I would like to make a statement in further answer to the question asked yesterday by my right hon. friend (Gen. Smuts). I have now got the information that was required. The whole will be published in the papers this afternoon, but I would like to communicate this to the House—

The main points of the agreement are the following

1. 1. Recruiting for gold and coal mines in the Transvaal will continue as heretofore, but boys may not be re-engaged within six months from the completion of their former contracts.
2. 2. The Portuguese Curator for Natives remains, and he will have, besides the functions conferred on him by the convention, the powers and authorities of Consular Officers in respect of Portuguese natives.
3. 3. The number of Portuguese natives employed in the mines of the Transvaal shall during the first five years of the convention be gradually reduced to a maximum of 80,000.
4. 4. Original contracts shall not be for longer than twelve months, and they may immediately be extended for a further period of not exceeding six months.
5. 5. Fifty per cent, of the pay for the three last months of the original period of service and for the period of re-engagement shall be deferred.
6. 6. Natives who fail to return to the province after the expiry of their period of service will be regarded as clandestine residents in the Union for the purposes of our immigration Acts, and all Portuguese natives within the Union not in possession of a Portuguese passport shall be regarded as prohibited immigrants.

This as regards the recruiting of natives.

1. 7. Coming to the railways and harbour of Mozambique. The port of Lourenco Marques is guaranteed from 50 to 55 per cent, (such percentage to be arranged) of the sea-borne import traffic to the so-called competitive area of the Transvaal, exclusive of traffic from civil, military or railway authorities. A division of railway rates between the Portuguese and the South African Railways is to be effected in terms of the convention.
2. 8. Readjustment of the traffic may be claimed by any party prejudiced every six months should the sea-borne traffic conveyed from Lourenco Marques to the competitive area either exceed or fall short of the percentage agreed to.
3. 9. Unless otherwise arranged, the rates on traffic consigned from South African railway stations to Lourenco Marques for export oversea beyond South Africa and South-West Africa, shall be based on the rates prescribed for export traffic carried over litre distances within the Union to any Union port; the rates to be divided between the two administrations on a mileage basis after deduction of terminal allowances. The port charges of all descriptions for shipping and for services of such traffic shall not exceed the lowest charges on similar traffic exported through Union ports.
4. 10. An Advisory Board is to be established by the Government of Mozambique to advise on best means of furthering export from the Union through Lourenco Marques. Working agreements for rolling stock, trains, etc., shall be arranged between the director of the Portuguese railways and the general manager of the South African railways from time to time and be put on record.
5. 11. The Union Government undertake to request the Railways and Harbours Board to consider and report upon the question of railway facilities in Swaziland and the connection with the Mozambique line as soon as Swaziland is incorporated in the Union.
6. 12. In any negotiations which the Union Government may have with any shipping company the Union Government will, at the request of the Mozambique Government, discuss the position of the port of Lourenco Marques in its relation to the Union.
7. 13. As regards customs and commercial intercourse, it was agreed that the commercial intercourse is to be put on the basis of reciprocal most-favoured-nation treatment with the right of each party to protect its own industries. Free entry is, however, to be secured for certain specified products of either country into that of the other on a basis of reciprocity. In transit trade shall be free, and for duty purposes overseas values shall be accepted on goods imported into the Union ex bond at Lourenco Marques.
8. 14. The last part of the convention refers to miscellaneous matters. They are the following: The convention will be in force for ten years from the date of exchange of ratification and shall continue thereafter subject to one year’s notice, but five years after ratification either party may call for a revision of its terms, whereupon, in default of mutual agreement, the convention shall lapse within six months, after notification.
9. 15. The convention is to be drawn up and executed within four months from 1st June, 1928, and shall be operative pending ratification. In case of unforeseen delay in the conclusion of the convention the existing arrangement contained in this “Heads of Agreement” shall continue in force.
10. 16. Disputes as to the interpretation or carrying out of the convention not settled otherwise, shall be submitted to arbitration.

What was that about Swaziland?

It is simply that the Railways and Harbours Board, when Swaziland becomes incorporated, shall report upon the advisability or not of a railway through Swaziland.

I move—

With the object of discussing the Government’s agricultural policy.

Make it two.

I am sorry, but the hon. member will have to make the motion more specific. Agriculture is too wide a term.

Well, I want to discuss the Government’s policy on the cattle industry.

Before we start, may I point out it is customary to bring up such a motion to the Table. If any question should arise afterwards, it is as well we should have it on paper. The hon. member may bring it up later.

I want to point out to the Government that since they have been in office they have steadily neglected the cattle industry until to-day it is a grave national question. We, on this side, have each year offered the Minister constructive criticism, but he has ignored it. He has attempted nothing and he has done nothing, and to-day the largest agricultural industry, with £100,000,000 capital invested, is in a calamitous condition. I know the Minister will reply that he has arranged for a Mr. Thornton to visit the Argentine to study the question there. I would like to ask the Minister what, in the name of common-sense, has that to do with the settlement of our industry here, and in what way do our conditions coincide with those of the Argentine? We can anticipate the report of Mr. Thornton. We know he will report there are no scrub cattle there, that they can grow lucerne by the square mile without irrigation, that they are able to raise young slaughter oxen at a profit of £3 a head. He will also say they have navigable rivers and their grazing extends to the sea. That won’t help us. The remedy lies here at our own door, and the Minister has been told what it is. I will repeat again what I have said before and what other members on this side have said, that if it is good policy for the Government to spend £300,000 in one year for the destruction of locusts, and I say it is good policy to save the farmers’ crops—and that money is not recoverable—then it is just as good policy to spend £300,000 in one year in the direction of directing the cattle industry. If the Minister and the Government in any way cared one tittle for the farmers, they would have tackled this industry and spent £300,000 in acquiring stud bulls. That is the trouble here. We have 10,000,000 cattle, and of these 8,000,000 are scrub cattle. The other 2,000,000 are stud or pedigree cattle. If the Minister had spent this sum, this would not have been a tax on the general taxpayer, and this money could have been recoverable. He could have had an advisory committee to advise him how the cattle should be allocated to the different parts of the country to suit different breeds. You would not put dairy cattle where Afrikanders would do. The Minister could have spent this money in purchasing 15,000 young bulls. Nowhere in the world are stud cattle cheaper than in South Africa, The average price to-day, and I am fixing it rather high, is £20 for a good breed which is bred in South Africa. The South African cattle industry embraces practically the whole of the breeds of the world. We would have had an immediate return. The first season would have given a return of 750,000 calves. The Minister could have found out how the scheme was working, and embark upon a larger scale the following year. The industry would have had a start, and we would have been improving our cattle and eliminating the scrub cattle. We have a market at our door on the Rand, where these scrub bulls could be sold for the compound beef and replaced by the others. As far as the quality of our cattle is concerned, take the last Bloemfontein show. We have had one breed bred by the company in which the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is interested competing against imported and beating them—colonial bred, red polls. If you go to the Johannesburg show and the royal show at Pietermaritzburg you see various breeds competing against the imported with the same success. So we have the quality, and our neighbours know that. They have taken full advantage of it. Rhodesia with a quarter of the cattle we have has done a far greater export trade than we have, and taken advantage of private enterprize in this country to build up their stud cattle, and their cattle are not to be compared with ours if we take them as a whole. South West Africa, East Africa and all our neighbours have taken advantage of buying these stud cattle and improving their own cattle. This Government have looked on—until the cattle industry is in a very grave condition. We were told that the ‘South African farmer would enjoy his home market, but he does not. We were told an embargo would be put on our neighbours’ cattle so that we would enjoy the market, but it has not had that effect. A year or two ago 18,000 cattle were sold in our markets.

You know that is not so.

The embargo is not an embargo, but it is a farce, and the cattle farmers of South Africa are smarting under the broken promise of the Government. When we take into consideration that £100,000,000 is invested and our beef export last year was £454,523 and butter and cheese were negligible, we are only 16 days from the greatest European markets, and our competitors, Argentina, is 30 days away and Australia 48 days away from these markets. What a magnificent position we stand in if we could only compete in the markets of Europe with quality beef, seeing our distance is so short. Of the total number of cattle I have mentioned, the natives own nearly one half. There is no need to waste the scrub cattle. They provide an excellent market for lean beef, which our scrub cattle produce. I do not know what our trade commissioners are doing, but if they were to earn their salaries in attempting to capture the European market—Italy is a good market—they would do a great thing, and the Minister of Agriculture should make some attempt to capture this market. Rhodesia, with 2,500,000 of cattle, has its exports far greater than ours. All that our cattle industry requires is reasonable direction, and the only direction that can be given to it is by the Government. If we had this improvement which I have indicated, it would affect our economic situation; surely the cost of living could be reduced if we had cheaper milk and butter. Surely our friends on the cross-benches should assist us in fostering this industry.

They are otherwise engaged.

At present this industry is a frozen asset. I know of cases in which stud cows were offered for slaughter. Never has the industry been so ignored and neglected as at the present time. It is not for want of an example that the Minister is lacking. If you take the example of the Rhodesian and the Argentine Governments, they took care that the quality of their beef should be improved. If we take the example set by the late Government in regard to the sheep industry, establishing the sheep division, it took the direction of the improvement of that industry, and our wool cheque which used to be £6,000,000 is, today, £20,000,000. One of the first acts of the Minister of Agriculture was to try to destroy that division, but the foundation was too well laid for that industry to suffer. That industry was built up by the work of this sheep division, with the result that our wool cheque will not stop at £20,000,000, but is going to increase to much more than that. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say in defence of this; he has done nothing, attempted nothing, taken no interest in the cattle industry, and he has allowed it to get into the state in which it is to-day. It makes one’s heart ache to see the condition of our cattle industry. When the Government go to the country in a few months hence the farmers will not forget this, as they are smarting cruelly under the treatment the Government has meted out to them.

If one listened to the hon. member on the other side (Mr. Deane), one would come to the conclusion that he had a personal grievance against the Minister of Agriculture, for otherwise hardly anyone would talk in the manner he has. His great complaint is that the cattle industry is neglected. It is admitted that our cattle industry is not in the state it ought to be in. There are too many inferior cattle in our country, and many of our people think the reason is that there are not enough thoroughbred bulls in the country, and that the Government must intervene to improve our cattle by experimental farms where people can get pure-bred cattle. The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) has, however, just told us that our country is overflowing with pure-bred cattle, that the people do not know what to do with them, and that they even have to slaughter some of them. If this is the case, we cannot blame the Minister for not improving the industry, but I will say that, whatever the faults of the Minister of Agriculture may be, we must praise him, and must acknowledge that he has given proof that he is trying to improve the industry which is here being complained of. In the first place, something has been established which did not exist under the former Government, namely, the agricultural trains with experts who give lectures and travel through the whole country. In the second place, extension officials have been appointed. They were only appointed a short time ago in the districts, but I think they are doing very good work, and the results of it will not be long in showing. How can the hon. member then accuse the Minister so? The Minister has taken a thorough interest in cattle farming, and I want to show that, on almost every occasion he appears before the public, he emphasizes the fact that the cattle must be improved. Only two weeks ago, I think, at Stellenbosch, he gave a lecture in connection with the subject. I think, therefore, that the attack of the hon. member is very unjust. If he will suggest how we should set about improving cattle farming, if he will come forward with practical ideas, then we shall be grateful, and the Minister will accept them, but, if he comes forward with vague accusations, he will do nothing for stock farming. He asserts in a vague manner that sheep farming is deteriorating, and the Minister is ruining it. I want, however, to bring another point to the notice of the Minister, it is the great agitation in the country to bring maize production under compulsory co-operation. It is even said that the Minister has promised that, as soon as the maize farmers are willing to sign forms to come under compulsory co-operation, he will introduce a Bill to establish and to support it. I do not know if the information is correct, but if the Minister said that, I very much want to know on what grounds he did it, and if he did not say it, he ought to explain it clearly here. The maize industry is a national industry. Maize is produced in great quantities in all the provinces, and is used as food by almost the whole Union. It is almost the sole food of the natives, and its production increases every day. The farmers would rather have better prices, and think that compulsory co-operation will be an advantage, and the price will improve. When compulsory co-operation for tobacco was introduced, I pointed out that our people must not start with the view that compulsory co-operation in itself is a solution for one and another of the difficulties of our farmers. We produce about 20,000,000 bags of mealies in the country, of which about 4,500,000 bags are used locally, and 5,000,000 bags by the farmers themselves. So there remain about 11,000,000 bags for export. If the people get compulsory co-operation then they will think that they can raise the inland price by 2s. This will not, however, apply to the 25,000,000 bags up to which they wish to increase the export. Then the whole thing will be that out of a total production of about 30,000,000 bags the increase will only be 2d. per bag if, for the mealies for inland consumption, they get 2s. more per bag. We must think about these things, and the people must not be under the impression that they will get at once 2s. more per bag if compulsory co-operation is introduced. This is a very complicated matter. I have here a booklet from the Society of Maize Farmers at Vereeniging. One cannot make head nor tail out of their opinions; they are just vague proposals. The matter should be very thoroughly investigated, and I think a special commission will be necessary before we can think of taking such a step. There are many things which must be taken into consideration. Will the natives, for example, also come under the obligation? Will a man who is 150 miles away from the co-operation also be compelled? What about the mealies which come from Rhodesia; must an embargo be placed on them? We must not stampede the countryside with the idea of compulsory co-operation, but I will just ask the Minister to make a declaration about the reports that are circulating about his attitude in the matter, and that he will promise that a thorough investigation will be inaugurated before he gives judgment.

I move—

as I wish to discuss the position of the dairy industry in the Union. When one considers the general position of the cattle industry it naturally presents itself from two aspects— the rearing of beef cattle and the dairying industry. I wish to deal especially with the latter. A very thorough investigation of that industry has been made by the Board of Trade, which has put out a very valuable report. To my mind, however, too much attention has been paid to marketing, organizing and generally the selling side of the industry, without fully investigating the necessity of and measures to be adopted in building up the industry itself. I do not want to say anything that would imply that there is no future for the dairy industry. I think, however, that the investigations made by the Board of Trade were from the point of view of an export market. We are looking to building up something which is going to take the place of the mining industry. We have to build up our subsidiary industries, and we look to the dairy industry to be one. From the export point of view, I say we have no dairy industry in South Africa, and we have to build up that industry from the very bottom. That seems a drastic statement to make. I want to take figures to show how the Union stands in relation to other exporting dairying countries, going back over the past ten years. From 1918 to 1927 we have exported £890,000 worth of butter. In those same years we have imported £646,000. It has been a very curious position. Each year we have exported a certain amount and generally imported an amount which almost balanced. We have had a glut of butter in autumn, and have sent accumulated stocks of butter overseas at that period of the year, and, unfortunately, butter has had to be brought back again in the scarce season of the following springs at a high price. It has been a very uneconomic condition of affairs. In ten years the balance of trade in our favour has been £244,000 worth of butter, a yearly average export of £24,000. Can we claim with that export to have a dairy industry worth talking about? There is something very wrong with the industry. Dealing with cheese, we have, during the same ten years, exported £230,000 worth and imported £269,000 worth—a balance of imports over exports of £39,000, or a yearly average balance of imports over exports of about £3,900. If you put the butter and cheese together, you will find our net export trade is worth £20,000 a year. We have conclusively proved that we can produce butter, cheese and bacon of quality second to none in the world. Three times has South Africa won the 1st Prize at the London Dairy Show, in competition with all the other dominions, with cheese made, I am proud to say, in my own district of Griqualand. South African bacon has taken the same high honours. So we need not be afraid of the future so far as the quality of our products is concerned. Let us look at the countries we are up against. Australia’s net export of dairy products annually is £12,000,000. New Zealand has only one-third the number of cattle that we have, and she is exporting £13,000,000 of dairy products annually. Canada is exporting £11,000,000 worth, and Holland, which dominates the position, is exporting £15,000,000 worth. Unfortunately, again, our figures show a steady decline in the last ten years. Out of our total of £891,000 exported in ten years we exported £258,000 worth in 1918, and £257,000 in 1921, so that over £500,000 out of £891,000 was exported in two years, and that about eight or nine years ago. Our exports show a steady decline since then. We are gradually going down hill in our dairy export. The reason must be looked into. We have in this country, broadly speaking, no dairy farmers and too few dairy cows. We have plenty of farmers running large herds of cattle who are milking cows and at the same time expecting those cows to rear a calf which will be for five or six years a trek ox and then will go for slaughter afterwards, but there are practically no farmers who are really specializing in dairy products as they do in other countries. We have got to have specialist production. To expect a cow to be a kind of machine, which will produce the trek ox, which will eventually be sold as the slaughter ox, and also whilst rearing her calf to give us milk, is only looking for trouble in the future. Another trouble is distance. Our farms are too big. We are dairying on 3,000-acre farms. Most farmers run sheep; milk production is a side-line. We have to get down to 50-acre and 100-acre farms, situated in close contiguity to the cheese manufactories and creameries where milk and cream can be delivered in half-an-hour or so to the factories in perfect condition. One creamery in Australia is dealing with more cream than the whole of one province of the Union puts out. To-day farmers are finding sheep more profitable and the cattle are gradually being reduced in numbers, though I hold that the quality is improving. We have too few dairy cows worthy of the name, and I want the country to realize the necessity for increasing the yields of our cattle. The average annual yield of a cow in Holland is 810 gallons of milk, in New Zealand about 500 gallons, and in South Africa rather less than 100. That is an impossible position. I think when we look at the position we realize that the whole foundations on which we have built our industry are wrong. When one takes the attitude I do, which, up to now, is destructive, it is only right one should be prepared to put forward something constructive. I suggest to the Minister that the first thing to do in regard to dairying is to bear in mind closer settlement This farming of dairy cows as a side-line to beef cattle and sheep farming is something we have to get rid of. We have to find out if we have country suitable for closer settlement for dairy purposes. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that we want a very close survey of the whole of the Union so as to find out which different portions of the Union can be most economically devoted to different farm products. Certain parts, I think, will always remain sheep districts. I hope that any attempt to improve the cattle position will not be done at the expense of the sheep industry. I believe that in South Africa we have got a unique position in the sheep world. We are producing a soft handling, fine quality wool which is without its superior—I was going to say without its equal, and had I done so, I do not think I should have exaggerated— that that which is produced by any other part of the world. South African wool in its fine spinning and handling qualities stands second to none in the world. I think it would be possible to run the two industries together, and when we think of our dairy export of about £20,0000 annually and our wool export of £17,000,000—and I think it could be raised to £30,000,000—one sees that the sheep industry is bound to be the biggest factor. But I think, when you come to look into the districts of this country, there are three areas which are going to present themselves to the Minister as having possibilities for future dairying, bearing in mind always closer settlement. The first area which appeals to me is the Western Province, and possibly here I am going to tread on the toes of one or two of the Western Province farmers. Old traditions die hard. Wheat-growing in the Western Province is an old tradition, but I am prepared to prove to this House that wheat-growing in the Western Province is one of the least profitable forms of farming. I have the statistics of production in South Africa, and I will take four districts of the Western Province in regard to wheat-growing. The average in Piquetberg per morgen is 4.8 bags, in Malmesbury just over 5, in Bredasdorp just over 6, and in Caledon very nearly 8, the all-over average "being slightly under 6 bags per morgen. This is being produced at a cost of from 14s. 11d. to 19s. 1d. per bag. From those figures it will be realized that the margin of profit is not a large one. When you look at the yields in other countries you will realize how uneconomical this wheat production is in the Western Province. The comparisons are made at per morgen for convenience. In Denmark it is 27 bags per morgen, in Holland 25, in Great Britain 20, and so on to Canada, where it is 10. We are a long way down at the bottom of the list, and I do believe that these farm lands of ours in the Western Province can be employed to a more profitable purpose than in wheat production. I firmly believe that most excellent pasture can be laid down where what is now grown; in fact, I have seen such pastures, and I believe that, laid down in grass with good dairy cows, and probably with a very payable side-line in rearing fat lambs for export, a much larger population can find its home on the land than it is carrying at present, and we should see a very much larger output of exportable products. I think there is far more scope for profitable production by way of dairying than in wheat production. The next area that suggests itself to me is the lucerne areas of the country. There you have ideal facilities for dairying; 25 acres of irrigated lucerne should go far to support a family. The third area is, I think, going to be the most important, and that is the coastal area, round George and up that way, and from East London right up almost to Zululand. There, I think, you have the dairying country of the future. You have country in that coastal belt which is perfectly useless for sheep. You have a wonderful climate, a wonderful rainfall, fertile soil, and every possibility of establishing a successful dairying industry. I believe if ever we build a dairying industry in this country it is going to be in those three areas. I want to point out to the Minister that, after we have surveyed the Union and decided which districts can support a real dairying industry, not carried on as a side line, I think the Government will have to start demonstration farms. They will have to start in each area which they reckon suitable, a farm and demonstrate the possibilities of producing butter and milk and other dairy products at costs which will prove the payability of dairying. If the Government decides to get to work in real earnest, then it has got to put its hands into its pocket. You have to encourage people to go on to the land and realize that a tremendous population which at present is going on to the railways, relief works and various dead-end occupations, and goes to swell the ranks of the poor whites, can be put on the land, on small plots, and there they can lead a healthier and far more prosperous existence than they do if we go on the lines that we are at present following. Then you come to the question of how you are going to settle these lands. That is where the Government has got to put its hand into its pocket. It has got to go in for the expropriation of the land. If the industry is worth establishing, we have got to go in and buy the ground.

Is that socialistic or not?

I do not call it socialism. I hope the Minister will not think I am talking socialism. That has been the policy in every other country.

Is that the South African party policy?

I am not bandying words with the hon. member in the corner now. I am trying to talk common sense. We do not get much common sense from him. Australia was in much the same position that we are in. She had big sheep farms and attention was turned to dairying. The Government took the bull by the horns in the suitable districts, they had to buy up the ground and sub-divide the farms and put the people on the land. That is the only policy by which it is going to be possible, in this country, to start a dairy industry. I made another statement, that we have very few good dairy cows. There is no short cut in producing dairy cattle. We have got to follow the old rule by getting the best bulls, milk recording and go step by step. One thing I want to say in this connection is a word of appreciation of the milk recording scheme which the dairy division is working on to-day. That is the one method, I think, which is going to lead to the evolution and selection of really good dairy cows. I want to put this to the Minister, that side by side with the testing, I think that the milk inspectors should be thoroughly qualified to instruct. Our milk testers should be in a position to give really sound advice as to the breeding and management, and especially of the feeding, of dairy cattle at the same time. We have to realize that the veld alone will not support a cow in full profit. On these lines we can do a good deal towards improving our dairy cattle. It is a lesson that other countries have had to learn. We have the object lesson of those countries. We have not to grope round in the dark for the right methods. The methods are all cut and dried, and you only have to follow them. If you had closer settlement, the Minister could do something in regard to subsidizing dairy bulls.

Are you going to subsidize other forms of farming also?

If we are going to build up a dairy industry, someone has to put his hand in his pocket to do it. I think it is only fair that the cattle farmers should bear their own share of the burden, and I think the subsidizing of bulls could come out of the levy. There is one other point. In every big town in the Union you have the finest dairy cows collected for the milk supply of the town. Every calf that these cows produce goes to waste. I say nothing about bull calves, but you are producing hundreds of beautiful heifer calves in these towns which are being slaughtered as vealers, and I think if we had some scheme of settlement there would be some way of saving these potentially valuable dairy cows. Once the cows are in the towns they and their progeny are lost to the country. At least we should see that the female progeny are reared. To go on to distribution, the big feature that strikes one in the Dairy Commission’s report is the cost of production in this country; not the cost of production of the raw material, but the cost of manufacture. When we realize that in Australia and New Zealand the cost of production is 2d. per 1b. of butter, apart from the price of the butter fat, and in this country the lowest cost of production is 4½d., and the highest is 9.7d., it shows that until we can get these costs down, it is absolutely impossible to attempt to build up an export dairy industry in this country; these costs have to be borne by the producer. You can only get 1s. for your butter fat, where Australia can pay 1s. 6d. for the same article. No wonder dairy farmers are saying that dairy farming does not pay. All the profits are going in the overhead charges of the creameries, and in the cost of manufacture. I would like to have a far more searching inquiry into these overhead costs than ever the Board of Trade has given us. There must be some reason which a business man could discover and criticize, and suggest improved methods. One cannot help feeling there is extravagance somewhere. We know that salaries are big. We know that one concern in Natal is paying its managing director £2,580 a year. It is more than a Cabinet Minister’s salary. One cannot help feeling that the same extravagance is going on from the top to the bottom, and I think it is on those lines that an investigation should be made in the future, because until you deal with that cost of production, it is going to be impossible to dream of exporting butter or building up a dairy industry at overhead costs of 9d. a 1b. The report of the Dairy Commission suggested a dairy board for the industry. I want the Minister to be very careful about the personnel of such a board. The suggestion was made that it should consist of two members from each province, one a representative of the producers and one of the creameries, but it is the creameries’ representatives I am afraid of in this country. I hold in my hand an agreement. I do not think it has ever been published. It was made in 1904 between the whole of the co-operative creameries, excluding Darling, and the Imperial Cold Storage. They marked out areas for each section, the creamery section and the monopolist section, each to have their area in which to trade. Not only did they bind themselves not to trade in one another’s areas, but they went further. The creameries lent themselves to an agreement, which reads as follows—

What does that mean? It means that the co-operative creameries have bound themselves that in one third of the Union if any creamery or any individual farmer dares to start in that area, which is confined to the Imperial Cold Storage, the other co-operative creameries are going to combine and crush them. That is not a state of affairs we should allow to exist in this country, and that is why I am afraid of the creameries getting too much power in the board which the Minister proposes to set up. Again, it lays down in this agreement that the two groups shall fix the maximum price to be paid for butter fat delivered at the depot, but any creamery may buy at lower prices, but shall not be entitled to quote a lower price for butter. The producer on the one hand can be ground down in the price he gets for his butter fat, and the consumer has to pay top prices for his butter. If the Minister does follow the advice of this meeting that was held, and a board is set up to control the dairy industry, then I say he should be most careful in whose hands he puts that power. When he said one representative is to be a creamery man and one a representative of the producers, he will find that the creamery ramifications and influences are so strong that the producers’ representative will in all probability be a nominee of the creameries. That is where the danger lies, and I advise the Minister to keep a very careful watch on the board which is to be set up. As to the general aspect as regards beef cattle, I do not look to-day on the position as being so acute as we farmers are rather inclined, perhaps, to feel it is, because, if any farmer looks round, he will see we are getting far better prices—

The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) does not agree with you.

The hon. member wants to improve the position, and I want to do so, too. To-day you can sell scrub and other cattle, provided that they are fat, at a much better price than you can hope to get in the oversea market.

I think the hon. member ought to confine himself to the motion he has made in regard to the dairy industry.

I will leave that if I am out of order. There is one point I want to make—cultivation of the ground for the growth of food for cattle in connection with dairies. In certain directions mechanical ploughing is not going to be economical for many years to come, and trek oxen are going to be the biggest factor on many of our farms for many years to come. There are 2,800,000 cattle, the property of natives, running in the native areas, and all sorts of bulls are being sent in and being used. They are gradually going backwards and becoming of less value. As we improve our dairy cattle so we are going to breed fewer and fewer trek oxen, and so the position with regard to these is going gradually to become more difficult, and I think the Government will be acting in the best interests of the country if they could encourage the breeding of Afrikander cattle in these native areas. The native likes sleek coated cattle, and in doing what I have suggested the Minister is not going against the predelictions of the natives. One could buy Afrikander bulls for £5 or £6 which would be very suitable to send to the native areas, and you would have a potential source of trek oxen which will be of the greatest value in the future. Instead of the native cattle going backward in quality and constitution and becoming of less value year by year, you would be building up a very valuable asset. Trek oxen will be the draught animals of this country for many years to come, and, for draught purposes, the Afrikander stands alone.

The hon. member is now discussing trek oxen.

In order to produce them you must have the ground, and I am trying to show

The hon. member will have another opportunity.

I will not enlarge on that, but will do so at a later stage.

I understand that the hon. member is discussing in a most interesting manner the dairy industry, and is now proposing to refer to the breeding of trek oxen which will plough the land for growing food for dairy cattle.

What an argument !

The whole tone of the argument is that the cattle should be bred in close areas and fed—;—

I think the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) knows he is going very, very far.

But the tattle must be fed.

I can deal with that subject later; but there is a great feeling amongst many people that the best type of cattle to breed is dual purpose cattle, and the Afrikander is dual purpose cattle. I think I will get the Minister’s sympathy. With regard to the proposed levies, I do believe you should have two separate levies, one for butter and one for cheese. We do not want a levy on the dairy industry as a whole.

There is no levy.

According to the report on the dairy industry that is the great point that is being made—the suggestion that a levy should be made—and if the Minister is going to take that advice, I ask him to have two separate boards, one working in connection with the cheese industry and making a levy on that entirely in the interests of cheese, and the other for the butter industry, otherwise we are going to have a clash of interests and one section against the other. I have endeavoured to put up something constructive, and to show what are the lines on which a successful dairy industry can be built up in South Africa.

I do not want to go into the speech of the last speaker, who wants the dairy farmers to be spoon-fed, but I want to ask the Minister about our maize production. As the Minister knows, the mealie farmers are in a pretty desperate condition, so hopeless that a previous speaker has already referred to compulsory co-operation. It seems impossible to me for compulsory co-operation to be the way of helping farmers, but something must be done. I should like the Minister to tell me what he proposes doing. The maize farmers must be assisted as much as possible. The price of maize is so low to-day that it is almost impossible to grow mealies at the price which can be got for them. I have had all the trouble possible in getting assistance. I went, from the Minister of Agriculture to the Railway Department, and I told them that help must be given; we do not want a penny we do not earn, but we want practical assistance such as we can expect from the Minister of Agriculture. We are right at the start of maize production in our country, because our eyes have only just opened as to how we ought to go to work, and how a great output can be obtained. We have learned that ploughing with oxen no longer pays. We can considerably increase our production. It is a small matter for an average farmer to produce 6,000 or 10,000 bags, but what are we going to do with all the mealies? The maize farmers’ difficulty is transport. I have sons who live 23 miles from the railway, and when they have harvested their maize, and have made three or four journeys with the oven to the railway the maize lies and rots there. I have spoken to the Railway Department, and told them they must reduce their rates, or that the customs duty on petrol for tractors should be reduced, but the one department passes it to the other. The Railway Department says it is impossible to reduce the rates. On the other hand it is said that the duty on petrol cannot be reduced, because then the shopkeepers will sell that petrol to natives who will burn it instead of ordinary paraffin, and that the mines also will use it. For these reasons the farmer has to suffer, because the greatest complications will arise if the farmer is to be assisted to produce mealies ad lib. The Minister of Agriculture can use his influence with the other departments to get assistance. I see that in Kenia, a young country, legislation was introduced recently under which the kind of petrol which is used by tractors is imported free of duty, and that the transport is done at the lowest possible rate. They apparently have a strong Minister there, and we hope that our strong Minister of Agriculture will use his iron hand and say to his colleagues: “It must be done.”

They are considering it now.

I received the reply that it was impossible to meet the maize farmers. I should be glad to learn from the Minister that is actually being done. The Minister of Railways is his colleague, and he can go to him and say: “You must assist because it is absolutely necessary”. I bave been going from one department to the other for the last three months, but they have not yet done anything. The maize production in the Transvaal will in future realize millions and millions, because the production will rise very much more. Where in the past we produced ten hags a morgen with difficulty, we, to-day, easily get 40 bags, and I think the production will increase muct more still. It is easy to produce maize, but we must have machinery for ploughing, for planting the mealies, for scuffling, thrashing, and ultimately for transport. The Minister of Railways said they did not intend to build many more branch lines, but that we should be assisted in the transport by means of tractors. I have had the greatest possible difficulty in getting a tractor, and now it is said that they cannot assist us, so that I have to send a letter to my constituents to say that nothing can be done for them to remove their mealies. I say the Minister of Agriculture must use his influence with the Minister of Railways. In that way, not only our maize farmers will receive assistance, but the railways will be made to pay with more traffic. I hope the Minister will give a clear answer, so that the country will know exactly what he proposes doing. It is worth while assisting the maize farmers, because their industry is one of the most important in our country.

I have much pleasure in supporting the remarks of the last speaker. During the budget debate I pointed out how essential it was that mechanical power should be utilized to the utmost for up-to-date methods of farming. The price of crude oil cannot be controlled by the State, but practical help could be given to the farmer by Government reducing the railway rates on fuel used for mechanical purposes. The cost of conveying a case of paraffin from the coast to the Rand is no less than 4s. 9d. I believe the Minister of Finance would like to assist the farmers, but finds there is a difficulty in regard to control. I do not think that difficulty is insuperable as crude oil can be obtained which is of use only for mechanical power purposes, so that would be one control. Another form of control would be that the farmer desirous of availing himself of the concession would have to show that his machinery was driven by mechanical power, and could supply, under oath, data showing how the crude oil or petrol had been used by him. It is of the utmost importance to farmers that the cast of mechanical power should be reduced. On the 17th ultimo the Minister of Agriculture made an important statement regarding n’gana and the tsetse fly to the effect that Dr. Claude Fuller had been carrying out investigations and had established the important fact that the tsetse fly was led to its quarry by the sense of smell, and not by the sense of sight, as was asserted by Mr. Harris after an investigation extending over six years. I at once assent to the proposition that where land is required for human habitation and where the presence of game makes the occupation of that land impossible or difficult, there is no question that game must give way. The hon. the Minister of Lands has lately sent a communication to the members of the National Parks Board, in which this very aspect of the case is raised. He refers to ranching stations which his department has on the Limpopo, west of Messina, and mentions experimenting with five breeds of cattle, and says it is impossible to do the work thoroughly owing to the incursions of zebra and wildebeeste, which have no regard for fences. In regard to this question of Nagana, I would like the Minister to pause before he takes any decisive steps, and to get the very fullest possible information in regard to this matter. This is a theme which one could discuss for hours. There is authority “pro” and “contra”, but I would like to quote to the Minister a few extracts from a report which was made by a Nyassaland planter, Mr. Rodney C. Wood. Mr. Wood noticed the absence of game in the Liwonde district, where fie had found game many years before, and he had noticed the apparent increase in the amount of tsetse fly. He discussed the matter with Capt. J. O’Brien, the district resident. Mr. Wood was interested in what Mr. O’Brien told him, and had correspondence with Mr. G. A. K. Marshall, Director of the Imperial Bureau of Entomology, and asked Mr. Marshall to be good enough to let Capt. O’Brien send him a report in regard to his investigations into Nagana in Nyassaland. I will read one or two passages, so that the hon. the Minister may see the danger of approaching this question without the fullest information and enquiry. Capt. O’Brien says that nothing but a total extermination of all life containing blood, including man, would cause the extermination of the tsetse. To Mr. Wood the really interesting feature of the report is that it seems to suggest somewhat conclusively that it is quite out of the question to exterminate tsetse in a district favourable to them as regards habitat, so long as bush pig, baboons, squirrels, and such small mammals remain in plenty despite the shooting off and harrying of large antelopes. He proceeds—

We know that an attack of the fly on man means that appalling malady—sleeping sickness. My knowledge may almost be superficial, but I have read what people having a right to speak say in regard to the subject, and I would ask the Minister to pause before he starts, or co-operates in, the destruction of big game anywhere and everywhere where there is tsetse. Even if what Dr. Fuller says is correct, and has findings are subject to serious doubt, that does not affect the vital question whether the extermination of game is going to do away with tsetse. There is abundant proof that tsetse lives on the blod of the smaller mammals and insects and on the blood of man. Species may he exterminated, and thereby irreparably carried to humanity at large.

I do not wish to support the motion of the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) to reduce the Minister’s salary by £500, because if there is one Minister who earns £500 extra, it is the present Minister of Agriculture. I notice provision on the estimates for seven or eight extension officials. I want to ask the Minister whether the number cannot be doubled. They undoubtedly do good work in the country. They are always experimenting with fertilizers and analyze the soil, and make suggestions to the farmers as to the mast profitable way to farm. A few years ago there was an official in my constituency who did good work, but just when the farmers were beginning to reap the fruits of it he was transferred to another place, and since then the department, notwithstanding all our applications, has not seen its way to send another such official to the south-western districts. I want to point out to the Minister that just there very good work can be done. The official at George has shown the people how they can actually double their produce simply by good fertilizing, but I would very much like experiments to be made in another direction, with kinds of grass. In Pretoria to-day, under favourable conditions, experiments are made with all kinds of grass. In the south-western districts the old kinds of grass are continually decreasing. The rhenoster bushes shoot up, and are continually burnt to destroy them. The result is that the old kinds of grass have virtually disappeared, but we have had good rains now, and it is, perhaps, possible to get certain grass to grow again. I want to ask if it is not possible to send for the officials to make experiments on one or two farms in every district to find out what the best varieties are. Conditions differ in each district, and what is good for one is not good for another. If this were done, we could increase the grass veld a hundredfold. If we go back and talk to the old people and hear what the bearing capacity of the district was 50 years ago and how it has degenerated, then we ask ourselves what the conditions will be like about 50 years hence. Then I am very glad that a change has been effected in connection with the experts on sheep and wool. Where these are concerned in the south-western districts we have, for the last three years, been put off. We have been trying for three years to get an expert, but yet have not complained. The experts seem chiefly to go to the big farms, where the farmers devote themselves to stud sheep, but the man who needs them, the small farmer, cannot obtain their services. I expect a great change now, and hope that the Minister will also send an expert to the south-western districts. The people there are ready to learn if they can only get the necessary expert advice, and the possibilities are tremendously big. I hope the Minister will not neglect us any longer.

The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) said that we had better abandon grain farming in the south-western districts and take up dairy farming, and that we had better make butter. Well, I just want to say to that that it would be better if he left it to the Western Province farmers to judge what the best methods were for them. He himself has frightened us because he told us that the costs of production were so high that at present dairy and cattle farming did not actually pay. I want, however, to tell the hon. member that wheat culture is not the only factor in the grain district. We produce barley and oats, and these things greatly depend on the climatic conditions. In some favourable years we reap as much as 30 bags of wheat for one bag, but when wheat is poor, barley produces 90 to 100 bags almost, or oats 30 to 40 bags, so that we are greatly dependent on circumstances. Then I want to tell the hon. member that the twofold way of farming, grain and sheep, suit each other very well. If we were to give up grain farming I fear we should not have much success with sheep farming. At present in the south-western districts we run one sheep per morgen, and we find that even with the development and the exploitation and the ploughing of the ground that are taking place we can still manage, because we have the stubble lands, and because we find when the old lands lie fallow for a year so much grass springs up that it helps us very much in feeding the sheep. I do not think that in my constituency that kind of farming will soon be abandoned, but what we do is to apply more scientific methods to grain farming. The German Potassium Syndicate of Cape Town have done much good. Their experts visit the farms gratis, of course, with the ultimate end of selling their wares, but they give expert advice, and we now find that, where we once required three bags of fertilizer for a bag of wheat, now, acting on their advice, it pays with six or seven bags of fertilizer. Gradually we are trying to develop grain farming scientifically. The hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) called the attention of the Minister to a very important point. He pointed out that the farmers were using more machinery, and if there was one thing necessary for grain farming in order to reduce costs it was that more use should be made of machinery. A grain farmer of any standing must keep thirty, forty, or even sixty mules and horses, who eat much fodder and need much attention. Our people, however, are buying more and more machinery, motor ploughs, motors for harrows and the like, and the Minister would be astonished at the quantity of oil and grease that is necessary to drive the machinery. The farmers in Caledon wrote direct to the Railway Department to meet us in the carriage of oil and grease, and a deputation of farmers recently called on me, and asked me to urge the Minister of Agriculture to use his influence with the Minister of Railways to get the rate on oil and petrol reduced. They wrote to the department, but we have so many classifications in the railway tariffs, and it is very difficult apparently to get any alteration made. I think, however, that the Minister only has to put his foot down and to say an attempt must be made to reduce the rate on the class of oil and petrol necessary for the development of farming. At present they can hardly pay the rates and buy the dear petrol. The hon. member for George (Mr. Brink) spoke about the wool industry in the south-west. I am not extraordinarily optimistic when I say that, in my opinion, Caledon, Bredasdorp, Swellendam, Riversdale and Mossel Bay are still pre-eminently the part of the country which has the greatest carrying capacity for wool sheep. Some of our farmers are already making great progress, and Riversdale particularly is a district exceptionally well suited to sheep. If experts can give advice in Riversdale it may yet become one of the best sheep districts of South Africa. We are commencing gradually to understand farming more and more. We thought in the south-west that nature always gave us sufficient rain, but now we also have had a set-back, and have had to feed sheep. We were forced by circumstances, and many farmers are now adopting the system of feeding sheep. I think that sheep farming is going to be one of our stand-bys, and that it has a great future before it. I notice the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan) nods concurringly. The Free State is a first class sheep country. Just compare it with the Transvaal, which is nearly twice as large. In the Transvaal there are about 3,000,000 sheep, and in the Free State 8,000,000 to 9,000,000. In our neighbourhood sheep farming will increase greatly, and I, therefore, appeal to the Minister to comply with the request of the hon. member for George, and to send again one or more experts to the south-west, so that they can give advice on sheep farming. It will pay the country well. Let the Minister give us stations where experiments can be made. They need not be made on a large scale, say, e.g., two stations where there are experts who can advise the farmers. Then undoubtedly great development will take place.

The hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) said that, the maize farmers were in a desperate state, and that something ought to be done for them. I think that what the farmers ought to do is to stand together and co-operate. That is the only way which I see open to the maize farmers in that direction. But, unfortunately, some hon. members who spoke before me gave the impression that they were not quite enthusiastic about co-operation in our country. I think the only section of the population who do not co-operate to-day is the farmers. I am glad that the Government has done much in the past in this respect, inasmuch as the Minister has given the impression that the Government will know how to continue helping the farmer to co-operate. Much is done in this connection in the Free State to-day. People are going about there to induce farmers to join up, so that co-operation may be a success. There are people who are doing a good deal in this way in the interests of co-operation, although they have not reaped much benefit from it yet, but they have laid a foundation and we must build on it, and if it ever is to be a success then we shall need the support of the Government. Nothing will come of co-operation if there are 20 per cent, co-operating, and 80 per cent, remaining outside. If it goes on in this way co-operation amongst farmers in our country is doomed. I ask any man who takes an interest in agriculture if he will look on at the farmers being ruined after all the sacrifices on behalf of co-operation. I do not think there is a single member who wishes that, and I believe the Minister also is on my side when I say that we can made co-operation amongst the farmers a success. There are people in the Free State who sacrifice their time to advance the interests of co-operation. There are many people who have suffered personal damage for the sake of co-operation, and have made great sacrifices for it. I am sorry to say that those people have not yet succeeded in their attempts.

What is the flaw?

The mistake is that so many people remain outside, and that the few willing persons have to bear the brunt. Those volunteers whom I call the voortrekkers in co-operation have already made tremendous sacrifices, and they say that in most cases they have not yet had any benefit, and we know that if there are 20 per cent, who are in favour and 80 per cent, against such a proposal (because I call those who stop outside opponents), that that 80 per cent, are not only engaged in ruining co-operation, but in cutting their own throats. That we all feel.

What do you suggest?

I suggest that if we do not get the assistance of the Government then co-operation amongst farmers will be a failure.

Mention the co-operation we ought to get.

The Minister gave the impression that if 75 per cent, of the farmers were willing to co-operate he would make co-operation obligatory. I say the Minister gave that impression. At any rate, the impression exists in the law that he will do so, and, therefore, the farmers there are very busy making propaganda for co-operation. I do not say to-day that it will be a success, but if the farmers do not see what is for their own good then no one can help them, and for this reason they must stand together. I agree with the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) that sheep farming is the most important thing for the farmer, and that we can depend on it. I am glad that we have a Minister of Agriculture who has shown that he has the interests of the farmer at heart. I think that he has done more than any of his predecessors. We can say to-day that scab is as good as eradicated; at any rate, in the Free State we can say that scab is a thing of the past. If the sheep farmers stand together scab will be entirely eradicated. I think it will not take many years if the co-operation is good. The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) spoke on cattle farming in the country to-day. I want to say this about cattle farming, that it is in a better position than it has been for years, as to prices. An hon. member on his own side, the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), plainly said that the cattle farmers got better prices to-day for fat cattle than ever before. I have made these remarks as a representative of cattle farmers, and of one of the largest maize-producing districts, and because the farmers have already sacrificed so much I appeal to the Minister to support that movement towards co-operation among the farmers more, so that it will succeed in South Africa.

We are all well aware that the Minister has sent a commission of two members to the Argentine for the purpose of investigating the cattle industry there, and we appreciate that very much, but I regret that the Minister has not published for the benefit of cattle breeders in general the terms of reference to that commission; for instance, with regard to what it has to inquire into with regard to the breeding of cattle, the system of farming and other points which will necessarily have to be investigated. If he had done so, we would have seen exactly the points which would be raised, and there might be some which have been omitted by the Minister in the terms of reference. I do not know whether he informed or instructed the commission to go into the question of railway transport, the killing of stock, the costs of production, and prices of stock in the Argentine generally. We are all waiting with great anxiety to hear what this report will be and to see exactly what the position there is compared with our position in the Union. I feel certain, with regard to one point, that we shall have a most emphatic statement, and that is that the Argentime farmers do not hesitate to spend enormous sums of money on the purchase of their bulls. We will hear that the Argentine looks for quality every time, and it is only by our looking to quality in our cattle that we shall be able to compete in the open world in the beef trade. We realize that our local trade is not sufficient; there is no question about it. The cattle industry to-day in South Africa is absolutely in the doldrums. For the last six or seven years at least it has been steadily going back. The first cause of this, I think, is the extraordinary, enormous increase in the number of cattle. During the past six or seven years it was something remarkable. We know it is largely due to our veterinary department having encouraged our farmers to go in for cattle dipping to destroy ticks. As the Minister is aware, there are certain tracts in our country which are well adapted for cattle farming, which, about 20 years ago, were unable to rear 85 per cent, of their calves, but to-day they are in the position of rearing 99 per cent. That enormous increase is very satisfactory in one sense, and we feel something is being done in the way of progress as regards numbers, but, unfortunately, all this time we have had no market. Our local trade is a comparatively small one, and it has been dependent for the last number of years to a very large extent on what is known as the “compound trade”. That has been invaluable to South African cattle farmers and has been a big boon to them, but I regret that with all that the market has not been one to encourage the improvement of our stock. So long as it was in fair condition the quality was not considered, so that market is a detriment to our cattle. That is the cause why to-day we are in the extraordinary position of having such an enormous number of cattle and no market to take away the surplus. It all hinges on the question of quality, and we will have to face that fact that we must improve our stock if we wish to take any part in the export trade, otherwise there is very little chance in future for our trade. There is no question we are learning to improve our stock by bitter experience. Although one hon. member referred to the fine price we got for our slaughter stock, that is largely due to having had a drought during the past few years and to slaughter stock havin been hard to obtain, but the ordinary stock of the country is at prices which do not pay the breeder. What is the remedy? It lies in the farmer himself. There is no question that the farmer must wake up to the fact that if he wants to breed cattle, he must breed a better type. The “compound trade” has done an enormous amount of harm. Although I recognize that we have a large number of well-bred cattle, it is only a small fraction of the total number, and when I look at the total number I see that the average animals are not as good as they were 25 years ago, because farmers, with the “compound market”, have been breeding anything. As long as it was a beast, they had a market for it. They did not take the same interest in breeding stock as they did 25 to 30 years ago, when a farmer selected a bull and bred a type of cattle of his own. There are many herds which showed that a man had taken some interest in the breeding, whereas to-day you see herds of every colour and type you can imagine. In old days a man was proud to rear a type or types which were a credit to him. There is no question that the compound trade has done an immense amount of harm in this direction. It is only by the bitter experience of not being able to dispose of our stock that farmers are turning their attention more to the keeping of pure-bred cattle. Our position in regard to prices is a very anomalous one. The export price in Queensland of the best primes is only equal to the price of compound and second class stock in this country, this showing that we shall have to breed at prices to compete with other countries in the markets of the world. We must not expect to obtain special prices for the meat we export. Owing to the drought, we are obtaining very high prices compared with those ruling a few years ago, but if we can improve our stock, I feel sure local prices will be maintained. The present serious position of the trade is also due, possibly, to another factor. During the last two-and-a-half years we have been unable to import cattle from England. The regulations which prevent that importation have done us a considerable amount of harm. [Time expired.]

I think that all members who represent agricultural districts, and also the majority in the country, agree with me when I thank the Minister for what he has done for agriculture in recent years. I think the country, as a whole, is much indebted to him for the interest he has shown in the farming industry. It is not necessary to go into detail, but I think we should be very ungrateful if we did not express our feelings about the personal interest the Minister has shown, especially in connection with the drought, and I want particularly to thank him for the consideration he showed to my constituency during that terrible time. When we listen to the speeches made here in connection with farming, and we hear that the Minister and Parliament are appealed to from all sides for assistance and contributions, then a certain amount of despondency assails us. We are all convinced that agriculture is one of the most important industries in our country, because it maintains so many people, and because its great production is an important source of revenue. I am convinced that for many generations our country will principally be an agricultural one. But, although the people who carry on the most important industry constantly apply to the Government for help, we still feel that, where that is so in every separate part of the farming industry, there must be a serious hitch and a defect in the industry, and that we have not the right in the circumstances to be always calling it the backbone of the country. If that is the case, that every separate section can only carry on with Government help, then we should be closer to the truth if we said that the industry was being spoon-fed, which is not the case. A request and a complaint have been made by the hon. members for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) and Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), and remarks were made by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk), and other hon. members, if not for more support, then at any rate for more active interference in the sub-divisions of agricultural industry. I do not for a moment want to be understood as thinking that the Minister is not giving his attention to the matter, but I think the best attention the Minister or the Government can give to the industry is to encourage the people to become self-dependent and independent. An industry which forms the backbone of the country must at least be self-dependent, and I think in this respect the Minister is doing a very great deal, because he is always, day and night, preaching co-operation as much as possible. I do not want to go into details, but even my small contributions assist in the encouragement, and especially refer to the wine industry in the Western Province, and also the fruit industry, and what has been done therein by co-operation. The people have removed by co-operation, and by putting their hands into their own pockets, what appeared to be insuperable difficulties. That applies to the wine farmers, the raisin farmers and the fruit farmers, and they achieved that under the lead of the Government and with the assistance of the department, but without actual State assistance. Wine farming is in such a strong position to-day that it can face considerable difficulties and the same applies to the raisin farmers, who, by co-operation, have succeeded in finding markets in spite of all the difficulties. I should like to have a little information from the Minister, firstly in connection with locusts. I want to know what the present position is. Disturbing reports recently appeared in the press about small hatchings out in parts of the Cape Province and Western Transvaal. We know how important the work was that the Agricultural Department did during the last few years, but we also know that there has been a great drought, which has prevented the hatching. We have, however, now had so much rain we must be prepared for contingencies. I do not think that we can assume that there is no danger in the immediate future. Then I want to ask what is being done with regard to investigations. We ought to have details in connection with the increase and the hatching out of locusts. Then I want to ask what the Minister thinks of the anxiety which has arisen in consequence of the reports of locusts in Southern Rhodesia. We also know that some time ago there were locusts in south-west, but British Bechuanaland and the Kalahari represent the greatest danger, and they are a danger to the farmers of the north-western part of the Cape Province. To obtain success, there must be co-operation between the various administrations in the Union, South-West, British Bechuanaland and Rhodesia, and I should like to know what has been attained in connection with such co-operation. Then I should like some information in connection with wine farming. I understand that an expert recently left the public service for a private undertaking. I am thinking of Dr. Perold, and I should like to know who has succeeded him. Then the Minister appointed a commission of enquiry this year in connection with the export of our wines, and I think that he recently mentioned that the report of the commission was nearly ready. I should like to know how far advanced it is, and, if it is completed, whether the Minister can give us information. We feel —and this is a matter which is often raised here—that we ought to develop our export of the best kind of wine, and the commission was appointed with that end in view. The Minister has also made enquiry into conditions with regard to phylloxera. I do not know whether the report is available, but I have not yet seen it. Then I find that the position with regard to adulteration is unsatisfactory. I have already called attention to the fact that one official is not enough for that important work. I now want to bring a few data from the report to the notice of the House, and make some inferences from them. Out of 416 samples of liquor taken it was found that 56 were adulterated, no less than 4 per cent. In connection with the 56 adulterations, 44 people, less than 80 per cent., were convicted. Out of 221 samples of brandy, 41 were adulterated, which works out at 18.55 per cent., and the convictions only amounted to 85 per cent. Of 113 samples of whisky, 11 were adulterated, that is 10 per cent. Six convictions took place, which is only 55 per cent. [Time limit.]

As the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) has been talking about wine farming, I want to continue and to bring certain points to the Minister’s notice. We feel in the wine farming areas that the Minister must do more for the man who is making investigations and experiments on the farms, and then issue a departmental report. The expert gives information about the right kind of vines that should be planted. In my district alone, as the result of selecting wrong vines, there are one and a quarter million vines which would not grow properly, and the farmer struggled to get to grow. The hon. member for Hopetown has already said something in connection with the resignation of Dr. Perold, who, we regret, is leaving the service. In this connection I would like to know where the Minister is getting a successor, and if he gets anybody we should like him to assure us that it will be the best man available, and not a school boy, but a man who has grown up in that department and has a knowledge of vines, so that he need not ask a farmer what vine it is, but will be able to enlighten the farmer, just as the Minister did in the matter of tobacco culture. I would like the Minister to give us a man who will be well paid, so that he will continue in office and can increase his knowledge so that we have someone who can teach us something, and not one to whom the farmer must give expert information. If there is a young wine farmer the expert ought to be able to tell him what to do, and what improvements to make. It is not so necessary for the old wine farmer, but the young man who has not always had the opportunity of going to the university to study. I notice the amount on the estimates for viticulture is £2,458. I think that wine farming is one of the greatest milch-cows the State has to fill its coffers, and that more can surely be expended for the purpose than that small sum. To come to tobacco culture. I complained last year that Mr. Pieter Kok had gone away. I was then told that it was necessary for him to go north. We then had Mr. Naudé. We had full confidence in him, especially the settlers, and he willingly assisted them every time they applied to him. Mr. Naudé has also been transferred to the north, and we now have Mr. Strydom. He is a smart young man, and, although he has not been there long, the farmers already have the fullest confidence in him, but how long are we going to keep him? I want to ask the Minister seriously, if he continues as he has done hitherto, whether he will let us keep him. He is still a young man, but even if he is young, he is still respected by farmers older than himself. It does not assist us much if the Minister cannot come to our help to give us a permanent official. If the expert thinks that he does not receive enough salary, let him be given a little more. If the Minister goes to the co-operative society it will certainly be prepared to help in bearing the expense. The Minister knows that the tobacco co-operative society at the Paarl sent its own man to Europe to study, and that they paid the expense so that, he could learn how to manufacture tobacco. The Minister knows that we are willing, and let him see that we retain the man we have. Now I want to add something with regard to veld fires. I have a letter here from the Banhoek Farmers’ Association. I hope the Minister knows what the position is there. The people live in between the mountains, and if there is not a fire from the east, then it comes from the west or north. The Minister must understand that the Stellenbosch mountains lie on the one side, and they are on other sides surrounded by the Drakenstein mountains and the Simonsberg, and if the fire does not come from one side they have to work day and night to fight it from another part of their farms. The letter I have received says that there is a serious danger from fires, and that the properties must be protected. They hope that concrete proposals will be made by associations, and the Minister will then take action. There is an old law that if a man has to burn his veld he must do it at his own expense. He must make a fire path, and see to it that, in any event, it is able, wherever the wind comes from, to stop the fire. If the Minister would only tighten up a little the laws we have we should make great progress.

I did not think when, I raised the question of mountain fires a little while ago that it would create so much interest, and I now find that even hon. members opposite are assisting me in this connection. This shows the seriousness of the matter, and I now want for the third time to appeal to the Minister to protect the natural resources of the country which are daily being ruined in a careless manner by mountain fires. Not only do the mountain streams run dry as the result of these fires, but when rain falls the water rushes to the sea and practically none of it remains. We have just had such an experience at Ladismith. We have suffered terribly there through mountain fires. We have just had two inches of rain, the mountain streams came down, but they only ran for two days and then stopped, and the water has disappeared. I know a place where there was always a natural spring of water, but the water has run away and the spring is empty, and the whole cause, in my opinion, is the periodical mountain fires and the places being burnt out. The Swartbergen frighten one now-a-days. There are black masses without vegetation. We are powerless. What must be done? The law is there and must be carried out. But here under the law there are regular mountain fires in Cape Town, and they cannot be stopped. The only solution, in my opinion, is for the people to be educated against mountain fires, and if that is done an end will be put to such, fires, and for the hundredth time I appeal to the Minister and hope to get his sympathy. I shall doubtless again have the opposition of the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst), who is not here at the moment, but he stands alone. I want to suggest that the Minister should get the co-operation of the Education Department, and that dodgers should be sent out to all the public schools in the country, and that it should be insisted on that the children be pointed out the injuries from, and the results of mountain fires, and the damage that is suffered, and also the penalties attaching to causing the fire. We must educate the young generation, and then we shall do something. The people must learn to protect the water. I want to suggest to the Minister that he should get into touch with the divisional councils, and that, with their co-operation, he should have notices put up along all the public roads and footpaths and also in hotels referring to the dangers from fires, and also to the relevant penalties. If the people feel that this House is dealing with the matter, they will themselves appreciate the importance more. Then there is another matter, and that is the killing of undergrowth by frost. Every year Ladismith suffers thousands of pounds of loss owing to that. Amongst our old people it was the custom to send smoke through the vineyards, and they think that it did good, although I do not quite know what the object was. I understand that in France and also in Germany there is a system of warming the top of the vineyard by pots of tar, or by lighting something, and I should like to ask the Minister whether his department cannot get information in connection with the system prevailing in the countries mentioned. In the first place, however, I wanted to call attention to mountain fires, and the Minister will still hear a good deal from me about it until something is done. I urge the education of the people.

When I sat down I was urging the necessity, as the only outlet for improving the cattle export trade of this country, of improving the quality of the cattle. That is the only hope and sheet-anchor we have to hang on to if we are going to find a market for the ever-increasing number of cattle in this country. In regard to the question of the improvement of cattle in this country, I feel the action of the department in regard to the quarantine of cattle from England, to avert the danger of foot and mouth disease being introduced into this country, while quite right and proper, I do feel that the department are to some extent to blame for having kept us cattle farmers in this country and the whole cattle industry hung up for two-and-a-half years over this question. I feel that the department, during that long period, ought certainly to have made arrangements for the quarantine of cattle in a manner which would have secured the safety of the industry in this country, and yet, at the same time, given the cattle breeders the opportunity of importing cattle, so as to improve the quality of the cattle in this country. For two-and-a-half years we have been waiting for an opportunity of importing cattle, and now, for two-and-a-half years, we have lost chances of hundreds of bulls and other stock being imported to effect what we realize is an absolute necessity in South Africa, and that is the improvement of our stock, and I do blame the department for not having arranged during that time to give us security of importation and for not giving us the opportunity long ago of being able to import cattle into this country. I just want to refer to another point. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture what are the arrangements with reference to sheep inspectors and wool experts in regard to their being allowed or not allowed to be sheep farmers or stud breeders themselves, because I realize that if they are sheep farming or stud breeding at the same time as they are doing the work of the department, it must put them in a very invidious position, a position which I feel is not, fair to them nor to the farmers among whom they are travelling to give advice on stock breeding. On that point I would like to have some information from the Minister, because it is not proper nor in the interests of the service than men should be in that position. Further, I would like to tell the Minister that I find there is a great deal of unrest and uncertainty in the agricultural service among the officers and men who are employed by the department, an uncertainty as to their tenure of office and how long they may remain without being given notice to leave, perhaps, on some pretext or other of reorganization. When we see, not only in the agricultural service, but in other services, men who are so loyal to their work and so interested in it, it is unfortunate that we should find men getting restless and uncertain as to their position.

It is so often said that the farmers run to the Government for everything, I want to say at once that I am the last to advocate that the Government should spoon-feed the farmers, but when I ask for something then I do so without the slightest hesitation, because I only do it when I am absolutely convinced that there is a great need. It is, however, quite a different thing if it is something to assist the farmers to develop the country, and I must honestly say that I have never yet heard of the merchants objecting to the farmers being assisted in developing the country because they feel at once that it is for the country’s benefit for it to be developed, that it means progress, and also more trade, and that it is in the interests of all. I will never go so far as the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) in the matter of cattle farming. He made a great point of the cattle farming in South Africa retrogressing. If the positions is not satisfactory then there is possibly something in the: country which prevents, progress.

I listened with great attention to the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat), because he undoubtedly is a great expert in cattle farming. He attributed the unfavourable position to the “compound” system in South Africa, which resulted in that kind of beef being used, and he says it contributes a great deaf to making cattle farming in the country what it is to-day. In my opinion, the retrogression is principally due to the continual droughts. It is enough to break the spirit of any man when he has built up a flock and has worked years and years at it, and it is then in a year of drought completely destroyed, and he loses his best stock. No wonder that the spirit is broken, no wonder cattle farming is going back, and when there is such a paying industry as the wool industry it goes without saying that the farmers change over to it, and that cattle farming then, of course, degenerates. I should like to bring a few points to the Minister’s notice, firstly in connection with the drought-stricken areas where so much stock dies. I want to express our thanks to the Minister for the assistance he rendered. It is certainly very encouraging for the Government in its efforts to help the people to see how well the public are assisting to-day, and helping the people together with the Government. The helpmekaar spirit is splendid. We see how the farmers in the Free State and Transvaal and parts of the Cape Province, where they are still stock alive, are rushing to help and to co-operate to provide the people with fresh sheep, while those who have no stock are providing money to buy sheep for the people. It must be very encouraging to the Government. I should like, however, to have a public statement by the Minister about a grievance mentioned to me. I heard it, and also saw it in the newspapers. Someone from a small village wrote to me in connection with the supply of seed, for instance, that the support in this connection will reach the farmers when the sowing time is passed. He says that the farmers have waited and waited to hear that the seed was coming, but that the department has, as far as he knows, not yet dealt with the applications for seed. If the Minister will only state what the position is, it will contribute a good deal to set the people at rest. They will then know whether they must buy seed themselves or whether the Government will be ready to help them.

Do you mean under the Drought Relief Act?

Then there is another point in connection with land bank loans in drought-stricken areas. There the people came to the front and said that people ought to be assisted by the Minister adding this year’s interest to the capital, so that they will not be called upon to pay before 1929. I do not at all wish to approve of that, but I think that a public statement by the Minister about the loans will contribute much to make people easy. There are other points, in connection with irrigation. They are important, but I will raise them when the Irrigation Vote comes up.

I just want to say a few words about compulsory co-operation, which the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) has referred to. There is a movement on foot in the Transvaal. I do not know whether the Minister is opposed to it, but it has been going on for quite a time. Petitions are being sent round to get two-thirds of the people to sign in favour of compulsory co-operation. I have met large farmers and they have also visited farmers to get them to sign. They had intended to come to Cape Town, but I told them not to do so, and we would try and put things in order. They said that if they were forced by the other people to put their produce into the hands of third persons that maize farming would suffer considerable damage. They pointed out that the petitions were being signed by a large number of small farmers who possibly produce from 50 to 100 bags, and that in that way they would possibly be forced to come under compulsory co-operation. I should like to know what the Minister thinks about the large farmers being forced into compulsory co-operation in this way. Then there is another point. We were notified a little while ago by the Agricultural Department that the oversea market for certain kinds of mealies was very unfavourable, and that the farmers were suffering very much in consequence. The department suggested that certain kinds of mealies could be planted which would assure our retaining the foreign market, and I should like to know from the Minister whether steps have been taken to cultivate those kinds of mealies on experimental farms. In our parts the mealie farmers are having a bad time. The people do their utmost to grow the earliest mealies to catch the market, and the Agricultural Department warns them against it, and says that it will spoil the market. I should like the Minister to say what the position is, and that the department will thoroughly investigate the matter and enquire what kind of mealies ought to be grown for the overseas market. The circumstances, however, are such that we must get mealies which can ripen in five months. There is yet another point. I have noticed that a great change is taking place in farming. People are now adopting machinery. I saw recently that in my neighbourhood alone certainly about eight or ten people had bought motor lorries. They find great difficulty otherwise in taking their mealies to the station, and they therefore buy many such things. They also go in for motors for ploughing and for other work. It does not pay any more to produce mealies by hand, and the farmers are now resorting to machinery. I, therefore, think the Minister should consider how the farmers can get oil and petrol for their machinery as cheaply as possible. The Government can assist very much in this matter. The Minister knows, just as well as I, that mealie farming will show great profit. The people make their living out of it, and then the best methods have still to be applied. In conclusion, I want to say something about the packing of our wool. I see from the newspapers that our wool is being injured on the foreign market by some people because they pack badly and put wrong wool into bales. It will be a dangerous matter for the wool farmers pack their wool fradulently, alike. I see that certain places are being mentioned, and that it is said that certain wool farmers who pack their wool fraudulently. We must prevent its being said that the wool farmers pack their wool fraudulently. Certain mistakes are made in packing which must be prevented if we want South African wool to maintain its good name. I hope the responsible people will give their attention to it. I want to emphasize that the whole wool industry of South Africa will be damaged if certain persons pack their wool fraudulently. I have not criticized this afternoon, because the Minister says I always criticize, but I have not done so this time.

I am never afraid of criticism.

I did not want to criticize, but only to make certain suggestions.

I just want to bring a few points to the notice of the House. The first is in connection with a deputation of tobacco farmers which waited on the Minister to get protection against the importation of tobacco from Swaziland and Rhodesia. We gave figures, and if the Minister went into them he must certainly have come to the conclusion that the Union tobacco farmers are actually threatened by importation from neighbouring states. The Minister promised to make enquiries, and that certain steps would be taken by the Government to meet us in our difficulties, and I hope he will now be able to say what is going to be done in that direction.

What did I promise?

The Minister promised to investigate the matter.

That is another matter.

And then he told us that the Government intended to take steps when the result of the enquiry was known. I now want to ask whether the Government did make enquiries, and what their intentions are. I have repeatedly brought the position of the tobacco farmers to the notice of the Government, and I do not doubt that the Government, if it goes into the matter properly, will take the necessary steps, possibly in the same way as in connection with cattle farming. Then I want to ask the Minister in connection with tobacco what he intends doing about an expert. I have myself made representations to the department, that instead of sending another tobacco expert, they possibly send us someone who is a soil expert who has experience of soil, and also of horticulture. The people are now busy planting vines and fruit trees, and I want to ask the Minister if he cannot send someone who can give them the assistance they need in that connection. He can possibly send somebody who can give advice about vines and fruit trees, and who can also make experiments with tobacco. I want to remind the Minister of his promise to give us an experimental plot. He promised it, but on account of the heavy hand of the Minister of Finance on the purse, he could not fulfil it. I do not want to quarrel about it, but I only hope that we shall get somebody who can advise us in connection with the planting of vines and fruit trees, and possibly he can send somebody who at the same time can start carrying out the idea of an experimental plot in Oudtshoorn. I hope the Minister will give the necessary assistance. I also want to support the appeal of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) to the Minister for the Agricultural Department to exercise pressure on the Railway Department for cheaper rates for oil used in connection with agriculture. I think, if the rates can be made cheaper, many farmers in the interior who to-day see no chance of irrigating, will have an opportunity to start it, which will benefit those parts of the country. Then I also want to support the appeal to the Minister to see what can be done about veld fires in the Cape Province. We know that our mountains ought to be the natural reservoirs of water, but they are now being destroyed, and after the fires they are like corrugated iron roofs, off which when it rains the water runs as quickly as possible to the sea. Instead of protecting and improving the water supply, We find that it is destroyed, and the water is not conserved. The position deserves serious consideration, and the Minister ought to see if no steps to improve it can be taken. Possibly the Minister can discuss the matter with the Provincial Council, and steps may be taken to establish mountain clubs following the example of the jackal clubs established in the past, so that when mountain fires take place members can be called up to put them out. Then possibly the persons causing the fires will also be arrested, and in that way the continual fires that take place in our veld can be prevented. I want to appeal to the Minister to think seriously about it, because there are parts where mountain fires destroy the natural grazing ground.

Where are those parts?

If the hon. member knew more about the matter he would advise the Riversdale farmers to use the match less and the plough more. I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot induce his department to give more attention to the kinds of grain that ought to be planted. We have hitherto, I think, given too little attention in South Africa to grain growing, especially wheat growing. I think we ought to go to work more scientifically in this connection, so that we can grow enough wheat, and not need to import it any more. An Australian, well acquainted with wheat farming, said that the methods in South Africa were very primitive, and I want to urge, as I have already done before, that steps should be taken to teach the grain farmers, as in the past the wine farmers were taught, the best methods. I think the Minister should make an adequate amount available every year to send a few of our young men to Canada and Australia to study wheat culture, so that when they come back they can instruct our people on the best and newest methods of growing wheat. [Time expired.]

I should like to support the hon. member for Betha’. (Lt-.Col. F. S. Grobler) in what he said about the packing of wool. Undoubtedly it is a serious matter. Much can be done to enlighten the farmers on the proper method of packing, but it is usually persons who are indifferent to the interests of South Africa who deliver fraudulently packed wool. It is undoubtedly a serious position, and I quite agree with the hon. member, that the farmer who acts in such a way ought to be punished. I am very sorry that we have to discuss the irrigation policy of the Government under this vote. I say it is a great pity that irrigation comes under the Minister of Agriculture. Irrigation is an important matter which requires the sole attention of one Minister, and I am sorry it comes under the Minister who has more than enough to do with his own department.

Do you suggest a twelfth Minister?

No, I do not want a twelfth Minister at all, but I feel sorry for the Minister, as he is burdened with too much work; I think there are Ministers who have less to do than the Minister of Agriculture, like the Minister of Defence, but the difficulty is that we cannot give that kind of work to the Minister of Defence. Irrigation requires serious study, and the Minister will agree that he is at the head of the department which is itself a difficult one. I am sorry that the Irrigation Department was transferred during the past year from one Minister to the other. First the Minister of Justice was at the head of it, and to-day it is the Minister of Agriculture. The Department of Lands follows a certain policy and the Irrigation Department a different one. The Chairman of the Land Board said that the irrigation works are of no account, and, on the other hand you have the Irrigation Department which is owing large sums, and which of course says that irrigation works are useful. I think that if the department cannot come under the Minister of Agriculture, it will be better for it to come under the control of the Minister of Lands.

He also has much work.

I agree with the hon. member, but the work is more of the same kind. Now I want to say a few words in connection with schemes for the future. The Minister will agree that experience in the past has not always been favourable, so that we must be very careful in future. I think we have learnt one thing in the past, namely that if irrigation works are undertaken in future, the Government must first acquire the ground. Then speculation will be eliminated, and the scheme will be carried out on a much cheaper basis. I should like to see that the cost of the irrigation work be first added to the price, and the ground then sold. Then the people can pay a certain amount a year for redemption and interest, and if anyone does not succeed and does not pay the purchase price, then he has to leave the place. We have had experience in the past and I should like to see our irrigation works put on a sound basis in future. It would be much cheaper if the total cost of the irrigation works were added to the cost of the ground, and it were then decided what the ground could carry. It would be much better than to have continual writing off as is the case to-day. If we know at once that certain ground will not cost more than a definite sum, then we can say what burden it can carry. I think that the Government will remove many of the difficulties of the past if they tackle irrigation works in this way in future. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider my points about the control of the Irrigation Department and its policy. The Minister is in charge of a department which in itself demands his full time. It concerns our future that care should be taken that the water should not run to the sea as at present. It concerns our future that we conserve the water of our rivers, and if irrigation works are constructed on the lines I have suggested we shall find that they are payable. Then there is another question I want to discuss, namely soil erosion. Undoubtedly it is one of the most important questions in our country. I think if the Minister makes enquiries he will possibly find that it does not rain less than formerly, but the water runs off the faster. I think that the soil erosion is not a matter affecting the farmers only, but that it is a national question. I do not want the State to spend money on this object, but that strong propaganda should be made in connection with the matter, and that remedies against erosion should be suggested. It will cost nothing, because the Minister has irrigation officials, and he can appoint one man or a couple to enquire into all the possible ways, of preventing erosion.

I agree with what was said in connection with the wool fraud at Wakkerstroom. When one farmer does such a thing, all suffer in consequence. Our wool has a good name, and I think it is wrong to spoil that name, but I really rose to speak about veld fires. The hon. member for Ladismith (Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl) knows about as much of my district as a small dog about religion. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) said that if I had more experience I would use the plough more than the match. I want to ask him how he is going to plough mountains. He has always had to do with lucerne and other things, but be has never yet farmed with merino sheep. The hon. member says that I have no experience, but he is very young still. Some of his ideas are good, but he has a lot to learn. He says that the farmers want an expert for planting fruit trees. The farmers who are as well informed as the hon. member do not even know how to plant fruit trees. He also wants them to be taught how to plant vines. I can understand his wanting them to get advice in connection with packing and finding the market when the vines are planted, but I cannot understand what enlightenment he wants in connection with the planting of vines. Let me tell the hon. member that if the farmers in Riversdale had no mountain fires they could not farm with merino sheep. Where are the slaughter sheep to come from that they need? The purchasers come to us along the mountains to get the best slaughter sheep, some hon. member says that the beautiful flowers must be conserved, and the natural beauties. The veld only burns once in five years. Before it is five years old it will not burn, and on the very places where the veld has been burnt the prettiest flowers grow. Hon. members say that there is no water if the veld is burned. Last year the greatest mountain fire that we have had for years took place, and the agricultural farms in my district got sufficient water. The Minister knows it. The ground can be ploughed if it is burned, but if there are bushes then the plough jumps out of the ground and the soil breaks into clods. Let the hon. members for Ladismith and Oudtshoorn enquire in their districts, but with us circumstances require the burning of the mountain. It is the municipalities who are shouting so much about fires, but they know nothing about the matter. Let them give their attention to electric light and the streets and allow the farmers to decide what is for their own good.

I am certain that the committee is very much indebted to the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) for his speech. We have learnt a good deal as to when the flowers bloom the best, and when not. We are very grateful, but I really rise to ask the Minister if it is not possible to provide a boarding establishment for young ladies at the agricultural school at Glen. Yes, it is much needed in the Free State. We appreciate that courses have been instituted which are very useful to the young girls in the Free State, but we feel that there is an injustice. Provision is in fact made for the boys, and very good provision too, but for our farm daughters who will subsequently be the, mothers of our country, no provision is made. They ought to have an opportunity to get a proper training in house-keeping. Resolutions have been passed at congresses in favour of this, and I hope the Minister will shortly provide the needful. I should also like to know whether the Irrigation Commission has yet reported on all the schemes they have inspected. I particularly want to know whether the commission has as yet inspected the irrigation works at Kromellenboog at Bloemhof, and whether they make any recommendations about it. It is a very urgent matter. Parliament in 1924 approved of the building of a bridge over the Vaal river at Bloemhof, but just when the Minister of Public Works wanted to start the construction, the Minister of Irrigation stopped him. The Minister said that he wanted to construct a large scheme at Kromellenboog, and if it went through, then the bridge would be ten foot under water. I understand the irrigation works will cost £8,000,000 to £10,000,000. I do not know whether the Minister intends to recommend the work, but if he gives us to understand that he does not intend carrying out the work, then we have the right to ask for the construction of the bridge. The bridge is of great importance to my constituency, which is far removed from the railway, and the only connection will be a bridge near Bloemhof.

The hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) attacked me because I told him that I intended to answer him, and that he should remain here, but now he has again gone out. The hon. member has acquired notoriety in Parliament as the supporter of one of the greatest evils of our country, namely mountain fires. I must warn him about it. After I spoke on the subject last time, I received quite a number of letters agreeing with me, and I have letters from Riversdale people complaining about mountain fires, and thanking me for the attitude I took up. It is not right of the hon. member to take up such an attitude. He is not doing his constituents a service by it, nor his district. I am certain that the hon. member has not the sympathy of Parliament, and that not a single member will support him.

We have just come through a terrible drought, which has had the most distressing effects on the whole of the country. I should like to ask the Minister whether any systematic attention is being paid to the question of trying to solve the problems connected with drought, One knows perfectly well that we cannot control the rainfall, but there are many ways, it seems to us, in which the evils of the drought can be minimized. Every man in this country, whether he is a farmer or not, has the greatest concern and interest in this wide question, which is one of the biggest questions affecting agriculture in this country. If we come to think of it, it was estimated in evidence given before the Drought Commission which reported in 1922 and 1923 that the losses in 1919 were. £16,000,000 by drought alone, besides indirect losses, and we can see the enormous effect of that on every trade, profession and business throughout the country. During my lifetime, I think I am right in saying, there has been one great, bad drought in every decade, which has caused enormous losses, and besides that, there have been a number of minor droughts which have caused great losses to the farmers in the particular areas concerned. Every time a drought comes the Government gives—and necessarily has to give—a great amount of money to come to the relief of those who have suffered. The private losses, direct and indirect, are immense; but when the drought is over and the floods come, we are all overjoyed at the new turn of prosperity which has come, and it seems we fold our hands and forget entirely the losses occasioned to many of us through the drought. I do not for a moment suggest that the Government should do anything in the nature of the impossible, but we had a most important report presented to the country in 1922-’23 by the Drought Commission, a body of men who are typically representative of the best interests and knowledge available at the time for the purpose of that inquiry, and I think the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) will agree with me. There was on interim report in 1922 and a final report in 1923. To a layman that report is brimful of interesting suggestions. What policy is being pursued? In that report, while they recognize the inevitable, they also recognize that man can take steps which, to a large extent, would minimize the evils caused by a drought. I am told, however, that very few farmers know of this report.

How is that possible?

There are large numbers who never read it.

I was told so by a farmer. But do not let the hon. member think that I am making an attack.

Perhaps the hon. member did not know the report has been distributed.

I am informed that large numbers of farmers have not seen that report. I am not making an attack, but approaching the matter in a serious way.

On a point of explanation, I did not for one moment insinuate that the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) is making an attack, but I was giving the information that this report of the Drought Commission had been distributed all over the country.

There is no attack, but I want to draw attention to what was pointed out in the interim report—that the diminished capacity of the country to hold the rain that does fall has been caused by the deterioration of the protecting vegetable cover and by soil erosion. The commission reported that enormous tracts of country have been denuded of their vegetation with the result that rivers, water-holes, and so forth have dried up and disappeared. According to the commission the rainfall of the country has not altered or diminished, but it is of a far less economic value. One of the most serious statements in the report is contained in paragraph 29, which alleges that as a result of the conditions created by white civilization the power of the surface of the land to hold up water has been diminished and the canals by which water reaches the sea have been enlarged. My view, as a layman, is that white civilization will have to put its best foot forward to refute this charge. Bad veld management is often referred to as the cause of drought. I came to this House in 1915, when I saw a great deal of the late Mr. Bradfield, who was one of my constituents. The country owes a great debt of gratitude to him for his persistence and energy in drawing attention to the dangers we are likely to encounter from soil erosion. At that time he was regarded as a fanatic, but to-day it is recognized that he was a prophet. The two great points the commission made are bad veld management and soil erosion. I feel strongly with the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) as to soil erosion, but he is not the first to suggest that someone should be engaged to devote his special attention to this highly important subject. The commission commenced its report by referring to the difficulty of getting scientific and expert witnesses to give evidence, because on previous occasions valuable reports were pigeonholed. Some of the commission’s recommendations the Minister should bear strongly in mind. The commission recommend that a reclamation officer should be appointed to co-ordinate the work of the Agricultural Department so far as reclamation is concerned, and who should, by propaganda in the districts, instil in them, not only the necessity for dealing with soil erosion, but take steps to experiment in different districts in the best ways in which soil erosion can be checked. You would have one man then concentrating his attention on one of the biggest problems in this country, finding out the best means of dealing with it, and persuading people to adopt them. One of the greatest things we want is propaganda. Take one minor recommendation made by this commission, that all work done, and costs incurred by a farmer in dealing with soil erosion, should be treated as costs which they are entitled to deduct for purposes of income tax. It seems to me it is a thoroughly justifiable proposition. In that way, the commission feels quite sure that many farmers will be encouraged to tackle the problem. Take the question of veld management. Far be it from me to say how, over-grazing, over-stocking, or anything of that kind is going to be properly dealt with. My point is that the commission was so strongly impressed by what it called the bad management and bad treatment of the veld, that it suggested that the department should make a systematic effort, and should have systematic experiments and inquiries made in order to find out how best to deal with the problem of over-stocking and over-grazing. There is one form of that in which, I think, anyone who is not a farmer can take very great steps.

The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) will be surprised at my congratulating him on his speech, because it was not a combative speech. In the past, he has made the strongest attacks in his speeches, but this afternoon I must congratulate him. I just want to tell him what he possibly does not know, that the report of the Drought Commission has been distributed throughout the country, and now it is out of print it is appearing in the issues of the “Boerdery in Suid-Afrika.” The report gives many interesting details, and the farmer will certainly make use of them, but there is no doubt that irrigation has been treated as a step-child in the past. The trouble is that the Irrigation Department has been in charge of various Ministers, and however much the Opposition may criticize the expenditure on it, one thing is certain, namely, that the Cabinet must in future appoint a Minister to assume charge of the Department of Irrigation to make a success of it. The rivers of South Africa must be dammed up, certainly. The tide of success in farming depends on the water supply, and every effort must be made to dam up the rivers. I know that the Minister of Lands and the Minister of Agriculture have very big votes, and that it is impossible to give irrigation the requisite and necessary attention. Perhaps the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) does not know that a select committee sat for weeks with entirely one idea, namely to write down the irrigation works. I think that gradually an end must be put to that, and we ought to make every effort to make a success of irrigation. There was such a terrible failure in the past that it may even be necessary to introduce legislation to make it obligatory to dam up sluits and spruits in South Africa. In any case a full time Minister is required for all that work. That is, however, not the chief point I want to talk about, which is the fraudulent packing of wool. A terrible fuss has been made about the fraud with the wool that was sent to Durban for public auction. The fuss was so great that not only all the South African newspapers, but also those of England and elsewhere, had reports about it. I saw in the English papers that if one of the wool buyers had not by chance cut open all the bales from top to bottom in Durban, he would have lost £8 per bale if he had bought them. We do not deny that fraudulent packing occurs, but it is a great pity that the buyers in that instance did not stand to their guns. They ought to stand together, and a man who does that kind of thing ought to be branded and exposed. But that fraudulent packing was not at all fraudulent. The wool buyers carefully examined the wool, and what did they find after the great fuss that was made? I have a letter here which was published, and which was sent to the “Bradford Wool Record,” in which the Wool Buyers’ Association says that after careful enquiry, it appeared that a number of fat fleeces ought really to have been kept out, but that there was no reason for the big charge. What damage have not the wool farmers as a whole suffered in connection with that complaint? I think it is the duty of the newspapers who published that complaint to withdraw their statements, or to publish who reported the matter to them. I am glad the Government is doing propaganda work. People can learn how to pack wool at the agricultural courses, and anyone who understands wool can learn to pack it in an expert way in eight days. I am, however, disappointed that in this connection the Agricultural Vote has not been increased by thousands of pounds for experts of that kind, but on the contrary has been decreased. However the Opposition might criticize it was still the Minister’s duty to make a good sum available for experts to advise the farmers in connection with the packing of our wool, which has attained such a great reputation, and which is now considered as the best fine wool in the world. I am also disappointed that the experts of the Agricultural Department cannot get clarity about certain sheep diseases, like the paralysis tick and the yellow dikkop sickness. They do not yet know what it is, and all they advise is to segregate the infected sheep and take them to a different part of the farm. That is impossible, because the farms are full, and they ought to find means of preventing the diseases. Thousands of sheep die from the yellow dikkop-sickness, and the farmers have a certain remedy against it in some parts which the department ought to investigate. I want to insist, not only on the increase of the vote for experts, but also that care should be taken, as argued by the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), by giving a grant for bulls. While the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) was in office I asked a question in this House whether the Government intended to keep control of sheep breeding in the future, especially over the sale of rams. Experts alone are not sufficient. We ought to guard against losing the reputation that South Africa has for sheep breeding. Just another point, in connection with the price fixed for the purchase of stock under the Emergency Loan Act. Everyone of us admits that some of the sheep that are called wool sheep do not deserve the name, that there are Angora goats which ought not to be called by that name, because they ought to be slaughter sheep and every farmer, however poor, will be prepared to pay three times the price if he can get a good sheep. The board which is to be appointed in connection with the purchase of stock consists of an expert and experienced farmers. Let them decide what are good sheep and let them buy cattle of high grade, without the price being laid down so that the farmers who get the sheep shall not buy slaughter sheep, but sheep they can be proud of. If a farmer gets £300 then it is better to buy 100 sheep of good quality than 300 of inferior quality. We get sheep that produce 25 to 30 pounds of wool, as against an average quantity of four or five pounds in the past.

Where are they to be got?

I wonder.

I thought the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) was a wool farmer. I become very sorry for the country, and especially for Riversdale if we are to follow the policy of its representative with regard to veld fires. I think the Minister ought not to fix the price. The sheep ought not to be bought from speculators, but at places where the best class of sheep can be got.

I always listen with pleasure to the speeches of the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson). I take it that as a rule he speaks as a party member of the South African party. I am sorry to hear him on behalf of the party saying he was in favour of the expropriation of our land. The South African party is going a long way when it asks the Government to expropriate land in this country.

Pure assumption.

I asked the hon. member at the time, and he repeated it, that he favoured expropriation of land. I want to congratulate the Minister on a most efficient department. I think the Agricultural Department to-day is more efficient than it ever has been since Union. I am pleased this Department is being mostly run by South Africans. I feel the majority of farmers do not recognize what a very efficient Agricultural Department we have, and they do not make enough use of the department. I understand the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) rather criticized the department. I am not in the habit of saying things that are kind to Ministers, but I say this, the present Minister is the best agricultural Minister we have had. He has made good, and it is only fair that we who live on farms and who represent farmers should say so, and I would like to publicly say so, as far as farmers of the Free State are concerned. I can speak for large numbers in the Free State, and they are absolutely satisfied with the present Minister. Where this country at one time was all scab, his efficient department has to-day almost rooted out scab. There is no doubt about it. The agricultural department has a grip on the scab position in South Africa. There are thousands of South African party farmers who to-day will tell you they would rather have this Minister than any other. They will vote against the Minister and his party from the party point of view. The Minister made a change and was laughed at by the Opposition, particularly by hon. members for Natal, on the question of scab; now he has delivered the goods, and there is no scab in the Free State (Interruption). Those hon. members may laugh, but certain farmers of my district do not know what scab is—they have never seen it. I am sorry to hear there is still a little scab in Natal; the time is coming when the other provinces will have to import a few scabby sheep from Natal to show our young men what scab is. Natal will come right too. Then take the question of locusts; a few years ago the Minister was told that it was pure luck. He has tackled the locust question like a soldier tackles his opponent. He sent men deep into the desert. I can understand some hon. members would like to see a swarm of locusts, to sneer at the Minister. Hon. members from Natal need not laugh; I do not think they saw a swarm of locusts in their life; but where we have to fight locusts no Minister has done more for us in removing this menace than has been done in the past for a long time. An hon. member talks about a flying swarm eating the wheat crops. We know that there will be sporadic swarms for a long time. Our danger was in the desert, to which the Minister has sent his men—and Dr. Mally has found no swarms. I want to thank the Minister for the publication he has issued—-“Farming in South Africa.” I have read every issue that has come out—every line of it—and it is the best thing the Agricultural Department has issued. I only wish the Minister to get it into the hands of every farmer. I ask him to take his courage in his hands and issue it free. He will be up against vested interests and newspaper interests, who will say the Minister ought not issue it free; but he should take no notice of them. He will get sufficient advertisements to make it pay. The Minister is also to be thanked, and I want to thank the men of the department, for the way in which they are handling the agricultural schools. I have Glen; I look upon it as the best agricultural school in South Africa. I ask him to enlarge it so that the girls and women of the Free State can have a larger opportunity than to-day. I want to ask the Minister how the cow-testing scheme is getting on. In my particular part of the country it does not seem to be as widely used by the farmers as it should be. Perhaps the Minister will do a little more for fruit-growing in the Free State. People of the Western Province may laugh; but the time is coming when the eastern portions of the Free State will produce as much fruit as any other part of South Africa. To-day the Heilbron district is producing apples equal to those produced in any other part of South Africa, With regard to Hoopstad, it seems it is coming into its own at last, and the Government will find that trees can be grown there as well as anywhere in South Africa, and there is a fortune for anybody that can do it. This is another point which I bring up every year, and every Minister of Agriculture says he will look into it—the selection of bulls. Nobody should use a bull in South Africa unless it has been passed by the Agricultural Department. It has been done in other countries. To day any farmer can use any bull for a sire, and we are not getting much further. With regard fo erosion of the soil, if there is any department responsible to-day it is the railways. I am very glad to hear the speech of of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), but it is a most difficult thing to stop erosion on your farms; it takes years, and costs a lot of money—it takes much money to fill in a donga. I think the Government should point out to farmers how and why this erosion is taking place. I do not want the Government to do the work, but stock inspectors and cow-testers could inform the farmers. A number of farmers have not read that wonderful report which has been referred to, although it has appeared in “Farming in South Africa.” It is not the Minister’s fault that these farmers have not read it, and I hope in time it will come on the farms. I hope the Minister will not take the advice which has been given to him with regard to irrigation, and that he will go slower. There is far too much money wasted in that. South Africa is carrying the Cape to a very large extent, and I am sorry to have to say it; from the economic point of view the Cape is resting on the rest of the Union to a large extent. I am sorry it should be so—no one is more sorry—I am not against the Cape, not for one moment, nor is anybody in this House; but when you find a number of railway lines, hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on irrigation, they are not bringing in the money [Time limit.]

I do not agree with the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden), in his remarks about the fixing of the price of stock under the Drought Emergency Loan Act. I am very glad that the Minister has fixed the price because it is very necessary. I do not know whether the Government intends to abide by the prices they have fixed at present, but I should like to point out the necessity for fixing the prices. We saw how the prices in the Free State at once went up when the rain came, and there was a chance of the people buying stock. If the purchase price of a sheep had not been fixed under the Act at £1 5s. the speculators would have at once increased it to e.g., £1 10s., but as soon as they knew that the department had fixed the price, they knew that they could do nothing. Therefore it is of great importance for the prices to be fixed.

Where are you going to get the stock from?

We can get them from the Free State, and if the speculators know that the department is fixing the prices they will be able to do nothing. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet made a complete miscalculation when he said that it was better for a farmer to spend £300 for 100 sheep than buy 200 sheep for the price. If that policy were followed then I prophesy that all will become bankrupt. It will be better for a man to buy 250 sheep for the £300 than 100 at £3 each. The man must make as much as possible out of his sheep. He must maintain a household and will at once require a lamb for slaughtering. If he has 250 sheep he will be able to supply his needs immediately, but not if he has 100 of the best kind. As for the sheep that produce 30 pounds of wool, I want to say that the sheep which usually produce 10 pounds of wool on the average are a good kind of sheep. I do not say that scrub sheep must be bought, but decent sheep, but he must get as much as possible because his family has to exist on them. If we were to follow the lines suggested by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet we should make a great mistake. Let the man buy as well, and as cheaply as possible for his £300. He has not got a large number of other sheep for other purposes but has to live on the flock. I should also like to know what the position as to locusts is. I see that people who are travelling in the Free State have seen many swarms, and it makes me a little uneasy.

While I should be the last to accuse the Minister of being the worst Minister of Agriculture the world has ever seen, I do not agree with the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) that he is the greatest Minister of Agriculture South Africa has ever had. Probably his real place lies half-way between the two. What I do find is that he is very intolerant of criticism, and least of all is he willing to accept advice from those of us who are riot of the same political colour as himself. Some of us have been farming as long as he has, and if he would accept our criticisms and advice in the spirit in which they are tendered, it would be for the benefit of his department. The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane.) charged the Minister with doing nothing to extend our trade overseas, but if the hon. member would read Mr. Eric Louw’s report he would find that that gentleman was doing his best to get fresh outlets for South African produce in the United States. For instance, Mr. Louw tried to push tinned crayfish in the hope that, it might take the place of coektails, but, as Mr. Louw remarked, how could he hope to find a market for crayfish when he had only one sample tin left. Then in trying to push South African wool he discovered that the American ladies dressed principally in silk stockings and—in spite of the temperature of 20 degrees below zero— very abbreviated skirts but rendered possible by central heating. He would like to persuade the American ladies to wear flannel petticoats, but no doubt instead they wore crepe de chine and silk underclothing. I leave the rest to the imagination of the House. Now the Minister has overloaded his department with a number of officials whom he can no longer control. This is clear to anyone, and the records of the House show that frequently he has been let down very badly by them. The result is that to a very large extent the Minister is in the hands of his department, and the department is running the Minister. The other day I referred to the vendetta which some of his officials are carrying on against professional men who have discovered cures for animal diseases. The object of some of these officials is to find the secret of these discoveries, and there is no instance on record where they have been able to make the discovery that they have not taken steps to prevent the original discoverers selling their medicine. This is militating against the interests of the farmer, and I have an amount of correspondence showing that this is very much resented. I have here a copy of a letter from one of the Minister’s principal supporters, Senator Munnik, regarding a cure which has been removed from the counters of the chemists, at the behest of the Minister, acting on the suggestion of his professional advisers. I am only going to read extracts—

It is signed by Senator Munnik, so I don’t think I could have quoted a higher authority. [Time limit.]

I did not intend taking part in the debate, and should not have done so, if it were not that the tongue of the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) had run away with his thoughts and his commonsense, when he says that the wool farmers of Wakkerstroom packed their wool fraudulently. If he had said that there were a few farmers who had done so, I would say nothing, but when the public see the speech of the hon. member in the newspaper they may come to the conclusion that it is the general practice, which I want to deny categorically. The letter read by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. Van Heerden) shows clearly that there was absolutely no question of fraud, but that the wool was carelessly selected. I am a wool farmer myself, and I know by experience that you must constantly keep an eye on the workpeople, otherwise they make mistakes. With regard to veld fires I think the Minister of Agriculture has enough sound sense to know what to do in that connection. If the hon. member for Riversdale thinks it is necessary to burn, then they can decide on it themselves, but it is certainly injurious to the farmers in the Karroo.

I do not want to take up the time of the committee at any length at this stage, because I feel how uncomfortable Ministers must feel. It seems to me from the remarks of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) that from both sides of the cross benches bouquets are going to be cast upon them until one side finds which side the National section of the Pact Government is going to adopt. I should imagine that is the reason the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) went out of his way to congratulate the Minister on the extraordinary way in which, by a wave of his magic wand, he had made the locusts disappear from this country. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) must be very ill-acquainted with the conditions of the country, because it was only two days ago I got a letter of a most disturbing character, the contents of which I conveyed to the Minister’s department, and which unfortunately shows that in the district of Britstown and the surrounding areas there are flying locusts in myriads upon myriads extending over large areas of country. I have been a sufferer, because they have eaten up a good deal of the crops in the area in which I am personally interested, and what my people are writing to me to ask is: Does the department know from what part of the country these locusts have come? Because while these investigations have been carried out in the protectorate and the desert areas it seems that sight has been lost altogether of the locusts which must have hatched out most probably within the Union. I am perfectly certain that had the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) been in his place, and I had an opportunity of explaining to him the incorrectness of the information we had so far as the locust visitation of the country is concerned, he might not have been so very profuse in his congratulations. I hope the Minister will give the House a statement as to what is the position in connection with this locust invasion. In the part of the country to which I refer, every effort has been made, and large numbers of people have turned out, but the locusts are in such great quantities that it is impossible to prevent them from destroying a large proportion of the crop that has come up. The Minister may tell us where these locusts have hatched out. I hope the fullest investigation of these flying swarms will take place. Evidently the department has lost sight of the breeding places. I do not blame the Minister, but these locusts must have hatched out in some part of the country that nobody happened to be aware of. I am extremely sorry the Minister allowed Mr. Williams, who has done such excellent work in connection with the locust department, to go to Egypt or Mesopotamia. Last session I said that when we had a new invasion of locusts it would be extremely advantageous to have a man in this country of the great experience of Mr. Williams. It is sometimes two, three or four years before the eggs of locusts hatch out, but there come seasonal conditions with heavy rains when they hatch out in areas where their presence has been almost forgotten.

With regard to the locusts, as the right hon. member is aware, about two months ago I said in this House that we had several places where hatchings had taken place, and that we had a position in this country that we have never had before in which locusts were flying, not in swarms, but here and there, and the department, which was enquiring into the position, considered this was a state of building up again, and that we could expect, perhaps later on, that we should have locusts.

That is always the experience. We have killed now thousands of swarms of locusts.

I may tell the right hon. gentleman that this is practically the first time that we have been so successful in killing flying locusts, and that is I think as Mr. Wilkins wired me this morning, on account of killing locusts with powder. We have had great success. According to his wire this morning, there are only two districts mentioned by my right hon. friend which are not practically clean. All the other districts, he wires me, are practically clean, and we need not fear for the future. He is himself going through the districts of Herbert and Britstown to see that everything is done there to exterminate the locusts. So I do not think we need be alarmed. The department is doing everything it can to exterminate the locusts, because we know what a serious position would exist if we did not do everything in our power to deal with the situation. I am not afraid that we shall not be able to deal with the situation, and in a few weeks’ time or so I think that the situation will be normal.

They will follow up these big swarms?

That is what we are doing. We hope to kill every one of them. There is only one difficult position, and I have written to the press to-day and asked farmers to assist us. The serious position which has arisen, let me say only with some of the farmers, is that they refuse to allow the locust officer to kill the flying locusts on their farms. I have asked the farmers to assist me, and not to resist the locust officers who come on their farms and want to kill the flying swarms.

Have you no power to make them?

I have not the power with the flying locusts. I am sorry for the attitude that has been taken up by the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards). The hon. member the other night and again this evening has tackled the officials of the Agricultural Department, knowing that those officials are not in a position to reply for themselves. I take this opportunity, therefore, of pointing out to the hon. member that the remarks which he has made in this House are absolutely without any foundation, and that there is not a word of truth in the accusations which he has made in regard to the officials of the department.

I read your own letter.

He said the other night that the Government should not endeavour to extract the secrets of the success of scientific men with the object of making them the property of the Government without reasonable compensation, and that men outside the service who did good work deserved acknowledgment and it should not be sought to deprive them of their discoveries solely because they are not State officials. Let me say that he now really accuses the officials of the Department of stealing the secrets of scientific men who are outside the service. Let me tell him that there is nothing of that kind.

I never said so.

He has brought up the case of Col. Pitchford. I think members in this House know who Col. Pitchford is. Four years ago they know that that gentleman was in the lobbies of this House when he had discovered a great thing for this country called “Nitresco,” which would solve the whole problem of the scrub cattle in this country and enable the farmers to sell their cattle at £6 or £7 a head. He wanted the Government to take over that form of his discovery at that time, and when I refused to do that, he said that the secret would be sold to other countries. We have been waiting four years and we have not yet seen that secret sold in other countries.

When did he say that?

Four years ago. The hon. gentleman knows that very well.

Whom did he say it to?

He said it to me, if you want to know it.

He was strongly supported by the present Administrator of South-West.

Exactly, and when he and the present Administrator of South-West were with me in an interview he said it would be a pity if this Government did not take over that discovery, because it would have to go out of the country into other hands. Does the hon. gentleman want to deny that?

I wasn’t there.

The same gentleman came a few months ago, and he had made another wonderful discovery. What was that? That we should preserve meat and we should send it over from this country to other countries without cold storage. Because I did not reply at once, because I wanted to have a proper inquiry into that discovery of his, he withdrew and he did not want to deal with the department any longer. Why? Because I did not reply within 24 hours.

Within six weeks.

Well, well. What is the position now? Let me give the dates. On the 29th October, 1927, I received a letter from Col. Pitchford pointing out about the discovery. What did he want, where he said he had made that wonderful discovery? That the Government should assist further investigations. If he had discovered that remedy, what necessity was there for the Government to go in and investigate and spend another £3,900 on it? Why did he ask that I should support or help him, so that he should be appointed on the marketing board in England, so that they could further investigate that wonderful discovery of his? Is it not a proof to this House that there was no discovery made, or that he wanted to use this department to make further investigations?

Shame !

On the 29th October that letter was written.

Did he say to make money?

Did I say he wanted to make money? He wanted money to make his investigations further. If the hon. member does not listen and cannot understand his own language, I cannot help it. As I said, on the 29th October the letter from Col. Pitchford was written. I received the letter on the 4th November. I interviewed the senators on the 11th November with reference to the letter of Col. Pitchford. I immediately told these senators that I would have the inquiries made, but it was a question that would have to be dealt with by the Board of Trade to make inquiries, and I would refer the matter to the Board of Trade. On the 24th November Col. Pitchford inquired what had been done. I informed him that the letter had been forwarded to the Board of Trade and Industries, who were inquiring into the matter. The Board replied on the 3rd December, 1927. I immediately asked Mr. Power, of Natal, to see Col. Pitchford and find out further about his inquiries. Immediately I had done that, Col. Pitchford withdrew his offer and said that because we did not deal immediately with the question he was not prepared to go any further. Does the hon. gentleman want me now to go and spend money because we get offers of that kind every day, not only for preservation of meat, but anything they find out they come to us and the Government must put up money so that they can make further discoveries. I could not go immediately and spend £3,000 or £4,000 for the processes of Col. Pitchford until the department had a proper chance to enquire whether it was worth while going further into. He accused members of my department of trying to find out the processes of these gentlemen in order to make their own vaccines or whatever it is. The hon. gentleman the other night was so sorry that he almost burst into tears because we were not treating Great Britain as we ought to, and because we bought some engines in Germany. But what is the hon. gentleman doing now? Instead of helping the co-operation which we are trying to establish with Great Britain he is attempting to undermine that co-operation. What happened last year? When they had an agricultural congress in England last November it was pointed out that Onderstepoort was a research station which is not equalled in the world. It was proposed that the Union Government should be asked that Onderstepoort, in South Africa, should be the central research station for tropical diseases for the whole British commonwealth of nations. That resolution was carried unanimously not only by the scientific men of England, but all the others who were present. People who know something about scientific work did not make the accusation against this department as made by the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards). After that resolution the Imperial Government asked the Union Government whether they would allow Onderstepoort to be the central research station for members of the commonwealth who wanted to come out here and study research. They were prepared to finance any further buildings or anything that was required for extension through the Imperial Marketing Board. The Union Government has accepted that resolution and we have written to the Imperial Government that we accept their proposal that Onderstepoort should be used as a central research station on the condition that it be independent and entirely under the control of the Union Government and of the Agricultural Department. I have received a few days ago a cable from the Imperial Government stating that they accept the statement as made by the Union Government to have Onderstepoort as a central research station for practically the commonwealth of nations. Instead of congratulating South Africa on having advanced so far we get men like the hon. member for Weenen, who does not know anything about research, coming here and condemning the members of the Department of Agriculture.

Shame.

Party politics.

If that is not party politics, I do not know what is. I hope he will be so sorry, trying to break that co-operation between the Union Government and the Imperial Government that he will go outside and weep bitter tears. But the hon. member went further and he stated that through my department I have stopped the McGarbie-Smith vaccine being used in South Africa. What are the facts? I think the hon. member, when he makes that statement, knows it is not so. Did I make those regulations? No. Those regulations were made by my predecessor under the Act of 1911. I do not always agree with the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), but I entirely agree with him this time that he was perfectly right and we should not allow things to be thrown on the market for farmers to buy things that they do not know.

I said it was the fact; I did not say you did it.

You accused me. I am pointing out these regulations were made under my predecessor, and I entirely agree with him. The hon. member goes further. He quotes the letter to Mr. Harber. Mr. Harber claims he has made a certain discovery. My department analysed the whole position and they say “there is nothing that can do any harm to the cattle. We won’t stop you selling it, but it must be clearly understood what are the contents of these things.” But the hon. member has said it has been used at Cedara. It was used at the time when Mr. Harber was the veterinary surgeon there. I have often seen that cattle get red-water, and these cattle get salted so you cannot claim that the cure is really good for these cattle. I am sorry the hon. member did not listen to the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort not to use agriculture for party purposes. The member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane), when he accused the Government of broken promises, but he did not dare name one.

The embargo.

They always say there is no fool like an old fool. The hon. member is getting so foolish that he does not even know

On a point of order, has the Minister any right to impute that to me?

I think the Minister had better withdraw that.

If those words are too strong I am quite prepared to withdraw them. The hon. member knows very well that the Minister of Lands, at that time when we were still in Opposition, moved in this House that the embargo should be put to at least 1,000 lbs. Who of the members of the Government to-day have said we are going to put a total embargo on cattle from Rhodesia?

The Prime Minister.

The Minister and Minister Grobler.

We never said total embargo. We always spoke of an embargo. It is no use interjecting —I will go on. It will help you nothing, because it shows how weak your case is. If one saw four years ago the attack of the Opposition and their attack to-day, you can see how they are crumbling to pieces. The hon. member for Umvoti asked what has the embargo helped. The hon. member said that the position of the cattle farmers is worse to-day than it has ever been. He knows that is not so. The prices of our cattle are better than in 1921, 1922 and 1924. I challenge anyone to deny it.

What is the price of cattle?

Go and find out on the Johannesburg market. Notwithstanding the big increase we have in the numbers of our cattle, the Government has kept the market for the people of South Africa. While in 1924-’25 19,252 cattle came to the Johannesburg market from Rhodesia, in 1926-’27 it was only 9,835. If you eliminate a number, it ought to improve the prices. From the Protectorate in 1924-’25 35,626 cattle were exported to the Johannesburg market, and in 1926-’27 it was only 9,274. If that does not help to improve our market, well, I cannot help it. I ask the hon. member what the South African party Government did when they were in office for the cattle farmer, and how many bulls, about which they were so anxious, did they import and issue to the farmers? Did they spend the £300,000, as is suggested, for the cattle farmers? No. Farmers will understand it is their own business; we will give them the advice; we have a department which can give them all the advice with regard to the breeding of cattle; the same as with sheep. Then the hon. member asks why I sent Mr. Thornton to investigate the position in the Argentine. Because the position in the Argentine not so very many years ago was even worse than in South Africa, and it is remarkable how soon the Government of the Argentine worked up the position of the cattle there. I have not sent a Commission, as was said by the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat), but I sent one man, who was accompanied by another man who was going privately. I have sent a man of my department who has a thorough knowledge of cattle to investigate on the spot how the Argentine people got their cattle into such a condition as they have done in such a short time.

Good stud bulls !

You might be a better stud bull! I go further, and I ask you what has the previous Government done with reference to our dairy cattle? Did they do anything with them? No. We have started now a milk recording scheme. I have been asked by several hon. members this afternoon how it is working. I can only say that in 1926 90 herds, consisting of 900 cows, were being tested, but to-day that scheme has improved, and 274 herds, consisting of 7,500 cows, are tested regularly, so you can see that the farmers are being taken up with that scheme and are going in for it better than ever before. I am very glad to see that they themselves are trying to improve their cattle; it is a matter that has to be tackled by them themselves. The department has officers to-day to give them advice, nothwithstanding all the criticism hon. members are bringing forward, we are going on with our present policy and trying to improve cattle, not by stamping out scrub cattle and paying compensation, because we cannot do that. The sheep farmers did not come grumbling and saying that the Government should supply them with rams, but said “Give us experts and give us advice.” We did so, and we are prepared to do the same with the cattle farmers. We do not say things, but we do them, as with regard to the cattle industry. I do not think I need labour further as far as the hon. member for Umvoti is concerned. He has said a few things, but it is practically no use taking notice of them. As to the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), notwithstanding the attack he made some days ago, I see that he has turned out to-day to be a full-bred socialist, and this afternoon he said the Government ought to come forward with a bold policy and expropriate ground of the farmers along the coastal districts where it is good for cattle, cut it up into small plots, and give it to the dairy people. I do not think he has been talking to-day on behalf of hon. members on the other side, and I am sure that the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) does not agree with what he said. The hon. member told us how we have to feed our animals; the department has been teaching farmers that for years and years. We know why our dairy farming is not a payable concern to-day, because many of the farmers have not the right type of cow yet. We are preaching every day that it is better to have a good cow which will give you the necessary amount of milk and butter fat. We are also advising farmers how to feed their animals, because, as regards the overhead charges to which the hon. member referred this afternoon, most butter is made during the five or six summer months, and during the winter months creameries are practically at a standstill. If farmers realize that it pays them better to have milk produced 12 months in the year, it will not only make a payable proposition of dairies, but it is also better for the farmer. We are giving the necessary advice, but it is not a matter in which the Government should farm. My department is prepared to give the necessary advice in other directions. The hon. member for Queenstown raised a few other points, one of which was that members of the agricultural staff are alarmed and so dissatisfied because of the reorganization of the department that they do not know where they have to go, and if I understood him correctly, others are put over their heads. He did not mention the names, and I do not know who is right, the hon. member for Queenstown, or the paper that supports the South African party so much— “Die Volkstem.” “Die Volkstem” says the Minister of Agriculture is now very much liked by his officials. If the hon. member could give the name of an official who has not been properly treated I could reply to him. A recent return shows that 49 officials were appointed in the Department of Agriculture; 25 were first appointments as veterinary officers on probation; 19 were appointed on probation as technical men and for extension work. Does the hon. member want me to appoint officials as veterinary surgeons if they have no veterinary knowledge? You must appoint men on then merits, and these appointments were made because there were vacancies. Dr. Moore was appointed by my predecessor to the division of botany, and she gave good results. Another person appointed from outside the service was the chief of the co-operation department, it being necessary that we should have a man with banking experience. Mr. Seymore was appointed on the staff of the “Agricultural Journal,” but did not supersede men qualified to do the work.

He was a qualified journalist.

I have appointed on the demonstration train Mr. Speis on his qualifications. Mr. Kleinhans was also appointed from outside the service. When I set aside the recommendations of the Civil Service Commission I am attacked in Parliament. The commission has agreed to all these appointments, and when I accept them I am also attacked.

It will do you good.

I shall always be able to defend myself. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) has said that for two-and-a-half years no bulls could be imported from England through the action of my department. Is it through the action of my department that foot and mouth disease broke out in England? Now the Imperial Government has a place at Southampton where cattle can be quarantined, and very shortly a consignment of cattle will arrive here, and they will be quarantined in the Cape Town docks.

Could not the department have done that two years ago?

We have been asking the Imperial Government to do that, and now they have agreed to do it. The hon. member could not expect us to allow cattle to come here without our taking steps to safeguard our own cattle from infection. According to the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) if our farmers buy stud bulls they are going backwards.

What about our 8,000,000 scrub cattle?

How long did it take the sheep farmers to get rid of sheep which gave only two or three pounds of wool? Why did not the late Government tackle this question when they were in office?

What about the sheep division you destroyed?

Our predecessors did nothing, but now we are doing things they want to criticize. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) brought up the question of soil erosion. I have gone thoroughly into the matter of appointing a separate official to advise farmers on this question. When the Drought Commission’s report was presented we did not have extension officers, but now we have, and we think they can do the work better than having one or two officers specially deputed to do it. We are also advising the farmers to fence their land. One cause of erosion is the fact that farmers keep too many stock. The Land Bank is giving loans to farmers to assist them in stopping erosion. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) brought up the question of the “Agricultural Journal.” That paper is now being read by over 10,000 farmers; it has now become self-supporting, and every farmer should pay his 5s. for it. It is wrong always to agitate and say we have to give these things free to the farmers. Last year when there was a proposal that we should take away the income tax the agricultural unions protested against it. If we give the journal free now, we might also be attacked by those people representing the farmers. I always think a man values a thing more if he pays for it than if he gets it free. I am afraid if the journals are sent to the farmers they will simply throw them away and not take any notice of them. The hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) has also brought up the position of sheep again to-day—that I have done away with the valuable institution and administration controlling sheep. I pointed out that we want to have more economy and efficiency. What is better proof of that than the fact that with the amalgamation of the veterinary department and the sheep division, we are saving now £50,000 a year, and scab has been reduced to 1.17 per cent, from over 5 per cent, in 1923. The hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) said this afternoon that it does not pay to go in for wheat in this country, and that we ought to start, dairy farming. I do not agree. I think was have tackled that question also. We have got an experimental farm and we are trying to find out what is the best way to grow wheat in this country, and I am certain we shall succeed.

†*The hon. members for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk), and Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan) asked a question about the position of the maize co-operative societies, and they want to know my attitude on compulsory co-operation. I should like to state it. I agree with the hon. member for Heilbron that it will be an unfortunate day for our farmers when co-operation ceases to exist. I say it is our duty to encourage the farmers to support co-operation as much as possible, and to join up, but it is another thing to make co-operation in connection with food stuffs compulsory. I have already said so at public meetings. When we are concerned with a luxury like wine or tobacco it is another matter, one can keep wine or tobacco, but maize must be sold within twelve months, otherwise the weasel destroys it. The maize cannot be kept unless the farmers are prepared to build silos to conserve it. The price of maize is dependent on the world market. I think we ought to be satisfied with 10/- a bag. If we introduce compulsory co-operation it is no use having it amongst the Europeans alone. The natives, who are now responsible for the surplus maize, must also be included, as well as the Europeans who live at long distances from the railway. Are we to compel them to inspan their wagons to bring their maize to the nearest co-operative society? If we do so, what will the position be? In 1922 the last Government tried to introduce compulsory co-operation, namely the maize pool, but they soon saw that it was no use. Compulsory co-operation means that we must compel all the farmers to sell their maize to a co-operative society, and I shall not propose it. I do not want, however, to stand in the way of Parliament, and if it is the feeling of members that maize co-operation should be made obligatory, then any member of Parliament can introduce a motion to bring co-operation in respect of maize under the Act. If hon. members want it, and can get a majority in favour of it, I will not stand in the way. I am quite prepared to assist them to get 100 per cent, of co-operation, but I shall not co-operate to create compulsory co-operation, because I fear that that will cause many difficulties. Co-operation is a voluntary thing, and if it is no longer voluntary it becomes compulsory. I did indeed introduce compulsion with regard to tobacco and wine but they are luxuries which can be kept.

Why then was compulsion introduced in connection with the credit associations?

Are those associations compulsory then?

yes

But that is quite another matter. They exist in certain districts to have better control but there is no obligation. Can the hon. member mention any association which is compulsory under the law to-day? No such association has been established. If the hon. member wants to introduce a motion to test the feeling of the House on compulsory co-operation among the maize farmers, he can of course do so, but I do not think that five members will vote for it. The hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) spoke about the magnificent progress of the maize farmers, and that whereas formerly they reaped ten bags a morgen, they now get 30 to 40 bags. If the farmers are progressing in that way then it ought not to be difficult for them to make a profit, even if the paraffin is 3d. a gallon more, but I want to say honestly that I agree with the hon. members when they say that the farmers to-day have to go in for tractors and similar plant, because the labour forces are becoming reduced and the farmers find that it pays better to use tractors, and that, only in that way, can they make a good living. I am going to do my best to get the duty on paraffin for agriculture as low as possible, but I also want to say that I am very glad that we have made such splendid progress in maize production. The Government has not been asleep. We have established an experimental station at Kroonstad with the object of increasing production and giving advice to the farmers. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) has again raised the point of ngana sickness, and wants me to say quickly how the Government is going to choose between the game and the human beings I want to say frankly that I do not think the game and the farmers can both exist in Zululand. If we want to keep the game there, then the farmers will not be able to farm, but I am glad that the Natal Provincial Council has appointed a commission to enquire into the matter, and I shall first of all await their report. Then he, spoke about the game at Messina. If we do not shoot it down the farmers there will not progress, and they are commencing to farm with cattle on a considerable scale, and we surely cannot allow the veld to bo eaten up by game and the stock to die. That is why the game is being killed there. The hon. member for George (Mr. Brink) spoke about the extension officials. I am glad their work is so much appreciated. He warts me to double the number of seven or eight appearing on the Estimates. We cannot go too fast, but I hope to appoint a few more next year. I know they are doing good work. He mentioned that the extension official at George had been removed. In the Cape Division we have the University of Stellenbosch, the school at Elsenburg, and the one at Grootfontein, which, all occupy themselves with extension work, and the farmers can get advice there, so that they are much better off than any other place in the Union. The hon. members for Ladismith (Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl) and Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) spoke about veld fires. Let me say immediately that we have laws on veld fires. We cannot take too drastic action, it is a matter of education. It is said that children ought to be educated at school. I hope the Minister of Education will take a note of these matters and do something to help, but there are certain parts where fires cannot be avoided. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) knows that in Middelburg, Transvaal, the bush lice eat up the stock if no veld fires take place. We shall therefore first have to find a means to eradicate the tick, but we shall gradually try to prevent veld fires which undoubtedly are an evil in many parts. As for experiments with kinds of grass to increase the capacity of the veld to carry sheep, many experiments are being tried, and advice it being given. If anyone feels so strongly about veld fires let him introduce a motion, and see what the feeling of the House is, but I think we have sufficient legislation in this respect. The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) spoke about the supply of seed in the drought stricken districts. I do not know where he heard that we only supplied the seed after ploughing time. The Land Bank has been instructed, when magistrates recommend the applications of farmers, to sell the seed to the people as soon as the application is dealt with. We, of course, restrict it to people in drought-stricken areas, and I think it ought to stop now in other parts. Our people must know that they must provide their own seed for wheat. It would not, of course, assist to give the seed when the sowing time has passed. Then the hon. member spoke about adding interest to capital. I said that, in the districts where people have suffered so severely, and apply for assistance because they cannot pay the interest, the Land Bank can take steps, if the security is good, to add the interest to the capital, practically as a second loan, and under a second bond. I do not think the hon. member can mention a single case in the drought districts I visited where the people have had trouble in connection with the interest. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) asked what we are going to do in connection with tobacco. Let me say at once that we shall have a large overproduction of tobacco this year, probably 12 or 13 million pounds. It is said that Rhodesia is bringing down the price of tobacco. I have tried to get into touch with the large manufacturers and they told me that, for every pound of tobacco from Rhodesia, they take two pounds of Union tobacco and mix them together. They told me that if they cannot get that tobacco from Rhodesia they cannot go on, and that that will accordingly injure the Union tobacco. I have however, made representations to the Imperial Secretary about Swaziland, but if we were to prohibit that, and Swaziland were to take contra measures, what would then become of the Union sheep farmer on the border? With reference to Rhodesia, I told the deputation, referred to by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, that the Rhodesian Minister was now in England negotiating, and when he came back I would at once discuss matters with him, and see whether we could not come to an understanding which would satisfy both our countries. We have entered into the customs union, and cannot hurriedly take drastic measures. We must enquire how, by joint consultation, we can improve the position. We are doing what we can. I have managed to arrange it that purchasers have gone to Rustenburg and they are going to buy a great deal of tobacco, and I therefore hope the position will not be bad. The High Commissioner and the Trade Commissioners in Europe are also trying to find markets. Then the hon. member wants an expert on horticulture. We have the best people for viticulture here in the neighbourhood, and the people can always get advice there. We do not see our way to sending for another official. Then the hon. member argued that we should establish mountain clubs to stop veld fires. Surely the hon. member can do that himself in his own district.

I cannot make it compulsory.

Do you want to make it compulsory? No, we have already burnt our fingers a few times in connection with compulsion and I think we must be very careful. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) spoke about fraudulent packing of wool. Let me say at once that the Wool Growers’ Association is doing much good work, and I hope the hon. members will co-operate to get some of those clubs established everywhere in the country. Then the difficulty will be solved, and it will not be necessary to run immediately to the Government again for legislation. Then every man will have his name on the wool bales, and if anyone is guilty of fraudulent packing he can be caught, and will entirely lose his name. Then the hon. member spoke about irrigation. We know that irrigation schemes in the past have often been very disappointing. He wants the Government first of all to buy up the ground. I do not go so far as to say that the Government must first buy all the ground, but in any case in future schemes a proper survey will first have to take place to see how the ground lies, and whether it can be made payable. We are not first going to construct, and then find out whether the ground is suitable for the object intended. I have already made it clear to people that they must understand that, if the Government can build a scheme, we must first of all have the people’s assurance that they will be prepared to sell the irrigable ground at a fair price, if not to the Government itself, then under Section 11, or some other way, to other people. I think that is sound. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) spoke about the Kromellemboog irrigation works. They have already been surveyed, and will probably cost £7,000,000. The Government does not see its way to undertake the scheme at present. In this connection the scheme will, in any case, certainly not be able to be commenced for the next five years. Whether it will be undertaken in future we cannot say now. ’ In any case detailed investigation is first required, and the permanent Irrigation Commission has not yet been there yet, and it will be a long time before all the other schemes are put on a sound basis. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) asked what the position in regard to locusts was. I have already given the information to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. We have also sent an expert to the Kalahari, but practically no locusts were found. The position is well in hand. Then he asked who was being appointed in Dr. Perold’s place. It is a university appointment, and I do not know whether the university intends filling the vacancy. I cannot interfere. The commission of enquiry into the wine trade has, I think, completed its report, and I expect it daily. Then the hon. member asked a question about phylloxera. There is no commission of enquiry, but Mr. van Niekerk, the departmental expert, advises the farmers about the vines to he planted, which are not affected by the disease. Then he spoke about the adulteration of liquor. The department is trying as much as possible to catch the adulterers, but, even if we used hundreds of police, we would not catch some of them. He also spoke about increasing the salary of the expert entrusted with the administration of the Adulteration Act, but the Public Service Commission do not consider an increase justified. If I have forgotten any other point I shall reply later.

I am sorry that I had no opportunity of speaking before the Minister rose. I wanted to say something in connection with compulsory co-operation, but the Minister’s explanation completely satisfies me. I only want to ask how far compulsory co-operation has been introduced, and what the result has been. Were the Minister and the public satisfied, and did it benefit tobacco farming? The second point is inoculation against horse sickness. I should like to know what the position about that is. It seems to me that in recent times there has been some laxness about the matter. I have heard that some of the horses, after the inoculation have got convulsions, in short there was disappointment in my district in the matter. Then I want to enquire about the salaries of dipping inspectors. We know that there are two kinds, dipping inspectors of great stock, and sheep inspectors. I should like to know what the reason is for the big difference between the salaries of the inspectors. I see, for instance, that dipping inspectors in the Transvaal dip the great stock under the east-coast fever regulations, and are paid a salary from £108 to £278, while sheep inspectors commence with the maximum of the dipping inspector which is therefore the minimum in their case. They get from £270 to £360. What is the reason for the distinction? Does it lie in the responsibility of the work? I cannot believe it. And then in adition the ordinary dipping inspectors of stock must also act as sheep inspectors. I have a letter here from the Secretary for Agriculture saying that, under the reorganisation of the Veterinary Department, it is expected that the dipping inspectors will also undertake the duty of sheep inspectors if necessary. Then I want to say something about the appointment of sheep inspectors. It seems to me that it is sometimes done for reasons not so much connected with capacity for the work. It appears that in various cases in my district the Minister has not acted wisely by constantly transferring sheep inspectors, and removing them from the district where they have been working so long and so successfully. I mention e.g. the case of Sheep Inspector Malan. The Minister knows that he has been working for 13 years or more in one of the most difficult parts of the Transvaal, and he has succeeded so well that the 80,000 head of small stock belonging to the natives with which he was concerned—and this means a good deal, much more than the control, dipping and cleaning, of sheep—have been got entirely clean. According to the departmental figures themselves the inspector was very fortunate in his work. While in 1924 there were 38 flocks in quarantine, the number in 1925 was 15. In 1926, 8, and in 1927 only 2. The cleaning of the small stock is quite a different thing from the cleaning of merino sheep, because the flocks only consist of 20 to 30 head belonging to natives. This means that in the whole area where he was working there were only 60 or 70 sheep infected. Subsequently in November, one of the “Check-staff ’’ was there, and then a few cases were actually discovered, but they were new cases that arose after Malan had gone. I fear that in some cases the political leanings of people have something to do with the transfers. I have here, e.g., a letter from the senior inspector, in which he refers to Inspector Malan having made a political utterance, and in which the senior inspector warns him not to do so again. About 20 days later Malan was informed that he was transferred to Ermelo. I can also mention the case of Dipping Inspector Viljoen. He worked very satisfactorily for twelve years, and all the authorities were satisfied with him. He was transferred, first to Rosehaugh, then to East London, and then to Eshowe, Natal.

Why not?

Why then? There is an idea that he had to make way for another person who was inclined to the Minister’s political point of view, and that actually took place.

When you come into office you can alter it.

That answer is not good enough. The Minister knows that it will not be done.

You accuse me of political motives?

It creates the appearance in any event, and, according to the Bible, even the appearance must be guarded against. As a result of the removal of Inspector Malan, the whole native area was for two months without an inspector, and it certainly had a bad effect, although I know the “Check staff ’’ went there in November. I have a letter here from the department containing a line which appears very questionable, namely that the Minister is convinced that scab can be entirely eradicated if all officials make an earnest attempt to do so. I want to congratulate the Minister on the success he has already obtained. I fully admit it, but then I want to ask whether the next line is quite true, namely, “as an example the Free State can be mentioned with its 13,000,000 sheep where there is no longer a single case of scab.” Is that true? It is in conflict with the statement of the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson).

What is the scab position in the Free State and the Transvaal? We were told this evening by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) that there is no scab in the Free State, but I have heard that story before and I am beginning to doubt it. I will tell the Minister why in 1926 the Minister addressed a meeting of farmers in Harrismith when he claimed that the Free State was at last flee of scab and congratulated them. It subsequently transpired that while he was speaking, a native was being tried at the Harrismith Court for failing to report the presence of scab amongst his sheer. It was rather amusing to learn that this flock of infected shear were on the farm of the gentleman who was the Minister's host and with whom the Minister dined that night. It is my practice to table a question every session asking what the scab position is. Last year, in reply to my question, the Minister told us that the Free State was free from scab. He will remember that almost immediately after we were so informed about 7,000 sheep grossly infected with scab were removed from the Free State to Natal. I put a question to the Minister on the subject, on June 14, 1927. I will read the question and his reply from Hansard. In addition to asking if it was true that the movement had taken place, I put the following questions—

Then, after asking the Minister what action he proposed to take to deal with the apparent carelessness and inefficiency of the Inspectors responsible for permitting the movement of these sheep, I put the following question—

The Minister in reply to my enquiry if it was true that the sheep in question were infected with scab replied—

and in reply to my question as to the period of time the sheep had been so infected, said—

In March of this year I tabled a further question on this subject as follows—

to which the Minister replied as follows—-

The Minister, in reply to a further question of mine as to whether the owners of the sheep had been prosecuted, replied as follows—

The Minister admitted that three sheep owners were prosecuted, but then went on to say that no direct evidence of neglect was proved against any officer. If that was so, why was Oosthuizen removed? From whom did the Minister get the information that there was no neglect, seeing that the evidence showed that the sheep had been inspected by Oosthuizen and others who failed to detect that they were in a scabby condition? And yet, immediately they were seen by an inspector in Natal, scab was without any difficulty detected which was certified to be of three months duration. How is it that the finding of the Minister or the chief inspector was that there had been no neglect in respect of these sheep? Will the Minister also tell us why, if there was no neglect, the moment these sheep arrived in Natal from the Free State, scab was detected amongst them? Notwithstanding that fact, the Minister exonerated Oosthuizen and the, other inspectors but transferred Oosthuizen. I do not know whether he was promoted. [Time limit.]

When I said there was no scab in the Free State, I did so on the strength of my reports. You cannot expect me personally to know the position of each flock of sheep. I must rely upon my officials who reported that there was no scab in the Free State. Even if there were no scab at the time the reports were made, the disease might be imported into the Free State. On account of the drought in the Cape, many flocks had to be removed, some to the Free State, and unfortunately two cases of scab were detected at Boshof and two cases at Hoopstad. The same thing might have happened in Harrismith. According to the report of the sheep inspector who was sent to investigate the matter, although he could not blame Oosthuizen, who had inspected the sheep some time before, it might be that the scab was smouldering and that while the sheep were on trek the scab became visible. As soon as the sheep got into Natal, I am very glad that the inspector found it out. The hon. member asked me why it is that more than one man has been prosecuted. If there are more than one owner with their sheep together, must I prosecute one and leave the others? Then he insinuates that I have exonerated Oosthuizen and given him promotion.

I am not insinuating, I am asking for information.

There is no promotion in the position of sheep inspector. They get a salary of £25 a month and nothing else. There were sheep inspectors who were appointed before I took office who are getting a higher salary because they were appointed under other regulations. Oosthuizen has been removed because I think that he did not keep an eye on his work as he should have done.

†*The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) asked about the tobacco co-operative societies. They have only been working a few years, and have worked fairly well. Some societies doubtless paid too high prices, with the result that people who had never planted tobacco before want to do so. The societies have now, however, learnt a lesson, and I trust they will be a success in future. The hon. member asked whether the inoculation against horse sickness was not yet a complete success. Veterinary remedies are just the same as other remedies. The veterinary surgeon is expected to supply various remedies to cure diseases, but they cannot always be supplied, nor are they all equally good. The remedy for horse sickness, for instance, has not yet been a complete success, because the deaths still amount to 8 per cent. The hon. member also referred to the transfer of inspectors. He does not think it right to transfer an inspector when he has been thirteen years in one place. What I should like to know is where the inspector got the privilege to remain at a certain place because he had been there for thirteen years. That is actually a good reason for transferring him. If an inspector stops too long at one place he gets rusty. This seems to be the case in Lydenburg also because the scab broke out there. The hon. member may shake his head, but it is a fact nevertheless. Scab spread, and the chief inspector was discharged because there was too much scab, and I may add that I shall not allow myself to be influenced by anyone nor by any member of Parliament; when I think it is in the interests of the country to transfer a man I shall certainly do so. The hon. member attributes it to political reasons. I am not ashamed to say that I have always taken up the attitude that the man who has an affection for the Government under which he works and for the people for whom he works will do his work better than the man who is unsympathetic towards the Government. Such a man will always try to stab the Government in the back. Neither here nor elsewhere have I ever hesitated to advocate that, all things be equal, I will always appoint the man who belongs to my party. I have always done so, and will continue to do so. There has been considerable objection to my control, to my appointment of inspectors, and to the abolition of the sheep division, but I can point to the results, that scab has come down from 5.4 per cent, to 1.17. It will not assist hon. members to try and frighten me, I shall continue to follow the same policy in the future in spite of any criticism.

The hon. Minister, in replying to my charge, blaming the Department of Agriculture for the terrible delay that had occurred in arranging a quarantine station which the stock-breeders wanted in order to import cattle into this country and improve the stock, has sheltered himself by saying that they had to consider the cattle industry in this country. We did not, for a moment, wish that any risks should be run. We wished, of course, that the quarantine station should be arranged for in England. We have to-day, as he has stated, a quarantine station at the East India Docks in London, erected by the Empire Marketing Board and the Dominions at a cost of something like £30,000 for all cattle that are to be exported from England to the Dominions.

If the Empire marketing Board had not made the necessary arrangements for that quarantine station, where should we be to-day? We should still be without a station, and the importation of cattle would still be held up. We all wish to assist the hon. the Minister in encouraging the improvement of cattle in this country, in order to improve the quality of beef, not only for the export trade but for the Union market. In that respect I have a suggestion to make which has come to my notice after reading an article on a line worthy of consideration by the hon. the Minister. We are hoping in South Africa to have a very stringent food and drug adulteration Act, but I think we all realise that it would be rather difficult to bring our meat production within the scope of that Act. We all realise that something must be done, not only to educate the farmer to improve the quality of his meat production, whether it is beef or mutton, in order that he may get a better market and a higher price for his products, but also to encourage the consumer in the Union of South Africa to realise the advantages of a better class of meat than he has been accustomed to. I fear that, somehow or other the palate of our consumers in the big towns has been utterly ruined and spoiled by the trek ox and the old ewe that they have been accustomed to be supplied with. How is this to be done? It is apparent that the consumer no longer appreciates decent meat, because it seems to me that he will take anything that is supplied to him by the butcher. I have always felt that the question of a good deal of our meat for the market might be met in some way and the method which has been brought to my notice in reading the article I spoke of is worthy of the attention of the Minister, because I think it would be a means of improving our meat production, and not only that, but it would help to give the consumer the article that we all hope he will always pay for. The article that I spoke of states that, according to Mr. W. C. Davis, assistant chief marketing specialist to the Bureau of Economics of the United States of America, the grading of meat was the ultimate solution of the problem of marketing that was facing cattle men throughout America. I feel that if the Minister would only entertain this scheme and try to bring it into force in the large abattoirs of this country, where beef and mutton might be graded and stamped, as meat is stamped in Johannesburg to-day in regard to whether it is diseased or otherwise, if its quality were fairly stamped the consumer would eventually benefit because he would, naturally, ask for the better quality. To-day the consumers are so ignorant of good quality that any kind of meat is passed on to them and they pay the higher price for the inferior article, whereas with the grading system the housewife would say “I want grade 1, not grade 3.” The consumers would benefit and, naturally, the producer would benefit eventually, because the butcher would find that he would have to look round for more of the improved article than he is doing at the present time. So I hope the Minister will take this idea into serious consideration, for the benefit not only of the consumer, but also of the producer in South Africa.

I should like some information about the sheep experts. They have done much good work in enlightening the farmers. The position we hold in the wool market at present is in great measure to the sheep expert. I noticed a little while ago however that the Department has decided that the farmers can only have three visits from the experts, and that thereafter they will have to pay for them. If the Minister has made such a decision, I ask him to revise it. Sheep farming is certainly the most important part of agriculture. The wool industry produces a great revenue, and if the farmers are not to be given the advice of the experts gratis any longer they will miss it very much. Formerly the farmers did not make much use of the experts, but they are doing so more and more, because they have woken up, and seen the advantages of it. There is a great demand for experts, and I ask the Minister to appoint many of them. The Minister has done a good deal for the wool industry in our country, and the farmers will never forget his action in eradicating scab. Yet on behalf of the farmers throughout the Union I urge upon him to keep sheep experts available for the use of farmers.

I think if a farmer has been advised by sheep experts three times he cannot expect the Government to continue sending experts to sort the sheep of certain people. The object of the appointment of the experts is for them to come into touch with all the farmers, and not only with a few. They must teach the farmers how to classify sheep, and, if in six years they have gone round three times, and the farmers want them again they must pay for them. Some farmers send their sons to the agricultural schools, and classification of sheep is also taught there, and is applied on such a generous scale that the Government experts to-day only classify 8 per cent, of the sheep. We are going to appoint four more, but the farmers must not expect that we can keep on appointing officials.

†The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) has brought up the question of the grading of meat in the different big centres. Let me say at once that we would require more officials if we carried out his suggestion. Is the country in a position to-day for us to build up a huge number of officials? Every day we hear criticisms against the Government that we are spending too much money, and yet the hon. members stand up and agitate for more officials. You could not do that grading of meat without an extra staff, and I wonder if the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) agrees with that.

You have meat inspection now.

Certainly, but it keeps them all their time to grade meat for export. If they had to do more, we would need a much larger staff than at present. I do not say it is impossible; it is a question that can be considered, and it is one into which I will go with my department. I doubt whether it can be possible with the staff I have.

I think it is unfortunate that the Minister should have thought fit to accuse speakers on this side of the House in the manner he did.

Not that side of the House, but a few hon. members who made, those remarks

I am sorry the Minister does not exhibit a more sporting spirit, and that in replying to the criticisms from this side, he should have resorted to personal abuse. I will give place to no one in furthering agriculture, and it is in that spirit that we are criticising this vote. I wish to bring up a matter which was raised by hon. members on all sides, and that is in connection with mechanical traction. I give place to no one in my admiration and respect for the Afrikander trek ox. We all know what he has done in regard to the progress of South Africa, and how he made it possible for the Rand mines to start before the railway was constructed. He has been the sheet-anchor in agriculture; but his day is passing, and we have to-day mechanical science taking his place. We know that our present production of maize is largely due to mechanical power ploughs. There is no comparison between animals and mechanical traction. The work done by a tractor in one day, requires four spans and eight men, working four two furrow ploughs. For the oxen you require 400 acres of ground for grazing all the year round. I am surprised to hear the remark from the hon. member on the cross benches (Mr. Brown). If it had not been for steam ploughs the working people in Natal would have had to pay 1/- for their sugar. But we know that although those hon. members are supposed to represent the working men, we are their true representatives. Our mealie crop is estimated at 20,000,000 bags. It would be doubled if the Minister adopted a bold policy and persuaded the Government to have liquid fuel intended for agricultural purposes carried free by the railways.

Did you do that?

Half the Union’s maize is produced in the Free State, which is hundreds of miles from the sea coast. The Transvaal, another inland province, is also a large grower of maize. The high cost of fuel, however, prevents farmers in the inland provinces from more extensively taking advantage of the opportunities presented by the more extensive use of mechanical power. A case of paraffin at the cost costs 14s. The railway rate is 4s. 9d. and the price to the retail purchaser inland is 20s. 3d. In Natal paraffin costs 15s. 6d. a case, and with paraffin fuel an acre can be ploughed at a cost of 6s. 11d., recokning fuel carbon and depreciation. That is cheaper than when the task is performed by animal power, because a tractor defies dry weather and darkness. The few thousand pounds paid to the railways for the carriage of paraffin and petrol would be more than compensated for by the additional amount which the railways would receive for the conveyance of a considerably larger tonnage of maize. An additional 20,000,000 bags of maize will mean £10,000,000 to the Union. The Transvaal and Free State farmers should be able to buy paraffin at the same price as the coast farmer can buy it. The Minister would make his name immortal if he carried out my suggestion. The South African maize is the best in the world, and it commands 3s. 6d. to 4s. per quarter of 480 lbs. more than the Argentine maize. The price of a tractor is not prohibitive, compared with the cost of animals able to do the same amount of work, and when you take into consideration the cost of the land on which the animals have to graze, then the tractor is even cheaper. I have used mechanical power for ploughing for the last three years. It may be argued that the trek ox is still useful on the road, but here again it is being displaced by mechanical traction. I would like to give the Minister an example of what I mean by quoting the case of a farmer who lived 7 miles from a railway and sold 750 bags of mealies. He delivered those mealies with a motor wagon, which was not an expensive one, having cost £200, in 36 hours continuous working and relaying his labour. It would have required 5 days with 3 spans of oxen and 6 natives to deliver that same amount of maize. Here again we see how mechanical traction is cheaper than animals in saving time. I know of some farmers who have ploughed day and night with their tractors, and the average rate of ploughing with a three furrow plough is an acre an hour. I hope the Minister will listen to the advocacy on all sides in this House in regard to the reduction in taxation—the unholy tax I call it—on liquid fuel. If the Transvaal and Free State farmers could get their fuel at the cost price at ports and have it railed free, the wealth of the country would be increased by £10,000,000, if not more.

There is one point I wish to put to the Minister with regard to his sheep experts. I think we saw a statement in the press to the effect that sheep experts were not to be allowed to class any sheep for sale.

Business interrupted by the Chairman at 10.55 p.m.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in Committee on 18th May.