in a perfectly reasonable way, and it has been pointed out to me that it is the custom. All the actual safeguards the Minister wants are left in.

I second the amendment, which is a perfectly reasonable one and which, I am sure, will appeal to the Minister. In view of the Minister having signified his acceptance it is unnecessary to say anything else.

I am prepared to accept the amendment, and I think the strong argument as far as (c) is concerned is that the places which are most dangerous—the ordinary tap or canteen in the Cape Province— under Section 63 were allowed to sell bottles to be carried away from these premises by anybody who comes in and wants to buy drink. It we allow that in those places there is no reason why we should not allow it in places where it does not do so much harm; on the whole, no danger would occur by this disappearing. I move—

1. (c) save in circumstances permitted by Section 112 allows on his licensed premises the consumption of liquor which is not paid for at the time of sale or supply.

seconded.

I have an amendment to omit both (b) and (c). The amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) meets the matter to a great extent, and I want to support his amendment.

Amendments put and agreed to.

In Clause 179,

I move—

In other words, this makes it an offence to supply liquor without payment, except in those cases in Section 112, where credit may be given. Where credit may not be given the cash must be supplied at the time of the sale.

seconded.

Agreed to.

In Clause 181,

Amendment in paragraph (i) put and agreed to.

I move—

It is necessary to delete these words, as they refer to a clause which has disappeared in the battle.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Remaining amendment put and agreed to.

I move—

1. (r) sells kaffir beer in contravention of the provision of section 142; or takes part in or permits upon land owned or occupied by him any assembly prohibited by section 127; or permits, or consents to, the brewing upon any land of kaffir beer in quantity more than reasonably required in terms of section 126.
2. (s) conveys or causes to be conveyed any liquor in contravention of any provision of section 146, 147 or 148, or does not comply with any condition of any permit granted under this Act.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendment in Clause 182 put and agreed to.

In Clause 183,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

First amendment in line 23 put and agreed to.

Second amendment in the same line put and negatived.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clause 184 put and agreed to.

New clause to follow Clause 184,

I move—

That the following be a new clause to follow Clause 184:

That means that magistrates' courts will not be confined to the maximum penalty allowed by their statute in these cases. Where this statute allows a higher penalty the magistrates may inflict that higher penalty.

Mr. VAN RENSBURG seconded.

Are there many cases?

There cannot be many.

New clause put and agreed to.

Omission of Clause 186 and new Clause 171 put and agreed to.

New clause to follow Clause 187,

I move—

The Governor-General may from time to time amend or may at any time withdraw any proclamation issued by him under this Act.

seconded.

Agreed to.

In Clause 188, Amendments on page 136, and in line 15, on page 138, put and agreed to.

I move—

It is quite unnecessary to retain this in the Bill. Municipal general elections take place once a year, and where a municipality is divided into wards, only one ward may be contested, and this clause will mean the closing of the whole area of the town, which I am sure the Minister does not seriously intend.

seconded.

Question put: That the paragraph proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause, Upon which the House divided:

I move—

This raises a question which is somewhat similar to that which the House has just decided on, but essentially different. The House has just decided in regard to (f) that during a general municipal election that should be a closed time within the meaning of this Act. That is a principle which has been laid down in the legislation of the country for some considerable time, that during general elections it is desirable that the time should be regarded as a closed time for the sale of liquor. But we have gone further than that in regard to elections, and we have laid down in regard to parliamentary elections and provincial council elections that during by-elections all licensed houses within three miles of the boundaries of the constituency have got to be closed. That brings about results which, in my opinion, are absolutely farcical, and it is such a position as to bring the law, I consider, into contempt. It has been calculated that if you had a by-election in the division of Malmesbury, that would mean the closing of licensed houses in Salt River. Nobody can possibly contend that, the consumption of liquor in Salt River can have any possible effect upon a by-election in Malmesbury. That is only one instance. You have similar instances all over the country where places for the sale of liquor have to be closed which are not in any way whatever connected with the constituency where a by-election is going on, and I think we should try and arrive at a more sensible arrangement than this. I am proposing to move the deletion of paragraph (g), and I have an amendment, which is consequential upon that also in the schedule, to repeal the requisite part of the Electoral Act of 1918. My amendment, I find, goes too far. It should be to omit the words after " Act " in line 28.

Leave in the words " or of any other law

My purpose will be quite sufficiently served by leaving out the words "or of section 139 of the Electoral Act 1918 (Act No. 12 of 1918) I, therefore, propose to omit the words after " Act " in line 28 down to " 1918 " in line 29, where it occurs for the second time. This Bill provides under paragraph (d) which we have just passed, that any day on which a general parliamentary election takes place is to be a " closed day ". I contend that that makes sufficient provision for the closing of licensed houses in connection with parliamentary elections. Paragraph (e) makes a similar provision in regard to general elections for members of provincial councils, and paragraph (f), which we have just passed, makes a similar provision for a general election of municipal councils. That, I think, is as far as we should go. I am putting forward this amendment to test the feeling of the House.

In seconding this amendment, I may say that the various anomalies that will occur if the amendment is not accepted have been pointed out from time to time. The select committee which sat on the Electoral Act had evidence before it which showed the very serious anomalies that would occur, for instance, in the Cape Peninsula. I might refer to a few anomalies that would occur on the Reef if this amendment were not to be accepted. I am informed that if there was a by-election, say at Bezuidenhout, all the hotels at Germiston would have to be closed, and 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the hotels in Johannesburg. The anomaly is that the places where political interest is keenest, the clubs, would all be open. A by-election in Parktown would close all the bars in Johannesburg except some in the southern suburbs. A by-election in Turffontein would close all the hotels in Johannesburg except a few in the northern suburbs, and a by election in Langlaagte would close all the hotels in Johannesburg except a few in the eastern suburbs. It would create the most extraordinary anomalies. While it may be perfectly right to leave the restrictions for a general election, we should certainly take away such restrictions in the case of a by-election. It would be a farce, and the biggest farce of all would be that the clubs would be all open and doing a roaring trade.

I am not very much impressed with the argument of how many houses would close, because the question is whether they would be rightly closed or not. The point on which I would base my argument is that made by the hon. member who moved the amendment (Mr. Duncan), that it is not necessary when you have a by-election to close your houses in this way. The reason why I inserted this was that when we amended the electoral law, a motion to delete that section was lost by a very large majority, and I thought that this might be the feeling of the House at this stage. I, personally, feel the amendment is a right one, and I am prepared to support it.

If the effect of this amendment were merely to remove the anomaly in regard to the three-mile limits, I could support it, but I am afraid it goes further. The hon. member's opportunity occurred some years ago when we had the Electoral Act Amendment Bill before us. Now what he wants to do is to leave the bars open actually in the constituency where the election is being held. Well, I object to that. I think it is a very retrograde step to take. I would support him if he could move anything which would remove these anomalies that have been spoken of. I would take the risk of the bars which are actually outside being left open. What the hon. member is proposing is that in a by election in a constituency every bar may be open. This is a case of choking the cat with too much cream. You want to rectify one anomaly by going to the opposite extreme, and I think that is wrong

What about the dining cats?

I am dealing with bars, not dining cars. We should stick to the good old principle we have had for many years in all our electoral laws, that during an election you close the bars. I hope the Minister of the Interior will give us the benefit of his views. Am I right in thinking that this very point was discussed when we had the Electoral Act before us in 1924?

It was just the same.

The sense of the House was then that you must keep the bars closed at an election whether a by-election or a general election. I believe there is actually on the Order Paper now an Electoral Act Amendment Bill. How far that prejudices my hon. friend in moving this amendment I do not know. That is a matter for your consideration, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps he might be able to arrange with the Minister to include in that Pill a clause to cut down the three-mile limit. Some of the hottest contests we have had have been over by-elections. I have known ministries to rise and fall over by-elections. We should be wrong if we accept this amendment.

I asked the hon. member what about the dining cars. The other day I was travelling in Natal in the train. No one was allowed to have a drink. There was an election on. It was farcical. These pin-pricks stop the temperance movement. Let us take my constituency. There are two clubs, the Railway Institute and the Ramblers Club. A polling box is in both these clubs, and within a yard there is a bar open. We allow that to open. You take these big districts in the Cape. There is a by-election at one end and the train goes through and everything has to be shut down. The thing is absurd on the face of it. I would like to support the amendment. I would like to know what the Minister of the Interior thinks about this. I wish he would give me his attention. The only notice he takes is when it is kaffir beer or the tot system. Otherwise, he takes no notice at all.

I would like to propose a further amendment to ensure that premises will be closed in the electoral area in which the by-election takes place. It seems an anomaly to say that at a general election all licensed premises shall be closed, but on the day a by election tokes place it is immaterial whether they are closed or not. I see some force in the objection in regard to the three-mile limit.

You would only have to cross the road to get a drink.

That defect does not invalidate the general principle. In regard to a large number of electoral districts throughout the Union, it is clear that they can be closed effectively at a by-election. I move as an amendment to this amendment—

seconded.

I am afraid that will not effect my purpose, because the Electoral Act still remains, and that provides that every place must be closed within three miles. The hon. member does not repeal that section of the Act. I cannot accept it; it will not take us any further.

Question put: That the words in lines 28 and 29, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause, Upon which the House divided:

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

The difference is between volume and proof. The Transvaal Act does not state whether the alcoholic strength is to be determined by volume or proof. The Free State Ordinance defines intoxicating liquor as two per cent. proof spirit, and the English Finance Act classes intoxicating beer as containing above two per cent. of proof spirit. The United States, when it went dry, defined intoxicating liquor as anything above half per cent. proof, which is a very dangerous proof. If my amendment is accepted, we will be at least 200 per cent. better in the opinion of my wine farmer friends than the United States. Two per cent. by volume is three-and-a-half per cent. proof, which is a very dangerously high percentage to allow.

Two per cent. is 1.15 per cent. by volume.

I submit that two per cent. by volume is much too high, and is going much further than existing legislation. My hon. friends need not be afraid, for ginger beer will be perfectly safe if my amendment is accepted. In the interests of the native population we want to be very careful, for up to three-and-a-half per cent. of proof spirit is going dangerously near the intoxicating line.

seconded.

I think the proper measurement is by volume. We should not make the limit so low that drinks are termed to be intoxicating that are not really intoxicating. If we go much further, I am afraid some forms of water will be regarded as intoxicating. I am quite certain we shall find some ginger beer, the alcoholic strength of which will be higher than that mentioned in the amendment. We must be careful, or we shall reduce the dignity of the word " intoxicating ", and a man will say he is drinking intoxicating liquor when he has no right to preen himself. Is it fair that we should take away the last shreds of dignity still attaching to the word "intoxicating"? We shall not be dealing any longer with the law affecting intoxicating liquors, but dealing with ginger ale, ginger beer, and, perhaps, even cider, and all things of that kind which many of us regard as not really intoxicating. I do not think we should go to that limit, or we might easily make ourselves ridiculous.

I should like to emphasize what the hon. the Minister has said. I took the trouble to inquire into this question of ginger beer, and the information I got is that if the definition is to be altered no cafe, eating house or unlicensed restaurant could supply ginger beer with safety. I have no intention of trying to drive my children into public houses because they cannot get a bottle of ginger beer in an ordinary cafe. The position is that ginger beer may undergo a slight fermentation in the bottle after it is made, and come out at over 1 per cent. Under the proposed amendment there would; therefore, be only a matter of 17 between the poor cafe proprietor and gaol, and I would suggest that we do not go to the extreme recommended by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), and that we leave the definition as it is.

Amendment put and negatived.

Remaining amendments put and agreed to.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

I have given notice of that, and I will move it—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

The reference to Section 108 carries me to a definition in the section dealing with tie. [Subsections (b) and (c) read.] The effect of this amendment will be that no brewer or wholesale liquor licensee or foreign liquor licensee will have the right to demand in respect of the houses which might be under his control that those houses shall be bound to sell mineral waters of any particular producer. In fact, that class of tie does exist. I have heard of cases where ties do provide that in the case of mineral waters the licensee is tied and is bound to buy mineral waters and, in some cases, cigars and cigarettes from particular suppliers. The House has already accepted the principle that a brewer and wholesale dealer and a foreign liquor dealer shall not be able to create or to hold a tie except in respect of his own products. The object of my amendment is to extend that principle so as to prevent any particular manufacturer of mineral waters from having his own goods barred from sale in particular hotels, in other words, to secure for him free trade. My attention has been drawn to this by the fact that it has been put to me in the case of a particular manufacturer that in the past, his business has been very seriously affected by the fact that a particular brewer had taken up the attitude that in their houses the licensees should sell a particular class of mineral waters and no other. It seems to me that if the State confers on these classes of licensees the right to exercise the privileges of a licence, they should not do so except for the protection of their products—that it should not extend so as to prevent other persons from legitimately selling their products. I would like to add that by adding these words to the definition you will not prevent the legitimate tie which the manufacturer of mineral waters might wish to create in return for consideration which he might extend to a particular licensee. If a manufacturer of mineral waters desires to create a tie for his own goods in consideration of which he advances money—a frequent transaction—this amendment will not interfere with that, but I would suggest it is unreasonable to allow licensees falling within the classes I have referred to, to cut out of a particular market the products of a manufacturer of which they do not approve.

I second the amendment. We had the evidence of Cape Town firms before the select committee who had experienced great difficulties in connection with that kind of compulsory purchase.

I hope the Minister will accept this amendment. It is certainly a casus ommissus in dealing with this particular form of tie which is well-known in the trade and takes place to-day. It is certainly a tie that ought to be dealt with and prevented when you are dealing with the general question of ties. I agree with what the hon. member (Mr. Coulter) has said that these agreements are actually in existence to-day, and unless you put some provision in the Bill you are going to find the ties in regard to mineral waters going on in the future as they have done in the past.

Amendment put and agreed to.

On amendments to Clause 141,

I move—

Mr. J. S. F. PRETORIUS seconded.

Agreed to.

On amendments in lines 38 to 42,

I move, as amendments to this amendment—

Hon. members will notice that this clause, as altered in committee, empowers the Minister to issue licences for the sale of kaffir beer to any person outside rural areas and outside native areas, but the power to issue licences by the Minister is restricted to a period of three years, and one object that I have in moving the amendment is to delete this restriction of three years. The clause, as it stands, also provides that kaffir beer may be sold only to persons employed at the mine where the licence is granted. I also propose to remove that restriction, because it is quite impossible for a licence holder to know where a native is employed, and, besides, in connection with these mines there are a number of storekeepers, and natives are employed by these storekeepers. There are also private persons who employ natives for domestic purposes, and it will be simply impossible for the holder of a licence to discriminate between one native and another. I think that when the restriction in regard to three years was carried in committee, there was a misunderstanding regarding the true position. It is quite true that I tried to make the position clear, but I am afraid I did not succeed. Prior to 1908, there was a great deal of drunkenness among the natives employed on the coal mines in Natal, and a great deal of illicit liquor selling. In that year, when the liquor laws were under consideration, I was asked by the colliery proprietors to move an amendment which would enable the licensing boards to issue licences for the sale of kaffir beer on the mines. That amendment was carried, and since 1908 licences have been held by the colliery people themselves, and also by the storekeepers who have the right to carry on a general store on the mines, and the system has worked well. When it was known by the colliery proprietors that this clause was to restrict it to three years, they had a meeting in Natal and passed a resolution asking the Government to reconsider this matter, and sent one of their representatives to Cape Town to interview the Minister. The Minister very courteously gave him a hearing, and I hope he convinced the Minister that it is in the interests of temperance and of law and order that the system which has worked so well in the past should be continued. I know that quite a number of members object to Clause 142, which deals with the question of either State beer halls or issuing licences to persons to carry on the sale of kaffir beer on the Witwatersrand. But the circumstances In Natal are totally different. On the Rand you have a large community of natives living within the boundaries of municipalities, and employed in the mines, and, although I think a good deal can be said for giving the system which operates in Durban a trial on the Rand, whether that is right or wrong, the coal mines of Natal, being situated as they are, not within any urban area, and from two to five and, in some cases, twenty miles from the nearest town, the circumstances are entirely different. One of the first essentials of successful coal mining or any other industry is to have reliable labour. Prior to 1908, the colieries had not reliable labour. The natives would wander off to the nearest towns, or would go to the surrounding kaffir kraals and either get kaffir beer in excess or they would get illicit liquor in the towns, and when Monday came, in some cases half the labour force was absent. In other cases a smaller proportion, with the result that the work would be hung up sometimes for a day or two, and at the end of the month, I was told by the colliery manager who came here, when the natives had their pay, it was their custom to go off for three or four days and have what the Minister calls a jamboree. That has been entirely stopped by the system which obtains there. There are about 30 of these licensees in connection with the coal mines in Natal, and there has not been a single conviction either for selling kaffir beer above strength, or for permitting drunkenness. Apart altogether from the law, which has to be observed, most of these licensees are under a very strict agreement with the colliery companies; their stores are leased from the colliery companies as a rule and they are bound, when selling kaffir beer, to see that no drunkenness is permitted. There is a clause in the lease which enables the colliery company to cancel it in the event of the conditions being contravened; so, in addition to the provisions of the law they have to observe, failing which they may lose their licence, they have the provisions of the lease, which the colliery companies have the power to enforce. I think hon. members must be satisfied that this system, which has worked well, ought not to be restricted to three years, but ought to be continued. The clause enables the Minister to grant a licence either to a storekeeper or to the colliery owner himself. When the law of 1908 was passed several of the colliery companies, besides giving a ration to the natives, started a beer hall and found that it was rather awkward for the colliery manager to keep control of the sale of kaffir beer and attend to his own business, and the result has been that in most cases they have agreed to the holder of the trading rights; that is, the person who carries on the store at the mine, also to apply for a licence for kaffir beer. It may be said that it is totally wrong to allow kaffir beer to be sold in this way, but the fact remains that the natives will have their natural drink, and this law we are now discussing allows them to have it in their own kraals. The Act of 1923 provides that any municipality may set up a beer hall for the sale of kaffir beer to the natives. All we want is to allow these natives, who in some cases are congregated at the coal mines in numbers varying from 2100 up to 1,000, to obtain their natural drink when they want it, in reasonable quantities and under suitable conditions. If hon. members will look at the clause they will see the Minister has power to lay down regulations and make conditions regarding the quality and quantity sold, the place of consumption, time of sale, revocation of the licence, and any other matter he may determine. At present none of these conditions is attached to a licence, and if the clause is passed the law regarding these places will be tightened up. The Minister, however, is quite right in taking power to safeguard the position. It has been objected that the weekly kaffir beer ration which the companies give to the natives should be sufficient, but the natives like to feel if they have 6d. to spend that they have the right to buy kaffir beer in addition to the weekly ration, just in the same way as natives are now able to do in any Natal municipality. There is no doubt whatever that the position of the natives employed in these mines is better to-day in every respect than it was before. I can remember when I used to go round electioneering before 1908, and when I had to drive ten, fifteen or twenty miles after dark to attend meetings at coal mines, I was advised to carry a revolver because there were so many drunken natives about, especially at the end of the month. Such a thing as a drunken native at the end of the month is a great rarity nowadays. Whatever we may say about the sale of kaffir beer in other places, the system has worked well on the Natal mines. Law and order are observed and the colliery owners and the natives are satisfied.

Has illicit liquor selling stopped?

On the coal mines it has disappeared, although I would not say that such a thing is absolutely unknown, but, speaking generally, I am assured by the colliery owners that the illicit sale of liquor has practically ceased. The reason that I ask the House to agree to this limit of one mile is that some of the existing premises are about half a mile or three-quarters of a mile from the actual pit where the work is carried on. It so happens sometimes the colliery has two or three shafts a mile or two apart, and the store with which the kaffir beer hall is usually associated is situated between the two workings. My hon. friend asked why I do not limit it to employees on the mine. Around these mines there are always other natives employed in domestic service, or sometimes in carpenters' shops or engineering works. There may be other storekeepers employing natives, so that it is quite impossible for the licensee to discriminate between one native and another. It has been said that these colliery owners ought to apply for a licence themselves—so that if the natives are not satisfied with the ration, the colliery owners in the interests of the natives could increase it, and ought not to hand the right to sell kaffir beer to individuals. Several of them did so, shortly after 1908, but the system was not found to work well. They found that the manager had no time to look after it, but deputed the matter to the compound manager who found a great deal of difficulty in attending to this matter in addition to other duties. By common consent, after experience, it was found far better to allow the storekeeper, who had the trading rights on the mine, to apply for a licence and carry on the business subject to the law and the conditions of his lease. If the clause is accepted it will still be within the option of the Minister to grant a licence to colliery owners themselves to carry on this business or to grant the licence to other persons. Hon. members ought not to vote against this clause because they visualize something dreadful happening elsewhere. This clause deals only with the province of Natal where the system has worked well, and I hone hon. members will accept my amendment and allow the law to stand as it is.

seconded.

As far back as 1908 it was found necessary to make some provision to meet the reasonable requirements of the native in regard to kaffir beer.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

When the House suspended business, I pointed out that as far back as 1908, it was found necessary by the Natal Legislature to introduce legislation to make provision for the supply of kaffir beer on the coal mines of Natal. This Act of 1908 was passed because it was felt that the conditions which had hitherto prevailed had got to a stage which made it very difficult for the mine managements to carry on their mining operations efficiently. Under that Act, power was granted to the licensing board to issue licences on any mine. That power was left in the hands of the licensing board and the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) is only giving effect to conditions as they exist at present in Natal. Before this legislation was passed, drunkenness and illicit liquor prevailed to a considerable extent throughout the coal mines in Natal, and there was also a good deal shebeening on the adjoining farms. It was found necessary to provide kaffir beer for the natives on the coal mines as conditions became impossible to the farmers who were farming in the vicinity of the coal mines, because, during the week-ends, the native employees on the mines used to wander about the countryside and a regular system of shebeening was carried on. In order that there should be proper control, the Act of 1908 was passed, which made provision for the supply of kaffir beer to the native mine employees on the mine itself. As recently as three years ago in my own constituency on a certain mine it was found that the condition of affairs was such that it had become absolutely necessary to make provision for a kaffir beer shop to be started on that mine. The mine management were, I understand, opposed on that particular mine to the granting of any kaffir beer licence, but they found that, owing to the natives on the mine during the week-end wandering on to the farms in the adjoining areas, and becoming drunk and otherwise absenting themselves from their work on Monday morning, it was absolutely necessary to make some provision for the supply of kaffir beer on that mine. The Native Affairs Department granted a certificate authorizing the issue of that licence, and they only did so because they realized that it was necessary to make some provision for the natives. The natives in their natural state, in their homes, drink beer, some of them, once every day, and it was therefore necessary to make some provision for them when they were working on the mines. Unless some provision is made, they are bound to obtain liquor or kaffir beer illicitly, and the result is that, instead of their being supplied with kaffir beer in the ordinary way under proper supervision, they break way and resort to illicit liquor. Apart from that, in all these cases I submit that where the kaffir beer licences are leased out, the mine management have always provided that the leases by them to the licensees contain very stringent terms and the sale of kaffir beer comes directly under the aegis of the management itself. If there was any abuse of the privilege, the mine management would have the right to cancel the lease. Unless some provision is made for the continuance of the existing conditions on the mines in Natal, there is bound to be a considerable amount of trouble and we will revert to the same state of affairs which existed before the Act of 1908 was passed. Since the system of 1908 was introduced, I am advised, on very reliable authority, that there have been no prosecutions; there have been no convictions in so far as the licensees are concerned who are supplying kaffir beer under this licensing system. It is only reasonable to ask the House to continue the existing state of affairs as it is to-day in Natal. The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) is not asking for anything new. He is only asking for the continuance of what those who know, consider is absolutely necessary on the mine of Natal. Unless some provision is made there is bound to be unnecessary trouble and bound to be inefficiency on these mines.

What does the church say about it?

So far as kaffir beer is concerned, it is a food as well as a beverage. It contains only a very small proportion of intoxicants. My hon. friend does not know anything about it. Let me tell him a native can exist for 10 to 15 days on kaffir beer without eating anything at all. Kaffir beer is a beverage which every native, particularly in Natal, is used to from the time he reaches the age of 15 or 16. I think it would be a very great mistake if the existing position was done away with on the mines in Natal. It will be a great mistake from the managements' point of view, and also from the adjoining farmers' point of view, because before the provision was made in the Act of 1908 the adjoining farmers suffered very considerably for the reason that the mine natives, who are not under the compound system, used to wander away from the mines during the week-ends and a great deal of illicit liquor traffic and beer-drinking took place on adjoining farmers' property. I would like to move an amendment at the end of the hon. member's amendment—

My reason is that in Natal there are two by-product works which are separated completely from the coal mines, and in both these cases, I understand, kaffir beer licences have been granted to meet the requirements of the natives working there. I understand there is a large number of natives working at these coke works and it is necessary, therefore, to make provision to continue the existing kaffir beer licences carried on there. I can only support the hon. member's statement because I firmly believe we shall be making a very great mistake if we allow the existing system to continue for only three years. What will happen when the three years have expired? Are these natives on the mines to proceed without any supply of kaffir beer at all? If that is the intention of this Parliament, I can only say that a very serious state of affairs will arise. Those who have experience of the matter consider it is absolutely necessary to make some provision, and to restrict this to three years is absolutely wrong. The proposal of the hon. member for Dundee is fair and reasonable, and I hope the House will accept it.

I have no intention of seconding either of the amendments; on the contrary, I am strongly opposed to the proposal of the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt). I do want hon. members to realize that if they vote for the perpetuation indefinitely of the private kaffir beer shops on the mines in Natal they are, of course, giving away the whole case in regard to their opposition to Section 42. You cannot have it both ways. If kaffir beer shops are good in the mines of Natal, it is an equally good thing in the Witwatersrand. There is no doubt about that. I am surprised to find that certain members from Natal are so blinded by their own local interests that they have supported this amendment and have used arguments which are entirely contrary to the arguments used by other members from the same province in opposing the Minister's proposal a month ago to establish these kaffir beer shops on the Hand. I want to be logical. Either the kaffir beer shop is good or it is bad. I do not think it is good in either place, and I propose, therefore, to oppose this amendment. Let me draw attention to some features of this proposal. In the first place, it is not proposed to merely continue the existing licences, but to take the right to grant these licences indefinitely and without restriction except that the Minister may exercise a certain amount of supervision as Minister. What this section says is "to any person," so that any person on the mines in Natal apparently shall be allowed to open a kaffir beer shop. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) somewhat plaintively—one could almost hear the tears in his voice—said, " what is going to happen at the end of three years if this clause is passed in its present form?" I will tell him. The mines in Natal will be in the same position as the mines in any other part of the Union. I am content that the mines in Natal should have the same right as mines anywhere else in South Africa, that is, to supply kaffir beer free, and if kaffir beer it so essential to the good working of the mines and for preventing all these evils, then I am perfectly certain the mines of Natal will supply the kaffir beer in reasonable quantities and see it is not abused. That is all that you need. This is the thin end of the wedge in regard to shops run by private individuals for the sale of kaffir beer, and I do say that this House would be doing the right thing in rejecting this proposal. I hope the Minister will not accept it. In regard to loose bars we thought the system was bad, and bring them to an end within a certain period of time. I ask if there is anything peculiar about Natal, that what is recognized as being wrong in other parts of the country should continue to exist there? I can understand anybody who has a Jesuitical desire to promote private sale (in Section 142) desiring this, but I cannot imagine anybody whose conviction is against Section 142 supporting this proposal. The trade in kaffir beer is something that the authorities on Native Affairs who have appeared before the select committee consider a bad thing.

I feel this evening that I am in the position of a person obeying the biblical injunction of heaping coals of fire upon the heads of my enemies, and the way I propose to do that is to support very strongly the amendment the hon. members from Natal have brought forward. I have not had the support from them I expected, but I will show them a more Christian spirit and support them as far as their province is concerned, although they did not support me as far as my province is concerned. Hon. members who fear Natal members, need not fear the next clause, because I am going to move that kaffir beer shops are carried on by the State. I cannot understand Natal members applauding me if they want the present clause through. They want it both ways, as Natal always does. I am saying that so that hon. members need not think they are binding themselves to something terrible in the next clause if they vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt). As far as this clause is concerned, after representations had been made to me by the coal mine owners, I consulted the local police and the Native Affairs Department of Natal, and got a reply from them that this system had worked very well there—as I expected, and it had succeeded in destroying the illicit traffic, which I expect from other portions too, and I am not surprized that that was so in Natal. When I found that was the position, I made up my mind to support the amendment, and unless it is proved to me that the licences granted to these men had been abused, it would be a strong step for us to take away their livelihood after three years. If it has been abused, they would have been taken away after a month; if they are not abused we should not take them away. We hear a good deal about the mines being able to supply people gratis with their requirements, but as far as the Transvaal is concerned, my information has been that the kaffir beer supplied by the mines has been a very inferior article which the natives will not drink, and I should imagine it is the position in Natal, otherwise why do the coal mines at any rate feel that the present system is better than the one under which they supplied kaffir beer gratis to their employees?

I think the speech of the Minister has perhaps eased the situation somewhat. I had intended naturally to oppose that the sale of kaffir beer should be put out to tender. After all is said and done, in this country you must realize that to-day we have on the Rand 200,000 natives employed on the mines, and kept in order. There are no complaints of any serious nature against the lack of strength of kaffir beer, as far as I know, at any rate, and unquestionably if there is any organization we should go to for advice with regard to problems in connection with native administration and labour, the Rand mines are the body we should go to.

I think Native Affairs.

No. To-day we have other factors. If we have stray labour, street-corner labour I should call it, you have Kadalie and other agitators influencing it. Here we are providing largely for that street-corner native. I say advisedly to the Minister that he should consult first of all the Rand mines, which have organized native labour and have them satisfied, which is more than the farmers have done. Is there any centre in this country in which Kadalie should make his influence felt more than on the Rand mines? Instead of that, he is leaving the natives alone there, and has gone to other places, such as the dorps, the Free State and Natal. I want to give the Minister a warning note, and I must say that I am sorry the Minister of Native Affairs is not here when this is being discussed. The only trouble we have—

I think the hon. member is rather under a misapprehension. We are not discussing Clause 142 now, but we are dealing only with 141.

You have the system in Natal which the Minister has spoken of as bearing on the system elsewhere. I want to say very clearly that the system in Natal is not the right one for this House to endorse. You can control natives in small communities much better than you can when they are in large communities. If ever in the history of this country it was the duty of the State to accept the responsibility, it is its duty to do so in this instance. Are we going to say that because the Natal system has proved a success we are going to extend it throughout the country, because if we do that would be wrong. Under the Urban Areas Act we have given the municipalities the right to control the sale of kaffir beer within their boundaries. If a municipality refuses to exercise that right, then it is the duty of the State to step in, but the Natal system, as indicated, supported by the member for Dundee, is the thin edge of the wedge. If a mine manager says he is unable to control the sale of liquor on his property, then the municipality or the State should undertake the task, for that is the only safeguard we have. I am surprised that Natal has come forward with this suggestion, but I am not a bit surprised at the Minister accepting it, because he has told us that the carrying of the Bill was a case of bartering. Natal has let him down.

But I don't let them down.

Now the Minister comes forward with a further offer to Natal, and he says to it, " Support me and I will support you." The principle of differentiation running through this Bill is unsound, for the native conditions throughout the Union are almost the same, although there may be little local differences. If we are going to have uniformity, let us have it here. Why should there be any differentiation on this principle? Let Natal eventually come under the same system that prevails in other parts of the Union, for it is only when we achieve uniformity that we shall be able to understand and appreciate each other's difficulties. I appreciate the efforts the Prime Minister has made to bring about uniformity in his native legislation. Until we have uniformity in native legislation, difficulties will arise in the different provinces that will tend to separate the two white races by reason of one province not appreciating the problems of the other provinces. The one basic problem which affects all provinces alike is the native question, but on this point we have prejudices which should not exist. Let us remember that any differentiations made to-day will create serious difficulties for to-morrow. The Minister may be holding a more onerous position in the future, and he will find that differentiation on matters like this results in the building up problems for the future. So by accepting amendments of this nature he will be creating problems and causing differences between the natives and also amongst ourselves. If the Transvaal system is the right system, let us extend it to Natal as well. Let us have as much uniformity as possible to-day, in order to avoid great differences in the future.

After listening to the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Payn), I do not think the Minister could have obtained more justification for his attitude than the last speaker has just given him, for his argument amounts to this: He is quite satisfied with the principle, but he would rather see it come from the mining houses than from Natal. He admitted that the natives required kaffir beer and that unless they obtained it, evils would follow through the illicit sale of liquor to the native, but if we accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt), we would not be carrying out the principle of confining the consumption of kaffir beer to natives employed on the mines. It is necessary to stop drunkenness among the niggers—

Say natives.

I quite agree with the hon. member that kaffir beer should be supplied to the natives, for they have been allowed to have it in the past and they should be permitted to have it in the future. There are other natives who are not resident on the mines who also require kaffir beer, and if the principle is right, it is also right for the native outside the mines. If the hon. member is right in his assumption that the native requires this beer to reduce the amount of drunkenness, which is the attitude we all take up, I am quite prepared to support the Minister in his amendment in supporting the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt), because I think it is necessary to-day that the native should have that amount of stimulant in kaffir beer.

I cannot support the amendment of the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt). I think it is wrong in principle. We had at the commencement of this debate the Minister of Justice eulogizing a system which was in vogue in Natal, namely that of the Durban Municipality. He was so impressed with its working that he said he wished to extend it to the mines of the Transvaal. That is under municipal control, not under the control of a private individual. There are immense profits to be made out of kaffir beer selling when a private individual embarks upon it. The profits which the Durban Municipality has made on kaffir beer are being devoted to the welfare of the natives, and it speaks well for the Durban Corporation when one witnesses the great hostel they have built there for natives, where natives can, for a moderate figure, get a meat meal, a hot bath, and they also have a great hall where they have a cinema. I hope this House will not support the principle of private kaffir beer shops. They should be under municipal or State control. If we depart from that we are facing a danger of the gravest kind. We know that when a private individual starts a kaffir beer shop, his only object is to make as much money as possible. Will the beer be of the same quality as sold to-day in Durban, or will it have a kick in it, or will it be adulterated? We know the class of man who is seeking these concessions from the Government. We have a good idea of it, and we fear the thought of private individuals selling kaffir beer in Natal or anywhere in South Africa.

I agree with the hon. gentleman who has just sat down. The private individual is out to make as much profit as he possibly can, without any consideration at all for the welfare of the mass of the people. That does not only apply to liquor. In connection with what my hon. friends in front of me had to say a while ago, there is no doubt one must look at the Chamber of Mines supplying their employees, or any other employer supplying his employees, from the point of view that the employer certainly has some interest in seeing that his employees do not get too much, otherwise their value as profit-producers will be impaired. They have an incentive to see that the system is not abused. Therefore when one speaks of the employer supplying kaffir beer on the mines or elsewhere in the same breath as private individuals running beer halls in the mining areas, I say there is no comparison. On the one hand, the individual supplying the liquor has some incentive not to overdo it, on the other hand, the people running beer halls for private profit, the more they sell the more profit they make. They are not concerned with the effect it has on the people who purchase. The only things they are worrying about are their profits. They can afford to pay people to work for them, to canvass for them, to lobby for them, and to do everything possible for them in order that they shall carry on this particular undertaking for the sole benefit of the natives of Natal. The Chamber of Mines can do the same thing. I would far rather see the employer issuing kaffir beer to his employees than I would see it in the hands of private individuals, if I had to choose between the two evils, because I know which would be the lesser evil of the two. I hold no brief for the Chamber of Mines, and they hold no brief for me. I am rather alarmed at the Minister's argument in favour of Natal. The Minister says, and I do not think the statement ought to go unchallenged, that the Natal system has abolished illicit liquor.

I say that is the police report to me.

As a matter of fact, the police departmental reports do not bear that out, because we find in the departmental reports that, in proportion to population, there are as many cases of illicit liquor dealing in Natal as in any part of South Africa.

That is in Durban and Maritzburg.

Yes, and hon. members will stand up here in a few minutes and tell us of the tremendous benefit the Durban system has been to South Africa, and how they have eliminated the illicit liquor traffic and kept down drunkenness, whereas statistics do not bear that out.

They do.

The statistics do not bear that out. We must remember that in 1908, when things were very bad in Natal, when there was a tremendous number of shebeens in existence, there was such a big outcry that Natal introduced legislation to deal with that particular evil. Side by side with the establishment of these beer halls and the municipal beer supply you have the authorities taking action to deal with the evil which had reached such proportions in 1908, and now we have our friends coming forward and advocating the extension of this system throughout South Africa, and taking credit to this system for the whole of the improvement that exists in Natal, when legitimately they are not entitled to take credit for the whole of that improvement. They are entitled to take credit for perhaps 10 per cent. or 20 per cent., and the rest is due to legislation and the activities of the authorities. I think we should be careful, indeed, before we take up the attitude that, because there has been an improvement in Natal, that improvement has been solely due to the fact that we have these kaffir beer halls in the mining areas, and municipal beer supply in Durban and Pietermaritzburg and elsewhere. On top of that we must remember that the Witwatersrand has a larger industrial population, things are different there, and yet we find when we go into the statistics, that in proportion to population, Natal does very well as far as convictions for illicit liquor and drunkenness are concerned.

I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) say that he opposed the amendment of the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) on principle, because it must be apparent to the House, when I refer to this Act, that the hon. member for Umvoti has a very short memory. The enabling Act under which these beer houses were established on the mines was an Act passed by the late Natal Government of which he was not only a member, but a Minister. Apparently he has forgotten that he was one of those who were instrumental in passing this legislation under which these beer houses were established. I do not want to detain the House. The reasons in favour of the continuance of this system were given comprehensively by other speakers, but there is one phase of the question to which I want to call the Minister's attention. I happen to have intimate first-hand knowledge of the conditions which existed prior to the passing of the 1908 Act as an old prosecutor, and I can only say that the conditions which obtained on the mines, before that Act came into force, were anything but satisfactory. What happened was that natives were bringing beer on to the mine property for sale, and there was no law to prevent it, with the result that at times during the working hours the employees who were thus able to buy beer were not in a fit state to carry on their work. It was found necessary to pass legislation to prevent that. I can bear out what was said by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) in regard to the unsatisfactory condition of things on the outskirts of these mines. We had natives leaving the mines when off duty and visiting neighbouring kraals in search of kaffir beer, and, because of being under the influence of drink, failing to report for duty, thus causing dislocation in the working of the mines. That was one of the evils for which this Act was introduced to safeguard the mines against. It made it absolutely illegal to sell any native beer outside the mining area, and also within the area of the mines, and in that way put a stop to the tendency by mine workers to leave the mine in search of beer and the consequent shebeening which took place at neighbouring kraals. I know from first-hand knowledge the beneficial effects of this legislation. The Minister says that he has had a report from the Native Affairs Department which satisfies him that this system has worked very well, has, in fact, been a boon to the coal mining industry, which has since been able to carry on mining operations relieved of the disabilities under which they worked before the coming into force of the 1908 Act. I must admit that I do not like the principle of the leasing out of rights such as the right to sell liquor, and I would not be a party to asking the Minister to introduce legislation supporting such a principle, but I do say I am justified, and I am going to vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Dundee, because we are only asking the Minister to allow the existing system, which has worked well, to continue. I disagree entirely with the speech of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn). He talks about uniformity in matters of this sort where conditions are not uniform. It is impossible to have uniform legislation where conditions are not the same. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) advanced the argument that because in Johannesburg on the gold mines, the mine managements ration their servants with beer, the coal mines should do the same. The conditions in the two areas are not the same. The rationing of natives on the coal mines in Natal would impose a very heavy financial burden on the managements and, in some cases, might even result in mines closing down. On some of the coal mines in Natal the shareholders have a very thin time indeed and dividends are few and far between. Therefore, to insist upon taking away these rights after three years' time and to tell the mining companies that in future they are either to ration their servants or abolish the supply of native beer to mine employees entirely would impose a hardship on the coal mining industry.

I would like to refer to what has been said by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) about the experiment which has been made in Durban in order to try and reduce the illicit liquor traffic there. Supt. W. A. Alexander, who has been the chief constable of Durban for many years and knows all about the position of affiairs in that town, gave evidence before the select committee, and he showed conclusively that since 1908, when the Native Beer Act was brought into force, the amount of illicit traffic in Durban has become almost negligible. He not only gave that as his opinion after many years' experience, but he also gave figures to prove that that is so. The evidence given before the select committee shows that in 1907, before the Act came into force, the total arrests, not convictions, were 1,268. In 1908, when the new Act came into force, the arrests fell to 716, and they came down as low as 316 in 1913, although the population of Durban was growing all the time.

What were the effects of the 1908 Act in Natal?

I am giving you the effects now. The figures rose to 641 in 1916, and to 744 in 1925, but during that time the population of Durban had more than doubled. The percentage of arrests in 1925 for drunkenness amongst natives in Durban was only 2.1.

In 1926?

The figures are not here for that year. Replying to a question by the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe), who asked him what effect this monopoly system had had on the illicit liquor trade, Mr. Alexander said that it had completely wiped out the whole of the illicit liquor trade. Within six months of the introduction of this system, he said, they wiped out the whole of the trade and reduced the drunkenness amongst natives from 6 or 7 per cent. to 1 or 2 per cent. I think these figures and the testimony of a man like Mr. Alexander disprove anything that may be said to the contrary by any person who does not know anything about Durban. It has been said that drunkenness has gone up amongst Europeans in Durban and is higher than in other parts of the Union. When Mr. Alexander asked where that information was got, he was told that it was obtained from official statistics, and he then stated that none of the statistics which Durban had bore out that statement at all, quite the contrary. He pointed out that Durban had its own police force, and only they had the correct information. Quite the contrary. Durban is well satisfied with the system, which has done an immense amount of good in reducing the illicit liquor trade, and it has reduced drunkenness and increased the happiness and comfort of the natives working there. The profits are devoted entirely to the amelioration of the conditions of the natives in that town. As regards the amendment of the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt), I must confess I was very much surprised to know that the managers of the collieries were anxious to have the leasing system in connection with the sale of kaffir beer at their collieries. It seems to me they are running a very great risk indeed in allowing these leases to get into the hands of strangers who will not consider the interests of the natives. If the mines kept it in their own hands, even if they made a small charge as they do in Durban, they would be acting very much more sensibly and reasonably, because they then can control it, and they can see that the liquor the natives get is in the best condition. To give the leases to strangers who will tender for them, and the higher they tender the more money they will want to get back in the sale of the liquor, seems a very bad step indeed, and I hope that amendment will not be carried. I am sure under the circumstances it would do a great deal of harm to the natives, and I do not think it would be to the advantage of the collieries themselves.

I do not want unnecessarily to take up the time of the House because I realize very fully the enormous strain to which the Minister has been put during the long discussion which has taken place in connection with this Bill. I think it will be acknowledged that with one or two exceptions the Minister has conducted the Bill through the House in an admirable manner. The only mistake that I think the Minister has been occasionally inclined to make with this very weighty and difficult Bill was in occasionally making concessions, which he really was not very strongly in favour of himself, on clauses such as this, so as to try and bring his operations to a successful termination. We all look upon the Minister as one of the most logical debaters in this House and never have I heard the Minister weaker than in his argument on this particular amendment. It made me think we really ought to assist the Minister in every possible way by coming to a division with the least possible delay, because the Minister, in supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt), made it perfectly clear that while he was going to support that amendment he thought it necessary to inform the House that so far as the amendment he himself proposes to move is concerned, he had now realized that a portion of that amendment was so objectionable that he was going to take out the proposal of farming out kaffir beer licences on the Rand. If he has come to the conclusion that that is inadvisable, is it not equally inadvisable and more objectionable, perhaps, to allow in rural areas the licences to be extended for over the period of three years, which was provided for in a compromise on the Bill and to allow them to be established within one mile of a mining centre?

No, but in Natal it is food and drink.

I am one of those people who consider that after eighteen years of Union it is an unfortunate thing that we should provide for provincial conditions in many of the legislative measures brought before this House. One would have thought that when you are passing legislation, especially of this important character, your laws would equally apply over the length and breadth of the Union. The Minister rather chided members from Natal for their rather ungracious reception of the concessions he had given, and he said it in such a tone of voice as to insinuate that as one good turn deserves another, having accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Dundee he looked in the crucial division that would take place immediately afterwards to a certain amount of gratitude and to support for the amendment of his own about the carrying of which the Minister was extremely doubtful.

I don't expect it.

Therefore, I was glad to see there is a difference of opinion even among Natal members, and that the hon. member for Umvoti strongly protested against these kaffir beer licences.

He passed the Act in 1908.

Surely the Minister does not consider that the hon. member should not gather experience as he grows older?

I admit that—and wisdom.

And he is not ashamed to let the House know of the experience which has been developed during the last few years. It is, perhaps, owing to the evils that the hon. member has seen from the measure as originally passed that he is now coming forward and giving the House the benefit of his opinion. I really appeal to my hon. friend, having told us he has now felt himself obliged to withdraw from his own amendment the farming out of kaffir beer licences, that he should not lend his support to an amendment which makes provision for the only case that can possibly take place within the Union, to allow kaffir beer shops run by private licence holders who will only have one desire, not to sell kaffir beer as a food and a mild stimulant, but to sell the very worst, and probably doctored, description to make as much money out of it is they possibly can. We are all very sympathetic with the Minister; he is not as yet worn to a shadow, but there is no doubt he has gone through an enormous amount of hard work, and I would appeal to him even at this eleventh or twelfth hour not to put a blot upon the splendid work he has done by accepting an amendment even for the purpose of carrying his own point a little later on.

I wish to state that I will not be a party to any bargaining on Clauses 141 and 142, and any support I intend to give to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Dundee will not commit me to the principle contained in the next clause. I agree with the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) that the supply of kaffir beer should be under the control of the municipalities. There can be no question—it is hardly necessary to go into it— of the great benefit which has accrued to the urban centres of Natal from the control of native beer by the municipalities. We must, however, take special circumstances into consideration. The coal mines in Natal are a considerable distance away from any municipality, and the natives should not have to go all over the countryside to obtain their beer. That would be the result if the present system on the mines in Natal was discontinued. I would like the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) to confine himself to the first part of his amendment, and not provide further for the supply of beer to natives outside the mining areas.

How can you discriminiate?

By providing that only natives employed on the collieries should be allowed to get the beer.

What about native servants?

They could go to the municipalities. The amendment is a double-barelled one.

Why not spike both barrels?

I should have been willing to give a silent vote on this subject, but the Minister's remark renders it necessary that I should give my reasons for declining to support the amendment of the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt). At one stage I had expressed my willingness to go so far as to support the continuance of the existing state of affairs, but since then our lobbies have been crowded with people who have been impressing on hon. members to vote, not only for this amendment, but for another amendment on the Order Paper to which the Minister has referred, under which the leasing of kaffir beer shops on the Rand is to be made possible. That makes it necessary that every hon. member who values his honour and is mindful of his personal conduct in these matters, should be very careful not to vote in any way which may be considered compromising in the circumstances. As far as I am concerned, I intend in this matter to vote so that I am free to vote against a proposal which I regard as a very dangerous one—the one on the order paper to which the Minister has referred and regarding which he now intimates it is his intention to delete the sub-letting of kaffir beer shops on the Rand to private individuals. The general impression that our lobbies have been invaded by people prepared to scatter the seeds of kindness amongst us, has done a great disservice to the objects these gentlemen have in view. I question the absolute necessity for the continuance of the present licences, and it seems to me the Minister arrived at a reasonable compromise in committee when he allowed the clause to go through as it now stands, where three years are allowed for the termination and the liquidation of the businesses. Under the Native Urban Areas Act persons who had licences in the municipalities were not given any period during which they could liquidate their businesses. The Act came into force, and in all areas in which municipalities decided on a monopoly system for brewing kaffir beer, the holders of licences had to surrender them without a penny of compensation. I sympathize with these people, and I endeavoured in vain in one or two cases to get a recognition of the hardship that was imposed on them by that law. I know of cases in which a municipality which had leased premises to a man held him to his bargain and made him pay for the period of years during which his lease ran, although he was without a native beer licence. The case of the present gentleman is different, and three years are allowed during which they may take notice that this system has to come to an end. I prefer the system in which a mine can brew beer for its own employees. I quite agree, for possibly the same reasons as the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) gave, viz., that he understands the system on the Rand, as I do. It is much less likely to be abused than when a private individual has the sale of kaffir beer to the natives. It has been suggested by the Minister that the ration of kaffir beer issued by the mines has been very tasteless and an insufficient kind of ration, but from a considerable residence on the mines I may say that is quite a mistaken idea. The ration that is issued is made under hygienic conditions, everything is scrupulously clean, and a very healthy and palatable drink is turned out for the natives, which they are only too glad to have once a week; in some cases they are allowed it twice a week. We should be making a mistake to vote for the indeterminate continuance of the licences to individuals. If any of these areas come within municipalities, these gentlemen would have to discontinue the brewing of kaffir beer without any notice being given them. The clause as it stands goes quite as far as we need go. I hope those who are considering their vote on this section will not neglect to see the analogy between this clause and the clause to which the Minister has referred, and will hold themselves free to vote as they think fit on the next clause.

The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) proposes an amendment to authorize the issue of these licences on coal bye-product works, which are places where coal is turned into coke and petrol, etc. They are usually situated at some distance from the mines. They fall within the same category as the mines, and I hope the House will support the amendment.

Question put: That the words " for a period of three years after the commencement of this Act ", proposed to be omitted, stand part of the amendment, Upon which the House divided:

I move—

seconded.

I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

seconded.

Upon which the House divided:

I move—

1. (1) In the municipalities of Pretoria and Johannesburg and in any other urban area upon the Witwatersrand the Governor-General may, by proclamation in the " Gazette," declare that, from and after the date specified and subject to the conditions prescribed therein, the Minister of Justice or any other Minister to whom the Governor-General may assign the administration of this section may authorize the establishment and carrying on of one or more kaffir beer houses at which, without licence under this Act or any other law, there may be sold directly by the State to natives kaffir beer in reasonable quantities for consumption on the premises.
2. (2) The said Minister may from time to time, in respect of the supply of kaffir beer at any kaffir beer house established under sub-section (1), make such appointments, issue such rules, and take such other steps as he may deem necessary for the purpose of controlling and regulating—
   1. (a) the brewing or manufacture of kaffir beer for disposal;
   2. (b) the quantities of kaffir beer to be supplied and the conditions of supply;
   3. (c) the preservation of order; and
   4. (d) such other matters as may be necessary for the better carrying out of the purposes of this section.

I am moving the insertion of new Clause 142 as printed in page 658 of the Votes and Proceedings, with this exception, that I wish to delete the words " or by any person named in such proclamation to natives such articles of food and drink as are usually supplied in an eating house for natives." I also move the omission of sub-section (2).

These words are not in your revised amendment.

Look at page 658.

These words are in the amendment on page 631, not 658.

Yes. The words are " or by any person named in such proclamation directly by the State to natives kaffir beer in reasonable quantities for consumption on the premises." Then I am not moving sub-section (2). In that form it means that the State may in the Municipalities of Johannesburg and Pretoria and in other urban areas on the Rand sell directly kaffir beer in reasonable quantities for consumption on the premises of these kaffir eating houses. It is a considerably less measure than has been passed by the House in the previous clause, so I do not think it necessary to argue it at length. I wish to say further the great reason for doing that is this: If you leave the matter in the hands of the municipalities on the W.W. Rand, you have a chain of municipalities there and the result would be extraordinary if in Springs the municipality established eating houses, in Brakpan they did not, in Boksburg they did, and in Germiston they did not and in Johannesburg they did and so along the Rand. If one wishes by a measure of this kind to diminish the traffic, it is obvious you must do it on a large scale along the whole Reef. In addition to that, none of the municipalities, as far as I am aware, have taken any steps in this connection. If any municipality wishes the powers given to it, it would, of course, not be necessary for the State to take steps to establish a beer house. In principle, there is no difference between municipalities doing this, or its being done by the Provincial Council or by the Government, except that your State probably would have a larger right to do it than any lesser body than the State.

Do you make any provision for such profits as are made to be applied to the good of the natives?

The provision would be made at a later stage.

Do you propose to do that?

Not in the Bill. The Minister of Finance will take the steps to deal with any profits that are made.

seconded.

My hon. friend will have to find the money. Surely the Minister has not brought this forward haphazard. How much capital is going to be involved in this business? Surely my hon. friend has considered that?

When we are starting it then, the question will be what capital is available. They are permissive powers, and they will not be used unless the capital is available.

Of course not if you cannot get the capital. You will be able to get the capital, I have not the slightest doubt.

I have always been against the establishment of these kaffir beer shops, whether by the State or by private individuals, but I am bound to admit that the present proposal of the Minister is far less objectionable than the original proposal, which involved the establishment of private eating houses, or the previous section which we have just passed. I know that it is the Minister's wish that we should as soon as possible come to a vote, and I shall, therefore, content myself with the views I have already expressed on this question at the committee stage, and vote against this proposal.

I welcome the Minister's amendment. I can assure him that many of us would have violently opposed his amendment as it originally appeared on the paper. I think that as far as most people who are not prejudiced from a temperance view are concerned, they will agree that all the evils that might have arisen and would undoubtedly have arisen, had these places been under private control, will now disappear and we can confidently feel that the Minister has taken a very big stride in the right direction. I am going to give him all the support I can to get this through and, in my opinion, the ultimate result will be a good one as far as the Reef is concerned. It will be good in every sense of the word. It is going to assist in doing away with a good deal of the illicit traffic, and it will be a source of revenue, and I hope the policy of the Government will be to devote all the profits towards the improvement and betterment of the natives, and that they will carry this out on similar lines to what is known as the Durban system. I do not think much can now be said against it.

I know the House is in a hurry to pass the Bill, but the matter is so very important that I cannot possibly remain silent. The Minister has altered his original proposal, and now he is proposing to establish State kaffir beer shops. We already have State industries, there are State diggings, and to-day the Minister is proposing State canteens. I admit the municipalities had that right, but I am sorry that my hon. friends from Natal have apparently made an agreement with the Minister. It looks as if the Minister has caught them because the principle they were supporting is private enterprise, but here the Minister proposes to establish kaffir beer shops run by the State on the Witwatersrand for a distance of 65 miles. I hope hon. members from the countryside will realize what this means.

To whom do you want to give the right?

The municipalities had the right to grant it, but they did not do so, because they did not want to assume the responsibility. I ask hon. members opposite whether they are prepared to assume the responsibility of establishing kaffir beer shops on a strip of 65 miles. Have hon. members properly considered that we are here introducing the principle of supplying beer, for which they, have never asked, to natives? I admit that the Minister's object is to reduce the illicit drink traffic oy it, but my experience on the Rand is that such a measure will more probably increase than reduce the smuggling of liquor. We were accustomed, in the Transvaal, 25 years ago, to allow a native to have a tot, and when he got it the liquor smuggler was outside to give him more. I cannot see why this measure is necessary. I have always voted against it, and as long as I have breath, I will oppose it. We had a similar case yesterday when I read out the telegram from the Church Synod. I do not want to quote it again, but it was clear that the church was opposed to such matters, and they will also be opposed to our opening State canteens for natives. I also would prefer the natives to drink kaffir beer rather than spirits if it can be done under proper conditions, e.g., under the supervision of the municipalities, but why did not the municipalities, when they had the right, not introduce the canteens? It was because the voters in the municipalities did not wish it. I ask hon. members from the countryside, members from the Free State, the Transvaal, and also from other parts, are they going to support the motion to establish a row of State kaffir beer shops for 300,000 to 400,000 natives? Have they borne in mind that those men, e.g., would all go to the beer shops on Saturdays, and what conditions we should then have?

Is that not the case now?

Yes, the natives get beer on the mines and afterwards take other drink, and that just proves that if the native gets beer he gets the desire for stronger drink. The municipalities have the right of establishing those beer shops, but they are afraid of doing so. Then all the natives will wander about by the beer shops, and the inhabitants in the neighbourhood will object. The Minister has done so much in deleting the motion for private tenders,—and I want to thank him for it,—but not a month ago we decided by 45 votes to 39 not to allow this, and now the Minister comes and brings the same thing before the House. What is the value of resolutions of this House if we go on like this, and re-introduce motions which have previously been rejected? I think it makes us ridiculous as a representative body. I want at this eleventh hour to appeal to the Minister again to withdraw the amendment, because there is still great opposition to the State kaffir beer shops. It is a principle which the Pact adopted, turning everything into State undertakings.

It is not true.

But we have State mines and other State industries to-day, do not let us go the length of establishing State canteens as well. Let the municipalities undertake that, and bear the responsibility, and if things go wrong the electors can remedy them. The Minister told us the other day that he intended putting up 16 or 17 kaffir beer shops. He then intended calling for tenders from private individuals, but the number he mentioned is not enough. The Minister will have to appoint officials to control the canteens. Then there will once more have to be a head official to regulate things. It will be young Afrikanders who will have to go into those canteens, and I wish the Minister would remember that. I must say that he has been very patient, and I am grateful to him, but I do not want to have a blot on the statute book, and this proposal means a blot.

But then the right of the municipalities is also a blot.

That has already been passed. Why should we disregard the right of the municipalities? I am not a lawyer, but as the municipalities used to have the right I think it would be going almost too far to do over their heads what the Minister proposes. I have consulted my constituents, and can assure the Minister that my constituency, which will come under this, thinks that we do not require this measure. Who says that the natives are to have kaffir beer? Has the Minister ever asked them? Why should the Europeans press on to the natives liquor which possibly they do not want? Is it not a scandal, especially in a Christian country? Are we, as a Christian people, going to injure the morality of the natives? The kaffir beer will do him no good, but rather harm.

What about soda water?

Soda water will do no harm. When the natives have drunk kaffir beer and come out of the shops half drunk, they will want other liquor. I foresee a calamity on the Witwatersrand. I shall vote against it, but still hope the Minister will withdraw the clause before the vote. He has passed a good liquor law. Let us see how it works and, if it is necessary to have kaffir beer shops under State control, let it come from the people. I say that the people have not been consulted.

The proposals now made by the Minister of Justice are infinitely better than any we expected when we came here this afternoon, but whether we support them or not even in their altered form is another matter. I would like to add another section to sub-section (4), and I move—

To add at the end:

It may be said that this would be an interference with the revenues of the State, but this is the only method that can bring before the House and country the fact that we are going to embark on a great trading concern, because that is what it will be, where there may be great profits, and they should be devoted to the benefit of the natives. Much has been said in respect of the Natal monopoly system, and in this connection Durban has been frequently mentioned; but it really commenced in Maritz burg before it was started at Durban or anywhere else, under Natal Act 23 of 1908. During a comparatively short period—15 years— drunkenness amongst the native population has decreased from 16 per cent. to as low as 2.5 per cent. During that period, something like £30,000 has been set aside and used in the municipality of Maritzburg for the benefit of the natives in respect of the building of hospitals, the equipment of native schools and the like. With the huge number of natives concerned in the Minister's proposal, I think the House should express its opinion that such profits as are made should be devoted in the right direction, namely, in the uplifting of, and for the benefit of, the natives from whom these profits are derived.

I second the amendment. It does seem as if the Minister's clause is going through, and, therefore, the principle of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O'Brien) deserves serious consideration. In 1923, Parliament laid it down that as far as the questions of the supply of kaffir beer are concerned, these should be handled by the municipalities concerned. Now we find that the Minister selects this area including two municipalities—Pretoria and Johannesburg—and selects this large urban area for an experiment which clashes with the Native Areas Act. As far as I know, no serious objection was taken to the principle then laid down. The Minister will find it difficult to say that where municipalities have refused to put this system into operation, they are wrong. He now asks the State to step in and carry on a State business, possibly in competition with a municipality. The results of introducing this may be to introduce a species of competition between municipalities and the State, but whether they actually compete or not, or it is made an unprofitable venture for the State by way of protest, I do say it is unfair to step into their areas. If the Minister forces this clause through, the amendment should receive support and commend itself to the House, because we will at least extend this principle so that the profits that are made are applied solely for the benefit of the natives themselves. These profits should be expended on capital works. A municipality expends monies in maintaining municipal services for the natives such as housing, but in this case the Government is to take the profits. I accordingly support the amendment as being nothing more than bare justice to the municipalities concerned, and if I may do so now—I may not have a further opportunity of speaking—I should also like to propose—

The hon. member cannot move an amendment, as he has seconded the amendment.

I would just like to draw attention to this—will the Minister promise, before he issues any such proclamation, that the municipalities be consulted. The action of the Minister in stepping in and taking away the right which the municipalities possess is wrong, but if he is determined to do it, I hope he will give the assurance that the municipalities will be consulted. If we allow this to go by default, it will be a precedent for the extension of these activities. Whatever may be the influences which may be brought to bear by the Labour party, the country is not yet ripe for State socialism. Surely the Minister will not refuse to accept this reasonable amendment.

While we all admit that some of the most objectionable features of the original preposal have been removed the clause is still objectionable. We thrashed the thing out at great length on a previous occasion, but the Minister has given us very little reason for the present proposal. There is a very significant alteration between the present amendment and the printed amendment. A large portion of the Minister's speech was devoted to the necessity of the Government setting up beer shops as part of the attractions of the native eating-houses. If the Minister would confine his efforts to establishing decent native eating-houses without beer shops, I would support him. Now, however, he proposes nothing but beer shops. The Minister says that he sees no difference between Government beer shops and municipal beer shops. In the Bill we have recognized the principle of maintaining the Native Urban Areas Act and the powers given to the municipalities under that Act, but it is now proposed that those powers should be overridden. I wonder if that means the clause is to be put into practical operation or whether it is to be held as a sword of Damocles over the heads of municipalities to force them to establish these native beer shops. There has been no information as to what these places will cost, but the Minister let it out that we should have to establish a large number of beer shops. Yet we have no information as to the capital expenditure which will be involved.

Surely if you take powers to do a certain thing you do not at once say what the cost will be?

You need not necessarily bind yourself down to a thousand or two, but the least the House should know is whether it is to be committed to an expenditure of £5,000, £50,000 or £150,000. Take another very important and very objectionable feature. The Minister will have the power to make appointments.

Billets for pals.

A very large amount of new patronage.

If you come into power you may have the patronage.

If we come into power we may repeal this.

You need not repeal it—you need not use the power.

The Minister is making no financial provision, and it is quite apparent that he does not intend to utilize these powers for some time to come. It is quite probable that the Minister is going to use this clause to compel municipalities to do things they don't want to do.

Then there is no danger on the money side.

The Minister will have it both ways.

You are having it both ways—I am only having it one way.

If we are going to be put to a large expenditure for an experiment, we say that we object to the indignity of the Government entering into trade of this kind and entering upon an experiment which we do not believe will be successful.

The Minister's clause hits at the principle of local self-government. Under the Act of Union, the control and administration of native affairs is vested in the Government. In 1923, the House, by the Native Urban Areas Act, conferred on town councils various powers in regard to the control of natives within their areas. In a large variety of matters the Act made the local authorities the deputy of the Government in dealing with natives in urban areas. But the Minister now comes along with this clause to-day and proposes to push aside the town councils.

There is no pushing of them aside.

He has made this proposal without a jot of evidence to show default by the local authorities in the cerrying out of the powers delegated to them under the Native Urban Areas Act. He has given us no evidence whatsoever of their default. He has not produced any correspondence to show that he has ever indicated that the local authorities have failed to carry out their duty. He has not in any respect shown how these councils have lagged behind in their duties. In any case the Urban Areas Act constitutes the town council the proper authority to decide on the sale of native beer in its area. I am now pointing out how the Minister proposes to push them aside. No longer is the town council to be authority to decide on that matter, but the Minister takes to himself the power to decide.

A town council also can do it. They are not pushed aside.

If they, in their wisdom, and with proper knowledge of local conditions prefer not to do it, the Minister may come along and say he will do it.

They are not pushed aside. They do not want to do it.

If they decide to do it themselves, the Minister may come along and compete with them.

Yes, but they are not pushed aside. If A has a fish shop and B comes next to him that is not pushing A aside.

Surely if the municipality prefers not to establish a beer shop and the Minister, without local knowledge which the municipality posseses, can come along and establish a beer shop in spite of them that will be legalized by this clause.

That I admit, yes.

That surely is pushing the municipality aside from its own duty.

No, I challenge that.

He proposes to appropriate to the State the revenues that under the Act of Union are already made the perquisite of the native revenue account under the Native Urban Areas Act. Under that Act all money derived from the sale of native beer is to be credited to a native revenue account which in turn has to be used for the promotion of the welfare of the natives. The Minister overrides that principle. He says nothing about the use of this money, but simply appropriates it for the revenue of the Government. So that here we have without any consultation of the municipalities an act that completely goes back upon two recognized principles of the Native Urban Areas Act—first, that the municipalities shall be the judges as to whether it is desirable to allow the sale of native beer in their areas; and secondly, that the money so derived from such sale is to be devoted to certain express purposes. I should like the Minister to give us some information on one point. He proposes to confine to the Government the establishment and carrying on of the native beer business. He is deleting that portion of the clause which admitted of the subletting of this privilege to other people. Will he give an undertaking in this House that never as long as he is Minister will he come to this House and ask for an amendment under which he will again provide for the subletting of kaffir beer shops to other persons.

Yes.

I hope that is thoroughly understood, and as far as the clause is concerned that the Minister will realize the undesirability of invading the sphere of the town councils and that he will leave this matter to people better informed and qualified than he can be to deal with the question.

Has the Minister not considered the advisability of putting the whole administration of this Act under the control of the Minister of Native Affairs? We know that the control of the natives on the mines is under the administration of the Native Affairs Department, and I think this particular interest should be under the control of the Native Affairs Department. I also thing that the same principle should be upheld in this matter as is maintained in the Urban Areas Act, that any profits derived from the sale of kaffir beer should be devoted towards the interests of the native. I personally hold the view that it may be some time before there are any profits, but I would like to point out that since 1892 the profits arising from the sale of kaffir beer in Durban alone amounted to £217,000. It seems to me, in view of the fact that vre have a native development fund and are crying out for money for that particular fund, it is only fair to the native of this country to say that profits derived from the sale of liquor should be devoted to that purpose. It would not be to the credit of the State to say that we are helping to run the country on any profits arising from the sale of beer to the native. The Minister will not give that assurance. I would like to move, under those circumstances, and I am not casting any aspersion on the Minister of Justice, the substitution of the Minister of Native Affairs for the Minister of Justice. I feel that any matters in which the natives are concerned should be, as far as possible, under the control of the Native Affairs Department. I move—

seconded.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Payn put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. O'Brien put and the House divided:

I move—

That the following be a new clause to follow Clause 141:

Mr. B. J. PIENAAR seconded.

Agreed to.

Omission of Clause 142 put and agreed to.

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