I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move, as an unopposed motion, and pursuant to notice—

I have the consent of the Government.

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

I wish to make use of this opportunity to say a few words about the new Mozambique convention. The House has not had an opportunity before to discuss this matter and this is the first opportunity that we have. I do not wish to raise a debate at all in these last hours of the session, but I think it is necessary to refer to some of the points raised by that new convention, and, unless what is to be said is said now, it may be too late, as probably when the House meets again next year this convention will have been finally concluded. It is necessary that the matter should be discussed, because, as I understand, it is now only a draft convention. What has been concluded in Lisbon is the heads of an agreement which will be worked out later. I do not want the Government to be under the impression from our silence in this part of the House that we agree to what has been done, and that we have no points to raise in criticism of the action of the Government. Let me say this, that it is, of course, satisfactory from many points of view that an agreement should be concluded. For some years now, I believe for four years, we have been practically without a binding agreement, and the arrangements existing between the Portuguese and ourselves have gone on simply on the ground of good feeling, so to say, and it would be far better if some definite arrangement were come to which would not place our mining industry at the mercy of circumstances; and, from that point of view, it is satisfactory that there is the prospect of concluding an agreement. But when I look at the heads of the agreement as they have been published, they seem to me to be very one-sided indeed, and to sacrifice very largely the interests of the Union. The mines may be assured a native labour supply, but the price that has to be paid for that supply is very great indeed. That price would have to be paid not only by the miners, but others too. I say this new convention follows very much on the lines of the old convention of 1909, but in almost every particular where an alteration is made from the terms of that convention, it is made to the detriment of the Union, and in almost every particular the changes are in the direction of favouring Mozambique. That is a great pity, a very great pity indeed, and I am not sure that the position should not be righted when we come to the final agreement. Mozambique has not suffered at all under the existing arrangements, under the old arrangements. The principal point of the old agreement was that Lourenco Marques should be assured of a certain proportion of the traffic to the competitive area, 50-55 per cent. of the traffic to the competitive area on the Witwatersrand was to be brought to Mozambique. That Mozambique has got. She had it right through. She lost part of it owing to the abnormal circumstances of the war situation and, after the war, she regained it, and I believe for some time now the old proportion of traffic which was assured to her she has enjoyed, and that was the main thing so far as Mozambique was concerned which was secured to her under that agreement, and she has had it all the time. In addition to that, she has improved her position enormously by the changes that have happened since 1909. In 1909 we simply contemplated the import traffic in the Transvaal, and under the convention she got that substantial share to which I have referred. Since then a great change has taken place, and South Africa has become very largely an exporting country, and Delagoa Bay, Lourenco Marques, has had a very substantial share in that export traffic. In fact, so great has the change been, and so great has been the share of the traffic that has gone to Lourenco Marques that she was really unable to cope with it. The troubles that arose over the Mozambique convention which led to its denunciation by us in 1924, were due very largely to the fact that the Port Lourenco Marques could not cope with our export coal traffic in a proper way. Ships to load for export coal were detained for weeks on end; sometimes as long as four weeks, and sometimes, I believe, as long as six weeks. The coal industry of the Transvaal was so hard hit that we could not leave the matter where it was, and to bring that point to a head and to secure our coal industry from the dangers which threatened, we were obliged to denounce the convention and negotiate for a new one. In view of this, one would have thought that the least that would be done by the Government would be to secure that the interests of the Union would be maintained to its position under the old agreement of 1909, but that has not beep done; on the contrary, in almost every particular our position has become worse. Let me take several of the main heads of the new agreement. Let us take the labour supply for the mines of the Transvaal. There the position is this; the old agreement gave us an unlimited right to recruit and get labour from Mozambique. There was no limitation in point of number or of latitude. We could recruit in Mozambique to the full extent of our requirements. We, for our own purpose, introduced limitations—for our own interests—which did not affect the Mozambique authorities at all. This limitation was in view of the death rate among tropical boys from Mozambique on the mines. We limited recruiting to south of latitude 22 degrees. That was an ex-parte act of our own. When we found that the mines did not make sufficient use of our own native labour, then plentiful in the Union, we made a further limitation for administrative purposes, and in 1923 or 1924 we said as a Government that we would not allow the mines to recruit beyond a certain figure—I think 75,000 boys per annum—unless they satisfied the Government that they had done their best to satisfy their labour requirements within the union. That is an action we took for our own purposes. At that time the Transkei was full of labour, and complaints reached the Government from the Ciskei and other parts that they were full of labour. No doubt the Mozambique labour was better, because these boys had been trained for a lifetime for mining work, and worked on longer contracts than our Union boys —the mines preferred this somewhat expert labour.

Of what time are you speaking?

1923 or 1924, under the late Government. This change was made to meet our own situation in the Union. We wanted to deal with the unemployment amongst the natives, which at that time was very extensive. These limitations were introduced by the Union Government or the Union Parliament for our own purposes. We find that here we have had to agree to a very serious diminution of the rights we enjoyed under the convention of 1909. In the first place, this provision regarding recruiting beyond latitude 22 degrees becomes part of the convention, and we shall not be able to get boys from north of latitude 22. I do not know what is going to happen, I will say to the Prime Minister. Although we have prohibited recruiting from north of latitude 22 we know, as a fact, that many boys have voluntarily dribbled through and reached the Union. I do not know whether if that is not going to be a mere matter of Union administration and a binding arrangement with the Mozambique Government, what the effect is going to be—-whether these boys will be sent back, or what will become of them. Beyond that we are to be limited after five years to 80,000 boys for our mines. That is a very serious thing. I do not know whether the House appreciates the change that is going to take place. The number of boys now working on the mines is very large; although, as I say, we fixed the number arbitrarily at 75,000 some years ago, it is found in practice that the mines cannot get round with this number. The demand made by several industries for Union labour has become so great, and Union labour has become so affected, that it has become absolutely necessary for the mines to rely on Mozambique labour. The result is the number of Mozambique boys who work on the mines is far in excess of 75,000; I believe on the gold mines something like 110,000 or 112,000 Mozambique boys are the numbers they have at present; besides that our coal mines are working almost entirely with Mozambique labour. For some reason or other, our Union boys have not taken to the coal mines, and they prefer to go to the Witwatersrand. The result is our coal industry at Witbank and other areas employs almost exclusively Mozambique boys. It is about 13,000 to 15,000, and almost every one of whom is Mozambique labour. Besides that, there is another fairly important fact. For our Union purposes we provide by law that boys under 16 shall not go underground, but many of these boys come forward voluntarily in large numbers from Mozambique. These piccanins go to the farms; for years about 8,000 or 10,000 of these boys have been working on farms, thus very much relieving the necessities of our Transvaal farmers. The House, perhaps, is not aware of the extent to which there is a dearth of labour on the farms in the Transvaal which, to some extent, has been met by these Mozambique piccanins. Under the convention and the reduction of the number to 80,000, what is going to happen? The gold mines have 110,000 Mozambique natives at present; the coal mines have 10,000 or 12,000, and the farms have, say, about 8,000. The whole of the total force of natives from the mines and the farms has now to be restricted to 80,000 for five years. The result will be that every boy will be got for the gold mines, and there will not be sufficient even for the coal mines.

We have no say over these natives.

No, but I think the Minister of Railways has been bluffed in this matter. I find an interview given by the Secretary for Labour at Mozambique, the principal Portuguese authority on this matter, in which he states—

They have a plethora of boys. A discussion has been raised in Portugal as to what is going to be the means of livelihood of that enormous labour force which hitherto has been sent to the Transvaal, but which in future will be restricted. I think it was entirely unnecessary to have made this concession. It was never raised in 1909, and I do not think it was necessary for us to make it now. Instead of 110,000 boys for the gold mines, it will be 80,000. Instead of 10,030 for the coal mines, there will be nobody, and instead of 8,000 for the farms there will be nobody at all. I do hope that when the final convention comes to be concluded, the Government will go very carefully into the question, for the reduction of numbers will restrict development in the Transvaal very seriously. The gold mines will be very seriously hit—-I do not know what will happen to the coal mines.

European labour.

It will mean a very great change to provide white labour. The reduction will mean such a restriction of industry, not only in the mines but in agriculture, that there must be unemployment on a large scale, unless we can change our whole policy and get on to a white labour basis, for which I see no prospect in the immediate future. The position is actually made worse by the limitation of the period of service. When I spoke of 110,000 on the gold mines, I spoke of boys who stay, on an average, 20 months each. They come for 18 months; they can renew for further periods and the average period for which a Mozambique boy stays on the Rand is 29 months. Under the new arrangement, they will be able to remain a maximum of 18 months, but it is found that on the average they tend to renew and it is expected that the new period will not be more than 15 months. Then this has to be taken into account—when we speak of 80,000, it will not be on the old basis, but in proportion as 20 is to 15 because of the restricted period. I hope the Government will make every effort to see that the convention is not signed on the basis of this number. I think our Portuguese friends have been driving a hard bargain with us, and the Minister of Railways has given in to their demands much "too soon. We are not going in the interest of our industries and the future development of the country by restricting our recruiting to such numbers. One point on which the Mozambique authorities have insisted in previous negotiations is this question of deferred pay. I can understand the Government may have been forced to give the concession—I do not blame the Minister of Railways on that score, but even so, we have made a very important concession. The amount of business that will be restricted on the Rand as a consequence will be quite considerable. I have not the figures before me, but the restriction is put at £750,000 a year. We were bound to make a concession, and no doubt the Government has done its best to make the concession not too large, but our Portuguese friends should have been satisfied with this concession, and we should not have been driven to the further expedient of restricting recruiting to 80,000. Let me say one word more about the native aspect of this agreement, on the question of deferred pay. We had a provision in the old agreement that Mozambique boys going back with their bundles from the Rand should not be subject to further customs investigation or molestation, but that the Union Government should pay a sum of money, I believe 7s. 6d. for each parcel they took back. I see nothing in the new arrangement, but I believe that is probably because it is a matter of detail which will be put into the final agreement when concluded. I hope that will be done. We made that provision in the old agreement because it was the very strong desire of the Portuguese boys that they should not be molested. They do not want to have their parcels taken to pieces on the border, and we agreed to pay 7s. 6d. to let them go back with the stuff they have bought in the Transvaal. On another Very important point we have given way. Under the old agreement of 1909, there was a joint board which could deal with all questions that arose in regard to the railways to Lourenco Marques. Now this board goes. I see nothing about it. It is a great pity that the Portuguese who have never liked this arrangement, and who have always looked upon it as an affront to their dignity, have at last carried their way and in future there will be no joint board to discuss common concerns of the two railway systems. Of course, the result may be that in future the trouble which arose after the war may be accentuated. The whole trouble of our relations with Delagoa Bay was just that the arrangements there were insufficient for the export of our Transvaal traffic, especially coal, and it was for that purpose that we pressed very strongly that there should be some method of dealing with that traffic and seeing that everything was in order. The joint board did not work, and we wanted some other method, on which we were not able to agree with the Mozambique authorities. In the present agreement I see that the whole attempt has been abandoned. No attempt even has been made to have a new board, and if anything goes wrong with our traffic at Delagoa Bay in future, there will be no remedy whatever. We are entirely dependent on the arrangements at Delagoa Bay. Our coal industry, after the war was severely hit because the export arrangements at Delagoa Bay were so defective and ships had to pay so much demurrage for delays there, that we practically lost the big markets we had built up in the East. If a similar situation were to arise in the future there will be no remedy at all. There is no method by which we can bring pressure to bear on our neighbours in a matter which concerns us to a vital extent. I see that only on one point there is going to be an advisory board, and funnily enough that is a board which does not deal with Delagoa Bay at all, but with the Transvaal. It is under Article 14, which says—

The only advice that will be given will be for the purpose—I will not say of deflecting exports from the Transvaal to Delagoa Bay from other ports—but-for the purpose of furthering export traffic from the Transvaal through Lourenco Marques. I am sorry to see that the means has been abandoned for trying to come to an arrangement by which this port, so necessary to the Transvaal, should be used to the best advantage. The only means of consultation and of furthering our interests there, has been frankly abandoned, and in future we shall not have a word to say about the matter. Mozambique authorities will do just as they like. I have made these points of criticism, because I hope when the final agreement comes to be concluded the Government will take into the most serious consideration the interests of the Transvaal. We can pay too high a price for an agreement. I think we are paying a very high price here indeed. In almost every respect from the Union point of view, the new agreement is much worse than the old agreement of 1909. We appear in these negotiations to be a beaten party. I think when the effects of the new convention, if it goes through on the present basis, begin to be felt in coming years by the Transvaal, they will be very serious indeed. Although I agree that every effort should be made to come to an agreement, and that it will be far more satisfactory to assure the native labour supply for our mines, I hope every effort will be made by the Government to see that the agreement, when it goes through finally, will not appear so one-sided as it appears to-day, but that greater effort will be made to secure our Transvaal interests.

Let me say that I welcome the remarks of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). Not, of course, that I agree with his criticism—in some respects yes, but not for the most part. Let me say that the Government is in a very difficult position when the matter under criticism is a question of external relations. It must necessarily be the case, when there is criticism such as we have had here of the attempts that are being made, of the steps taken by the Government in relation to a foreign power, and the Government wishes to defend itself, that it must then practically act as one defending the case of the opposing party with whom it is negotiating, and it is precisely for this reason, of course, that I say that the Government is in a difficult position in connection with the criticism. But let me say frankly in the meantime that I agree with the hon. member for Standerton that our Portuguese friends, I think, might have been more friendly disposed, or let me say have shown a more conciliatory spirit as a power in South Africa, to enable us to really act as friends of that Government, as we are still doing to-day, working with them in the interests of the whole of South Africa. I think they might have met us in a more conciliatory way than has been the case in the past. But let me here also say at once that I am glad that unquestionably there is a much better spirit of rapprochement than before. But I want to say that there were nevertheless things said by the hon. member which, of course, I cannot concede. I want, first of all, to say that I am very glad that he agreed about the deferred payment, we were not in a position to reject it. I will therefore not go into it further, but only add that I have felt from the beginning that, where the demand was made of us, and it was a reasonable demand— so long as too much was not demanded of us— we should feel bound to meet our Portuguese friends. And we did so. But what the hon. member for Standerton cannot actually approve is the restriction of the number of natives to 80,000. Then I want to ask the hon. member which he would prefer, that no agreement were come to with Portugal, or that an agreement were come to on the basis now proposed? Which would he prefer? I am convinced that he will not say that he would rather be without an agreement. Then he says that the number of 80,000 is too small, and that the Minister might have obtained more, and that the Minister allowed himself to be bluffed. Let me reply to that that I do not think the Minister, as he thinks, allowed himself to be bluffed in the least, and I think it will be admitted eventually that the Minister did particularly good work, but we must not forget that the number of Mozambique natives who were in the mines when this Government came into office was only 76,000, so far as the gold mines were concerned, and it was laid down by the hon. member for Standerton himself when in office that that number should not be exceeded. There were at that time on the coal mines a further 12,000, which brought the figure up to 88,000, only 8,000 more than what is now fixed. The position was always taken up by his, as well as this, Government that we ought to protect the natives in the Union and that we ought to see that recruiting and the importation of natives from outside the Union is always so done that the necessary field of labour is not taken away from our own natives. The hon. member for Standerton said this morning that, during his Government in 1923-’24, there were so many natives imported from Mozambique into the Union, that our Union natives could not find work. Well, I must say that that is a thing this Government does not want to allow, and it is not going to permit it. But I agree that he is right, that since that time there has been a greater demand for labour, and it is also a fact that there has been a greater demand for natives in the neighbouring territories, but now we are, once for all, in the position that the Portuguese Government has told us that it intends to use more native labour itself, and either we must agree to the proposed limitation of the number of natives we obtain from there, or our Portuguese friends must, as indeed they do, denounce the convention. I do not see in the circumstances what else can be done, and now my hon. friend may say that, if he had been in the position of the Minister of Railways, he would have got a better contract, that he at any rate would have got a larger number of natives, but then I want just to remind my hon. friend that he tried during his period of office to get favourable conditions, and that he did not succeed, and I do not think he has any right—

There was no question of number.

The number is not the only point in the agreement, but only a subordinate point, and the hon. member for Standerton certainly did not succeed in coming to an agreement with Portugal as we have succeeded in doing, and I again want to ask him whether he would rather have the contract, or no contract. I am certain the hon. member will not assume the attitude “no contract” in relation to the gold mines. He knows it. I feel that I must be careful. I only want to say this—that, while I am grateful for the criticism of the hon. member, a person in such cases, of course, never gets what he wants, and the other contracting party is always under the impression that they are making the sacrifices, and we are not. Therefore, I am glad that the hon. member said that there is considerable room left for obtaining more, which would be against the statements of our Portuguese friends, but in the circumstances I think that a sound basis has been laid which, in every way, gives satisfaction, and if after five years—the period of the agreement—we find that it is not what it ought to be, then we shall have to say to our Portuguese friends that it would be better not to allow the agreement to continue on those lines, but I think that in any case we have gained something by meeting each other to remove difficulties. I entirely agree with the hon. member for Standerton with regard to the joint board. It would, in my opinion, be much better for both parties if we could have agreed upon such a body with authority to act in connection with the railway from the Transvaal to Mozambique, but, unfortunately, our Portuguese friends are a little sensitive about anything which concerns their sovereign rights, and I cannot quite understand their sensitiveness in connection with anything which we are inclined to regard as an ordinary matter of business, but, anyhow, that is the case, and in such circumstances we must bear the human factor in mind, and can only try to obtain co-operation between the general managers here and there in the best possible way, as is foreshadowed in the report, and we must just give it an opportunity to see how it works, and whether it will bring about a satisfactory state of affairs. The contract is for five years, and we must keep our eyes open during that time as to whether it is satisfactory, and ought to continue. I feel with the hon. member for Standerton that if we cannot get our exports handled in a satisfactory way, then we must—however much we may regret it—decide to avail ourselves of our own Union facilities. But let me say again that I have the fullest confidence that our Portuguese friends want to work amicably with us to-day for the development of our respective territories for the benefit of all.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee now.

House in Committee:

Clause 1 put and agreed to.

I want to deal with the matter of this convention.

The hon. member cannot do that now. He can do so at the third reading stage.

On Clause 2,

Will you give us to understand what we may discuss? Is there any possibility of any general discussion?

On the third reading.

Hon. members will have to confine themselves to the clauses now.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses, schedules and title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

Mr. A. S. NAUDé seconded.

When we were discussing, some time ago, in committee of supply our trades commissioner on the Continent, I think it was then suggested that Milan was not a proper place for a trades commissioner to reside. I do not agree with my hon. friend. I think Milan is a very good place for the trades commissioner. After all, we have to look facts in the face. If we look at the wonderful economic and industrial revival in Italy during the last two years, then I think that the trades commissioner could do very useful work in Italy. If we look at the wonderful increase in our export of meat alone to Italy, it appears to me our cattle industry in this country is not at present in a very flourishing condition. There is no doubt Italy is taking a poorer class of meat, coming more and more from the scrub cattle we have. Italy seems to delight in taking lean meat instead of what we call the prime beef, and there has been an enormous increase in the export of meat to Italy. I think for the benefit of our cattle industry our trades commissioner might do well to pay especial attention in regard to our exports to Italy. I understand, according to reports I have seen, that we may be able to develop a considerable export trade to Italy and the sourthern parts of Europe in coal, fruit and wool, all matters of export upon which we are very much dependent. I would ask the Government to specially draw the attention of the trades commissioner to how our export trade to Italy can be extended. I am certain the trades commissioner would have support from all parts of the House if he were to see what he could do to improve our export trade, not only to Italy, but to the other southern states of Europe. For our country the sourthern states of Europe are practically an unexplored market, and especially in regard to our fruit. When we have our fruit here they have not their season there, and it may be a very greatly increased outlet for our fruit, our coal and our wool.

interjected a remark.

I suppose the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) is living in a kind of fool’s paradise, and does not know that the previous Government appointed a trades commissioner on the Continent; and, at any rate, I am surprised, when a point is raised on this side of the House with regard to our exports, it seems to be treated with levity by hon. members on the Government benches. I am now addressing the Prime Minister, who has a full conception of what this country requires in regard to the extension of markets, and I am not addressing the hon. member. I am certain the Prime Minister will do a service to our country if he gives special instructions to our trades commissioner in Milan. I am sorry I cannot agree with my hon. friend here that Milan is not the proper place. I am more and more persuaded that Milan is the place where the trades commissioner should reside.

I realize that this convention should not be passed over without some expression of views being given by a quarter of the House which is vitally concerned with it. I would like to suggest to the Prime Minister that, before this convention is ratified, some body be sent up to discuss generally various aspects of this convention. I know perfectly well the Government would not proceed to ratification without consulting the various interests, big and small, which will be vitally concerned by the results brought about by this agreement, but I think there should be something more than that—something in the nature of joint consultation. I would like to point out that I am speaking for myself and giving my individual views, and not in any sense speaking for the Labour party; but I do know that the views I am going to express now are, to a very large extent, entertained and subscribed to by the party to which I belong.

Which half?

The only official Labour party we have in this country. Why I say it is subscribed to largely by a considerable portion of those who support Labour, is that there has been a general disposition amongst the ranks of European industrialists to try to view from a fair perspective what is going to affect our industries in future as the result of such an agreement as this. The effect of importing natives from north of latitude 22 degrees south was a high mortality amongst them. On one large group of mines I know on the Wit watersrand, they lost something like 3,000 natives in one year. The mortality grew to such an extent that it became a grave scandal. As a result of this limitation, the mortality has been very much reduced. We must pay this tribute to the mining industry—its controller has seen the great value to be obtained from paying attention to health conditions, medical services, and also health examination of those who have to work on the mines. The mortality has been very considerably reduced, until I do not think it is any greater amongst the natives engaged in the mining industry than amongst any other natives. The same does not apply to Europeans. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said he thought the Minister of Railways and Harbours had been bluffed. I do not know that he has been bluffed. We do not expect the Minister to discover another Kosi Bay in the middle of the negotiations. Another interjection I heard was that we wanted to run the gold mines with white labour. That has never been proposed. It is true that 20 years ago the present Minister of Defence had a white labour policy, and I believe he adheres to it with, I should say, modifications, but I would not say to-day that it is practical industrial politics to have the mines on the Witwatersrand run with white labour. The members of the miners’ union, which is vitally concerned in this matter, are to-day expressing the view that the low-grade ore which is there should not be left there. Labour is required to extract that ore, and extraction does not mean only the mechanical processes, but the money so earned, throughout the whole gamut of commerce and business, and it also means taxation which comes to the Government and dividends to the shareholders. I think if the Prime Minister could initiate something in the nature of a joint consultative body, such as I have suggested, and call in men representative of the industry, both of the employers and of the employees, as well as of the coal-mining industry, it would be of great assistance indeed. We know it is impossible at present to eradicate that scourge of silicosis. The worst of it is we are picking the very cream of our European population and sending them down into the mines and making them silicotics. The native who works in the mines does not depend on it as his life’s work, and there are very few of them who labour on the mines for six years, and that period is not long enough to give them silicosis. On the other hand, the European miner works permanently on the mines and contracts silicosis. The "remedy is to lessen the hours during which the European miner will be in contact with conditions which provoke silicosis. My suggestion is to restrict the hours of labour underground for white miners by, say, 30 per cent., and, as a result, I believe their working life will be more than doubled. This may be made possible by slightly relaxing the mining regulations, so that it will be legal for natives to perform certain duties which to-day they actually do perform illegally. In this way we could take the fullest advantage of our labour force. It has been suggested that the mines should be worked by European labour. I hope nobody thinks the Labour party so short-sighted and so foolish as to think that simply because the native labour force in this country cannot economically be paid rates which are parallel to those earned by Europeans, we want to restrict their employment in industries. We recognize the value of native labour, and we want it employed in such a way that it will assist us to develop our natural assets with the object, ultimately of raising the standards of all engaged in industries. But there should be no competition whatever between native and European workers. However, I am digressing somewhat. If we have co-operation between the gold and diamond mines and the Government, the diamond mines will employ European miners when they become affected with silicosis. There is always a danger, if you have a very large proportion of natives engaged on the mines and the mining industries suddenly peter out —which I do not believe it will—that you will have a dislocation of the native labour supply consequent on the setting free of many thousands of natives from the mines. But that would have less effect than if they were Europeans. The Government would have the absolute co-operation of everybody concerned if this matter were reviewed entirely without prejudice, because of any past customs or precedents, and thereby we should be able to embark on a new era in our industrial life.

When I raised the question of the new office at Johannesburg on the estimates, we understood the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to say that it was intended to remove the post office to the site occupied by the garage in Von Brandis Square. Subsequently the Minister explained that I had misunderstood him, but so had other people, and the people of the Band are very much concerned. I should be glad if the Prime Minister would clearly state that there is no intention of removing the post office from its present site, but only the telegraph department. Then Johannesburg sadly needs new magistrates courts, as unfortunately crime is fairly rife, and the present courts are inadequate and unhealthy. Large institutions are showing their faith in the stability of Johannesburg and the construction of the new railway station testifies to that. Even if the gold industry disappears, Johannesburg is going to remain the hub of South Africa.

The Mine Workers’ Union on the Band are in favour of the policy of extending native labour and have officially stated so. We feel that with the industries going on, and with the extension of farming in South Africa, the fanners will take more native labour. I feel with the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that if we complete this convention we might find our gold mines and coal mines and farms without sufficient labour. There was a big strike in Johannesburg due to a large extent to the fact that we felt at the time that they were employing too many natives in ratio to the white man. Then it was 10.1 natives to each European employed. It has gone down to nine. I do not agree with what the hon. the Minister of Defence, who has a fad about this question, may say. You cannot get away from the fact that the more natives you employ on the mines, the more white men you employ. It is all very well to say you can find the natives in South Africa. I doubt it. The mines at the present moment are even sending motor trolleys and motor cars to the country to bring the natives to a certain point, so that they can be sent to the Rand. They are, it is true, getting a sufficient number, but let us have one or two or three good years in this country, and you will find your South African native not coming to the mines. He will stay behind and eat the food he has grown. It is essential for South Africa that the gold mines shall be kept going, and that the low grade mines shall be worked. Anybody who is in favour of that will have the support of people in this quarter. We want to put this to the mining industry of this country—that if the gold mines are going to have a large amount of native labour they must also absorb a much larger number of whites, particularly on the surface, and the diamond mines must go out of their way to employ more whites. We will stand by any Prime Minister on this question. The point is not to dry up the labour supply in South Africa to the mines, industries or to the farms of this country. If he does that, he will find that our farming will go back. If these natives are not allowed to go into the Transvaal, farming will go back there. In the Free State, where you can get the Basutos, and in the Cape, you are all right. Therefore, we ask the hon. the Prime Minister before he signs this part of the convention to take into consideration whether he will not consult the men who work in the mines, and other members who represent the working classes, apart from some to-day who are sitting in his Cabinet. We want the Government to be very careful before they sign this convention, and consult with us and others who hold the opinions that my friend and I have put forward.

I agree entirely with what the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said about this agreement. I was very glad to know that the Prime Minister also agreed with what the right hon. member said. But there are two points that I wish to emphasize, particularly affecting the constituency which I represent. The first is contained in Article 5, which says that any Portuguese native who can be identified as such within the Union, and who is not in possession of a valid, current Portuguese pass, shall be regarded as a prohibited immigrant. The Prime Minister will remember that in northern Zulu land, which is a malarial area, the railway administration got into very grave difficulties a few years ago by taking natives from Pondo land to work in that area. They were not accustomed to live in a malarial climate, with the result that there were many fatalities and a considerable amount of sickness, and the cost of taking the natives there and getting them away again was very excessive. The Minister will realize that if northern Zululand is going to take natives from non-malarial areas to malarial areas, we are not doing justice to the natives, and not furthering the development of that part of the country. It has been the practice for many years for natives from Portuguese territory to come into Zululand to work in the sugar and cotton fields, and elsewhere. These natives belong to the same tribe and live under the same chief as those already residing in Zululand. They are part of the tribe of the Amadonga, the chief of whom lives over in Union territory. They come over on their ordinary tribal affairs daily to see their chief, and discuss tribal matters, and it is natural for them to come over and offer themselves for work in the various industries which are springing up in northern Zululand. They are particularly suitable for that work. They have been bred and reared in malarial country, and we cannot get the ordinary Zulu living in the hills to come down and work in those areas. It would be a tragedy, therefore, for the development of that part of the country if these natives were prevented from coming there. Recently this matter was brought to the notice of the Minister of the Interior, and he agreed to allow that practice, which has gone on for years, to continue, but if we interpret Article 5 in the strict terms set down here, the Minister is going to close down half the sugar industry of Zululand. If, for instance, the Portuguese labour that is working in northern Zululand on the various cotton plantations and on the sugar estates, were to cease, you are going to drive off the land quite a large number of Europeans, because there is no other labour which they can obtain from any other part of the Union to work there. As I have said, the Pondos and others cannot be recruited to stay there and go on that form of labour. I am only drawing attention to this in case in the ratification of this agreement, this matter is enforced and, therefore, the free action which the Government have insisted on taking in the past is abrogated. In Article 17 it is provided [quoted]. I hope that is not going to mean sugar.

No, you may be quite sure of that.

I need not say anything more about it, because the Prime Minister will realize the danger to the sugar industry.

The Prime Minister will remember my having drawn his attention to the frequency with which persons who have been responsible for the deaths of natives are discharged. I want to draw his attention to a case, a very distressing case, that has happened during the last few days in the Transvaal. I refer to a charge of murder that was brought against two Europeans in the Transvaal in respect of the death of a native boy named Andries. The circumstances briefly were these. Two native boys had deserted from service, and they were pursued by the sons of their employer, who were travelling in a Cape cart drawn by two mules. They were overtaken, and the two small native boys were tied in front of the mules and driven on at a running pace ahead of the vehicle. The result was that one small boy died in that position, being driven ahead of the vehicle. It is understood that he fell down and died there and then. The evidence of his companion was that he was unmercifully flogged, and that that was the cause of his death. The case was brought before the magistrate for preliminary examination at the instance of the dead boy’s companion, who went to the police and reported that his companion was missing. In consequence of what this boy said, the body of the deceased boy was discovered in an ant-heap, and I think there was evidence that it had been placed there by the accused. Medical evidence was given at the preliminary examination of a post mortem on the body of the deceased native, and I understand that serious injuries were disclosed. The point which I wish to draw to the Prime Minister’s attention is this, that when the two accused were brought to trial at the sessions in that portion of the Transvaal in which the accused are resident, the prosecutor reduced the charge of murder to one of common assault, and my submission is that there was not sufficient justification for such a course of action, because the ground upon which this charge was reduced to one of common assault was simply that when the small native boy gave evidence before the judge and jury he was severely cross-examined by the leading King’s Counsel, who was defending the accused, and contradicted himself on certain important points. In consequence of that circumstance alone, at the suggestion of counsel for the accused, who said that he would tender a plea of guilty of common assault, the prosecutor agreed to accept that plea and reduced the charge accordingly. In that case, the native boy, after he had given his evidence, and the superior intelligence of the leading K.C. had been brought to bear upon him, was taken outside the court and asked to explain his evidence before the judge and jury, who made an inspection of the cart before which the deceased was alleged to have been driven. I have seen a copy of the photographs that were taken of the incident, a small native boy surrounded by a crowd of Europeans, so young did he appear that it would be pardonable if he became confused and timid, and that lad was depicted endeavouring, probably very unsuccessfully, to explain his evidence to the judge. My whole contention is that this is the kind of justice that is only second best. I am not reflecting on the court in any way, I am reflecting upon the mere fact that cases are tried by a local jury after several jurymen had been challenged by accused’s counsel where the circumstances are such as are stated in this case. I maintain that that case should have been tried by a judge alone, that we should go forward without any further delay to bring about a state of affairs under which these trials should no longer go before a jury, and we should be very careful not to give the natives the impression that we are too ready to reduce charges, as was done in this case, from one of murder to one of common assault on circumstances which do not seem to justify such a course of action. This case has formed the subject of considerable comment in the press, and there has been some very plain speaking on the facts of the case, indicating that the Crown Prosecutor was ill-advised to reduce this serious charge to one of common assault in the circumstances. There is this further point I want to emphasize. The medical evidence was not available, or in any case was not taken at the trial, so that when sentence was passed upon the accused, the judge had had no information or no evidence as to the nature of the injuries disclosed by the medical examination when the body was discovered. The accused’s plea was that they had merely given the deceased V a flick or two.” That point should have been elucidated, and no sentence should have been passed upon the accused until that side of the evidence had been laid before the court by the prosecutor. I am not blaming the judge for a moment. If anyone is to blame, it is the prosecutor, in the first place for reducing the charge on such flimsy grounds, and, secondly, in not laying before the judge all the evidence of bodily injuries on the deceased disclosed by the medical evidence. I agree with what has been said by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) in regard to the introduction of native labour from Portuguese territory. I maintain the hon. member enunciates a sound doctrine in holding that an increase of native labour would mean an increase of European employment there and general prosperity.

That is not borne out by the statistics. Bead the Chamber of Mines report.

The definite conviction of the Mineworkers’ Union seems to be in a contrary direction to that held by the hon. member for Brakpan.

The statistics are there.

The statistics, I think, in this case must be susceptible of some modification, because there is no doubt that in the view of those who have spent a lifetime on the Rand, whenever native labour has been plentiful, then we have noticed a corresponding increase in the general prosperity of the Witwatersrand.

No.

I speak from an experience of the Rand from 1889 till 1916.

It has altered since 1889.

I know it has altered, but not in that respect, and my experience of the country dates back to 1889, and whenever native labour has been plentiful, there has been increased prosperity. There is, in addition, this circumstance, that if the number of native labourers from Portuguese territory is to be reduced, you are bound to draw in increasing numbers upon your Union native labourers, and we cannot get away from the fact that with the advance of other industries and with the big claims the agricultural industry is making for native labour, you will find before very long an acute shortage of labour if the reduction of Portuguese native labourers is to go on at the ratio indicated in the convention. I hope that the Prime Minister will realize that in this question we have to serve a wider constituency than merely the mines. We have to keep our eyes on the development of the agricultural industry, and to see that it is based on permanent foundations and with a view to extension, so that it can carry a larger number of people. There can be no doubt that wherever the mining industry comes into competition with the agricultural industry in securing labour, the mining industry secures the pick and outbids every other industry for the available native labour of the country. That is a fact. I hope the Prime Minister will keep it in mind when the final form of the convention is being determinded, and that he will secure some modification in the interests of the country. Then there is a question which has been left in a somewhat vague state—what products are to be admitted duty free from Portuguese East Africa. I hope that the Prime Minister, when he comes to agree on these products, will bear in mind the industries we have within our own herders, and not expose them to competition which will be ruinous to industries of the Union.

In connection with the proposed agreement between the Union Government and the Portuguese Government with regard to Mozambique, I want to bring a few facts to the Minister’s notice. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said that we paid too high a price for a convention, but he made no suggestion. The hon. member himself said that our exports via Delagoa Bay had increased astonishingly of late years. If that shows anything, then it just shows how necessary Delagoa Bay has become to our economic existence, because the position in the northern and north-eastern Transvaal is such to-day that, if our fruit farmers in that part of the country had known, or could have known, that the convention would be entered into, and that it would enable us to export our fruit via Delagoa Bay, then the export would have been much greater than it already is to-day, and the hon. member says that the export is already so tremendously large, but he thinks the price is still too high, and he talks as if we were masters in Mozambique. The hon. member further says, if I understood him rightly, that the shipping companies are not satisfied with the conditions prevailing at Delagoa Bay. I differ from him there. I can mention a company, namely, the British India Navigation Company, which is quite satisfied with Delagoa Bay in relation to the control, and that the ships are not delayed, and that the service is sufficiently quick. Nor have they to pay too much in the harbour, I understand.

The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) did not say so.

Then I misunderstood him, but I will only say that the shipping companies are entirely satisfied, and that in the north and north-east of the Transvaal we are keen on there being a convention, and that there shall be sufficient hold accommodation for our Imports and exports. To-day we have to send car fruit for export to Cape Town, which is 1,300 miles away, or to Durban, which is 600 miles away, while Delagoa Bay is only 100 miles from the fruit farming area, and this applies also to the whole area of the copper mines at Messina, and to the districts of Lydenburg and Barberton Therefore I sincerely hope that the convention will become an accomplished fact. I can understand the Government having to make certain concessions, because Mozambique does not belong to us, but to a friendly state, and it is clear that in such a case one must give and take. But there is one point which is agreed to in the convention that I want to say something about, namely, that we import natives for one industry, the mines. If the principle of importing natives for only one industry, namely, the mining industry, is adopted, then we must also do it for other industries, such as the agricultural industry. That industry requires native labour just as much as the mines. The mines have developed recently, but not so much as the agricultural industry recently has, and the latter requires natives just as much as the mines. If the mines can import natives, then allow the organized agricultural industry also to do so. The hon. member for Standerton said that a certain number of the imported natives for the mines were under 16 years of age, and those who were rejected because they were too young, or not suited to work on the mines—and the hon. member estimated them at 8,000—send them down to the countryside to work there as farm labourers. I think the hon. member is wrong, because the country farmer does not have the benefit of those natives. To-day those natives who are rejected remain on the Rand as house or kitchen-boys. The farmer therefore does not have the benefit of young natives of the Rand. But I want to say what has actually been stopped. At Komatipoort, our border station, 1,800 young natives came in illegally in 1926. They do not actually enter illegally, because they immediately report themselves to the police at Komatipoort. They are then tried by the justice of the peace, and fined 10s. or ten days’ hard labour. As they usually have no money, they serve the ten days and are then released, and divided up amongst the farmers of the lowyeld district. At present a curator has been appointed, and the natives are received by him and returned direct to Mozambique. Therefore the farmer in Lydenburg and the surrounding districts in the lowveld is deprived of those young natives, but he cannot get the rejected natives from the mines. I think the number of natives for the mines, fixed at 80,000, will be adequate. The previous Government itself fixed the number then working on the mines at 76,000. But we cannot expect that of the 80,000 any number will drift away to the countryside to work in agriculture. We must take it that almost the whole number will remain on the Rand, either in the mines, or as household servants. What is to become of the farmer in the meantime? Some time ago, e.g., it was found that 66 per cent, of the available natives suited to be mine workers, or to work on the farms, were from the Transkei, and I think that we can hardly expect a larger number from any area. Even in war time we will find that amongst the Europeans not more than 66 per cent. of the male population will take part. A certain number of natives, of course, always remain behind at home, the old and the young natives and others, and we must take it that the maximum amount was drawn from the Transkei in 1925-’26. The chairman of the Native Agricultural Union gave evidence that, when there was a good year, no natives left the native territories to go and work. In a good year they do not go out to work. We therefore ask whether it is not possible for agriculture to organize itself, and that the organized agricultural unions shall also have the right, just as the Witwatersrand Native Labour Organization, to recruit the Mozambique natives, always under the proviso that they will repatriate them after six, twelve or eighteen months, just as the organization mentioned does, and in this way agriculture can be given the labour it needs. What will assist greatly is a general native labour board established by the Government as the only body in charge of recruiting, and which then can give agriculture a pro rata share of the natives available, and percentages to the mines and other industries. It is especially difficult to recruit natives in the lowveld, in the districts of Zoutpansberg, Lydenburg and Barberton. The natives from the Union do not stand the fever areas well, and when they go there they usually get fever and malaria, and take the first opportunity of going back.

As the hon. members for Spring and Bloemfontein (North) have stated that their views on this question represented this corner of the House, I wish to say that I entirely dissent from the views they have expressed, and I hope the day will never come when I stand in my place as a Labour member for Parliament and put up the case for the Chamber of Mines. The Chamber of Mines is quite able to look after itself, and does not need the support of the Labour party. I have the same views as the leader of my party, and I think I understand now the reason why the cry has gone through the country that Creswell must go. I was surprised to hear interruptions of the hon. member’s speech from the South African party side of the House, which supports the Corner House end the Chamber of Mines generally. The first thing that hon. members should do is to get the Chamber of Mines to meet and pass a vote of thanks to the section of the Labour party that supports their policy of importing cheap labour. Our farming friends also want to take advantage of the exploitation of cheap labour brought from outside this country, thanks to the example set them. I want it to be understood that I do not subscribe to those ideas, and I hope I never shall, as a Labour man and as one who believes in furthering the cause of the working class,. whether white or black. As far as I know, and have judged, Labour opinion on the reef, the great bulk of trade union feeling there will be against any idea of opening the flood gates of a mass of cheap indentured labour to work on the mines. What was the principle underlying the 1922 strike, but that the interests of white workers were being jeopardized by the Chamber of Mines using native labour out of all proportion to white men? Now they say if you flood your mines with more servile or slave labour, more white men can be employed. That has still to be proved, and past experience should be a warning. The cause of the strike was the fact that white labour was being driven out of the mines because of the influx of cheap unorganized labour. If the South African party side will agree to a policy of every native required on the mines coming in as a free human being with the right to organize and entitled to a living wage, I have no objection at all, but for them to come as semi-slaves, and I say they are, with wages scarcely sufficient to keep body and soul together, is a bad foundation for any industry in this country. It is the antithesis of the civilized labour policy of the present Government. We are, as a fact, definitely committed to carry out to the fullest extent a civilized labour policy, and I hope that we, as a party, will never agree to the policy laid down by the Chamber of Mines. I paid a visit to the mines in 1926 and got into serious trouble with some of my Labour friends. The chairman of my party no doubt had reasons for objecting to my remarks but every labour man I met agreed with them. I visited the mines and I saw thousands and thousands of uncivilized human beings in compounds herded together and treated and fed like cattle and my soul revolted against the idea. I do not want to see that system perpetuated. I believe the mining industry of this country could be developed without using hordes of imported contract or servile labourers. I also believe that civilized labour to a far greater extent could be used if the industry was properly organized and not over capitalized. The salvation of South Africa or any other country will not be found by using more of this cheap labour which you get hold of, simply because it is unorganized in any shape or form and cannot think for itself.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m., and resumed at 2.21 p.m.

When business was suspended, I was going to address a few remarks to the House on the speech made by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow), and I was saying that I was surprised at the wildly irresponsible statements he made about the so-called slavery conditions on the mines. I am afraid that when the hon. member visited the mines he must have had one eye closed or both eyes closed.

No, open wide.

He was unable to appreciate the conditions that prevailed on the mines. Eminent authorities have mentioned that the conditions of the natives on the mines of the Rand are better than most conditions of unskilled labourers anywhere in the world.

It is not true.

Dr. Keppel, a visitor from America, Chairman of the Carnegie Institute, spoke in very high terms of the welfare work on the Rand mines. Does the hon. member not consider that the conditions of the natives on the mines are far better economically than those of the poor unfortunate white labourers whom he “boosts” on the platform? I think that the natives there are living under conditions which are very favourable indeed, far better than the conditions of the white labourers. The wages they receive, their food and their housing, are far better than those received by other unskilled workers of this country. The hon. member should be more careful in making these wildly irresponsible statements, because the Economic Commission, which sat some years ago, in their report said that the conditions of the natives on the Rand mines were excellent, far better than they ever expected to find, and that the welfare work and the conditions in which the natives lived had come as a surprise to them. The hon. member said that these natives were practically slaves. That is a wild statement to make. The natives go to the mines of their own free will, and not only that, but they allow themselves to be recruited again and again, and to say that the conditions of these natives are at all comparable to those of slaves is a wildly irresponsible remark. Many of these natives do not want to go home. Another statement made by the hon. member was that we should employ only whites on the mines. That I consider also a wildly irresponsible statement. Does the hon. member realize that the whole foundation of our economic structure depends almost entirely on the production of the mines, and that the mines are to-day giving employment to a great number of Europeans, at a higher wage than is paid in any other part of the world? It is due to the native labour employed in these mines. Does the hon. member realize that if you were to substitute the native labour on the coal mines, you would immediately raise the cost of coal, that you would affect the whole economic structure of the country? In fact, the coal produced in this country is cheaper than in any other country in the world. Cheap production of coal in this country is one of the most important factors we have in so far as our industrial development is concerned, because cheap coal means cheap energy, and cheap energy means increased opportunities in industrial development. I quite agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) and those remarks are supported by the Economic Commission. I have no doubt that if the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) read the report we should find a great change in his outlook as far as the economic conditions of this country are concerned. I commend this document to the members of the cross benches to read, because if they would read it they would realize that the importation of native labour in this country, according to the report, is equal to new capital being imported into the country. I would like to read what the Economic Commission says—

So the Economic Commission have made it quite clear that the more natives are employed the more opportunities and openings there will be for white labour. In other words, the greater the production and the greater the national income, the more there will be to go round to give everyone a decent wage. That is what hon. members on the cross benches seem to overlook. If it were not for the native labour employed in this country, the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) would not be receiving the £700 a year paid to him in this House.

Don’t you get it?

Yes, and I say it is largely due to the native labour we employ in this country. Better wages are paid to skilled artisans in this country than in most countries in the world, and that is due to the employment of native labour. The coal miners receive almost double the pay that coal miners get in England. Their conditions of work are far better, and that is due entirely to the cheap native labour you have in producing your coal. If the hon. member for Salt River read this report, he would find the position is quite different from what he imagines it to be, and we would have less of this nonsensical talk of the kind we had this morning from the hon. member. There is only one other point, and that is one which I wish to bring before the Minister of the Interior. A little time ago I mentioned that a considerable amount of illegal entry of Asiatics was taking place. The Minister pooh-poohed that statement, and said it was without any foundation whatever. I have here, in support of the statement I made, a letter which was addressed to the Minister by an Asiatic in Natal, and I want to read this letter. A copy has been sent to me by the, writer. This is what he says—

He goes on to say—

This letter is signed by Mr. Alex Singh. He says he is quite prepared to give information of the actual names of Asiatics who have come into the country in this way.

He is very welcome to do it.

I would like to know whether the Minister is prepared to meet this man.

We always welcome information.

It substantiates what I said on a previous occasion.

Yes, but we have not got the proofs. It does not substantiate.

He has offered to give his services, and I hope the Minister will accept them.

He is welcome, yes.

I am glad to hear that, and I am sure if the Minister takes the necessary steps he will find the statements made by this man are correct. The Minister, I understand, has taken steps to condone these illegal entries. I want to know if it is to be a sort of omnibus matter which will appear every year. I would like to ask him this: Does he condone the illegal entry of Europeans, or does he deport them immediately they come in? If Europeans come in in contravention of the immigration laws they are immediately deported, but not the Indians, and that is what I take strong exception to.

The hon. member who has just sat down has taken up a most illogical attitude. He first of all proposed, being a very ardent imperialist—

I did not say anything of the sort; I never have.

I apologize and withdraw the accusation. I thought he would take it as a compliment. I am sorry he looks upon it otherwise than as a compliment. In one breath the hon. member advocates the exclusion of British subjects from South Africa—Asiatics —Indians—and in the next breath, or, rather, in the previous breath, he advocated the importation of aliens from Portuguese East Africa. So much for the hon. member’s imperialism. In one breath he says: “Import more and more natives from outside the borders of South Africa, and you will have a prosperous country”, and in the next breath he says: “Exclude the Asiatics ’’—who are also cheap black labourers— “and you will have a prosperous South Africa”. The position is that hon. members from Natal to-day realize that, although the importation of Asiatics into Natal many years ago meant prosperity for a small section of the South African population, it has wrought undreamt-of evils—undreamt of in those days—on the people of South Africa, who to-day are left to nurse the baby. The hon. member’s friends imported these labourers to enrich themselves; they had the cream; we have the skimmed milk, and it is sour, too. We have gone through a hard school when we studied economic questions; we know from bitter experience. The hon. member may have been educated at a university; we have been through the university of poverty. When he talks of increased production, does he realize when you do that you have the cry of overproduction from the employing classes, and then they say: “We must retrench”. Thousands of pairs of boots are produced, and there is no market for them, and thousands of people walk about the country needing boots, and have not the money to purchase them. I would advise the hon. member also to study the economic question from the practical, and not the theoretical, side.

What does the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) say?

I am not concerned with the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North), who has received the approbation of the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) and the entire South African party on the stand he has made on the importation of labour. When the associates of the hon. member say the South African party praise you, it is time to see a doctor. I do not say so, but I am repeating their arguments. The hon. member put his finger on the spot. The reason why the Chamber of Mines wish to import natives is not for the benefit of South Africa, but in order to keep down the wages of South African natives, and I am surprised that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), who always speaks in favour of uplifting the natives, higher wages and better conditions, should join in this particular campaign.

What about the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen)?

The hon. member for Springs says he has been misunderstood by hon. members over there in the few words he said.

What do you say?

I am not saying anything. If it is a question of importing more and more cheap labour from outside the borders of South Africa in order to bring about prosperity, let us make a job of it—remove the restrictions with regard to latitude 22 degrees south, and all restrictions with regard to Portuguese East Africa. Let us abolish anything in the nature of an attempt to get rid of Asiatics in Natal, and send people to rope in as many as they can from outside the country, and we will have a prosperous country. What a ridiculous argument! When the hon. member (Mr. Snow) spoke of semi slavery in the mines, and when the hon. member over there (Mr. Nel) took my hon. friend to task, I say that no one can deny that the system of indentured labour is one of semi-slavery. I do not argue whether they are well treated or not. I am not going to deny that the Chamber of Mines treat the natives well. They provide them with amusements, bioscope entertainments, feed them well, give them beer, and do everything possible for them; but what they do do is certainly to deprive these natives of their full freedom as citizens of South Africa, They are housed in compounds. The whole system is one of semi-slavery. I do not say they are brutal towards their employees—it would not pay them if they were. They have done more, in proportion, for the natives than for the whites even—and they have done a lot for the whites. I am not going to say that the Chamber of Mines is all that is bad—far from it— but I am dealing with their policy on this question, and I do not agree with the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) on this question. They are not free to leave their employment at 24 hours’ notice—other employees are —and they are not free to strike. The other day hon. members on the Opposition side jeered at hon. members on the Government benches, and asked them how many white men they employed on their farms, saying that it would be a good thing if every farmer employed one white man. You will not encourage them to do that, if you provide them with a greater reservoir of native labour.

The more whites employed the more work there will be for natives

That is not the experience on the Rand. You cannot form any comparison at all by comparing the numbers of whites and natives employed on the gold mines. There seems to be no fixed ratio between the two. It is ridiculous to say that South Africa, in order to employ more whites, should have an unlimited supply of uncivilized labour. White working men are accused of being the aristocrats of labour, but how can they find work if more natives are imported into the country. If more natives mean more whites, why is it that we have not 15,000,000 to 20,000,000 Europeans in South Africa to-day? Is it not a fact that emigrants pass our shores to go to Australia and New Zealand, merely because there is no opening in South Africa for unskilled white men? We are standing still because there are no openings here for the unskilled whites who are the backbone of every European country.

What is the remedy?

It is certanly not to add to the problem by importing thousands and thousands more natives, but to stop that importation entirely. If the wages of South African natives were to rise to a sufficiently high level it would be possible for the unskilled white man to hold his own with them. He can do this, but not if he has to live under decent conditions, and has to compete with natives who live on mealie pap and wear blankets. Even if we have to close down a few of the low-grade mines, it would probably be a great benefit to the South Africa of the future if the employment of natives were restricted. We should not sacrifice vital principles for the sake of a few low-grade mines which, in any case, we cannot keep going for ever. The reason our white population is so small is very largely owing to the fact that our native population is so large, and labour is so cheap that we do not provide sufficient openings for white men to come here from England, Holland, or any other country The opinion of the Mine Workers’ Union has been referred to, but even if the opinion of the officials of that union were the opinions of the working classes of the Rand, I would not say they are right. The same propaganda that is being carried on amongst the farming population is being carried on among the white workers of the Rand. They are told that if there is not a sufficient supply of native labour they will not receive their present wages, and fewer white men will be employed. Then they immediately say if that is so let us import more natives, but they will find that their last stage will be worse than their first. I agree that, but for the employment of large numbers of natives, the present wages could not be paid to whites, but if the cost of living were reduced we should have a far happier and more prosperous country. The whole appeal is made to the selfishness of the individual. The farming population is told that the more cheap labour the more profit. The working classes are told the more cheap labour the higher the wages, and the manufacturers are told the more cheap labour the higher their profits. Our task, however, is not to build up huge profits for a few, but to build up a South African population, for men, women and children are the people who matter. Another point is that when they employ these 80,000 natives from Portuguese East Africa, these men have a certain amount of deferred pay, which goes back to Portuguese East. If 80,000 South African nationals were employed instead of aliens, that money would remain within the borders of South Africa, to be used to stimulate trade. Another evil that I see in connection with this importation policy is that it gives the Portuguese authorities a lever to bargain with the South African community in order to damage our own South African ports. They say you want our native labour, and you must give us something in the way of imports and exports. The sooner South Africa becomes entirely independent of any outside source of labour supply, the better it is going to be for South Africans, whether workers, manufacturers or farmers. I ask every hon. member of this House to set his face against any further relaxation of the regulations in connection with importation of contract labour, and to assist the Government to do everything possible in the interests of the future nationals of South Africa, and to build up South Africa and the South African people. Let us do everything we possibly can to see that South Africa prospers, instead of bringing in outside cheap labour in order that a few individuals shall prosper.

I am a little astonished at the speech of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston). He made a speech that was pleasant to listen to, but made it a year too soon. I do not know everything he said, but it was such a lot of nonsense that I do not want to go into it. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a matter which is very important. It seems that the Companies Act is not quite understood by the public. The people seem to be in doubt whether they have to render annual returns within a certain time. I have received a telegram, which I would like to read. It is as follows. [Quotation read.] I just want to tell the Minister that it seems to me as if some people do not know that such an Act was passed, and I want to ask the Minister of Justice not to be too severe in applying the law. It seems that he is acting a little too harshly. We ought not to prosecute the people without prior warning.

With reference to the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw,) let me just say that I do not know what the complaint is based on, but I have no doubt that when it is brought to the notice of the Minister of Justice he will go into the matter and take the necessary action. I can say no more about it. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) asked if I would be so good as to bring the possibilities of our trade with Italy before the Trade Commissioner on the Continent, and if he, if possible, could establish his head office in Milan. I cannot go into that now, but I can assure the hon. member that I am certain the Trade Commissioner on the Continent clearly appreciates the importance of our trade with Italy and the surrounding countries. It is not necessary to draw his attention to it again; he is well acquainted with affairs in this respect. Then I come to the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen).

Business suspended at 3 p.m., and resumed at 8.6 p.m.

I was on the point of replying to the hon. member for Springs, and in connection with what he, the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) and another hon. member said about the desirability that before the Mozambique convention was ultimately adopted, the Mine Workers’ Association and other mine workers’ unions should be consulted on the fact that it did not deal with an increase in the number of imported natives to the Rand, but, whether we like it or not, it necessarily concerned the decrease of them. Therefore the question will not arise in this connection, whether more natives are to come to the Rand than what there are there to-day. The question will not be whether still more natives than are there to-day must be taken by the mines, and not even whether the same number must be taken, because, as hon. members know, if the proposed conference is agreed to, in a short while the number of natives available for the mines will be reduced. That cannot he avoided, not because we do, or do not, wish it, but because the other party to the contract, the Portuguese Government, will not allow more than 80,000 of the workmen to go to the Union. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) wants to know if the new post office will be built, and if it will be on the same spot as the present one. I have no information here, but he will doubtless be able to get it from the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, as soon as the matter is decided. He also discussed the need for new magistrates’ courts. I agree that it is desirable, but there are so many applications for buildings that his is possibly one of the matters which must wait until more urgent cases have been dealt with. In time I hope that it may be able to be considered, and the necessary funds will be available. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) spoke about the illegal immigration of natives working in the lowveld, and who in future, if the convention is agreed to, will apparently be prevented from doing so, but I want to point out that the natives ought not to be there to-day. They are immigrants who are practically forbidden by law from coming here, and ought to be put over the border according to law and the existing convention with the Portuguese. Nevertheless, I sympathize with the hon. member. I know how dependent to a certain extent the farmers on the lowveld are on this kind of labour, and we must see what can be done. I can only say that we will try to bear the interests of the farmers in mind as much as possible during the negotiations. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) referred to a case, which, if it proves to be true, will, I think, shock all our feelings, namely, the unfortunate case, as reported, of a young native who died somewhere in the neighbourhood of Pietersburg. I do not think that if such things actually take place, we can express our indignation strongly enough. If it is true, I do not know if there is a severe enough punishment for anyone who is guilty of such a thing, but I want to say that the facts mentioned by the hon. member in no way justify the conclusion he has come to, namely, that it proves that the time has come to introduce a different system of criminal procedure, in other words to consider the alteration or the abolition of the jury system. Let me say that we have already shown by previous legislration that we do not entirely approve of it in some respects in the big towns. I will also admit that it is not an entirely desirable system, when questions between one race and another are involved. I must say that I hold that view, and I have no doubt that in time we shall have to take steps for more satisfactory criminal procedure in such cases, but the facts in this case are absolutely no justification for presenting the system in a bad light, because the only circumstance on which the hon. member can base his opinion is that the Crown prosecutor, during the hearing of the case, in consequence of certain evidence, or lack of evidence, decided to drop the charge of murder and to alter it into a charge of assault. That has nothing to do with the judge or jury. I just mention it because I think that it is fair to the people or the system of judicial procedure which might thereby be put in a bad light. The hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) urged that we ought to allow organized agricultural associations, as in the case of the mines, to have the right of recruiting natives outside the Union. Now I want to point out to hon. members that I am well aware of the difficulties of the agricultural industry, especially of tobacco culture, and especially if the cultivation of cotton is going to extend still more. The difficulties will then be ten times as great. But we must not forget that when complaints are made here that the mines are being favoured, but not the farmers, that the mines were first in the field. They introduced the recruiting system and the mines, when the Chinese labour was stopped, were practically given the privilege of getting this native labour as a substitute. Be that as it may, I wish to point out to hon. members that in South Africa we have a limited amount of native labour. We cannot get away from that. Now to the north-west of us we have South-West Africa. I have repeatedly been urged to give them the right of recruiting natives in South Africa, and, to a limited extent, we have conceded the right, but in any case they have no natives to send to us. Further to the north is Rhodesia. The late Prime Minister of Rhodesia (Sir Charles Coghlan) repeatedly came to me asking us to strictly carry out the agreement with them, under which we promised to prevent, as far as possible, natives coming surreptitiously over the Limpopo into the Union, and when they came to send them back. That brings us to the only other source, Mozambique, and they also complain of a shortage. The result will be that in five years we shall get less natives from there than at present. The number will come down from 113,000 to 80,000. Of course, my hon. friend will agree that it will be a serious matter for any Government if the number of natives is reduced, and if that results in mines closing down.

I am only asking for a pro rata share.

"The PRIME MINISTER: Does the hon. member not see that if we are to take some of the natives from the mines and give them to the farmers the mines will not be able to come out, and they will then, of course, have to rob the farmers of other natives, and we should be as we were. I think that whether we are farmers, or mine owners, we must admit the fact. We shall have a number or quota of labourers on which we cannot well come out, and, even if we could, by strict economy of our labour forces, manage when they become less, we shall still not be in a position to say that we shall give the right of recruiting, which the mines have, to other industries, without causing difficulties to the mining industry. We must accept the fact that the Portuguese Government seriously intends to develop industries in Mozambique. We cannot blame them for it, whether they will succeed I do not know, but if they find that they do not, we shall undoubtedly ultimately again have the benefit of the labour which they will not need.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

I would like to say a few words in regard to this, and to make an appeal to the Government in reference to this matter of a commission to go into railway matters, which has been very earnestly asked for by the public. It is not correct to say that public feeling has been aroused by the newspapers, which have simply given expression to what the public feels on the matter. There is no doubt there is a good bit of nervousness among the public about the state of the railways, and to my mind it is absurd to put this down to the newspapers. The public, of course, have their various theories as to the reasons for the somewhat numerous accidents.

Yes, I saw this morning that the rail that broke at Middelburg was a Belgian rail—that sort of stuff !

One theory is that discipline and efficiency are not as good as they used to be [interruption]; but the public believe it, and they ought to be satisfied that it is not so. After all, the public are the owners and the users of the railways, and have a perfect right to ask for an examination. There is another theory, which is that the engines are too heavy. I do not myself say that, but that is one theory. What you have to do is to get from overseas a thoroughly expert railway man [interruption] I knew my own staff just as well as my hon. friend does; if you get a man from overseas, a man thoroughly experienced in railway matters, he would come with fresh ideas naturally and with fresh views as regards railway management and working. I am perfectly certain that he will be welcomed by the executive heads of the department, because they feel this suspicion—if I may use that term— and they would like to see things cleared up and themselves exonerated, as well as other people. I say that, after some conversation with railwaymen, the rank and file think the administration are afraid of an inquiry—that is the position. That I heard from going amongst them—not that I have been trying to find out amongst them—but I have been assured of that. Well, that is not a satisfactory state of affairs. Let the Government themselves enquire into it to see if that is not the case. Under those circumstances there is no question what the Government should do. If there are further accidents the Government would be literally compelled to have an enquiry, and it is better to do it now than to have it later on. After all, these railways are the property of the public; they are thoroughly nervous as to the state of the railways, and they demand an enquiry into the state of affairs; why should not the Government appease them?

Why have you satisfied the people in your time?

Because there were not that number of accidents. On the elevator question I appointed a commission, and a very able commission it was too. Hon. members will agree with that; and they framed a very able report.

There was the same amount of accidents in your time.

There was not that demand for such an enquiry by a long, long way. There is far and away more cause for an enquiry today. Why the Government should be afraid of giving an enquiry beats me altogether.

The hon. member has now brought forward this matter again, which was fully discussed. He was not here, otherwise he would have heard the reasons I gave. He has pressed for this enquiry, but has he given a single reason? He says that discipline is slack now, and we must enquire into that. Well, let me tell him, if discipline is slack, it is the duty of the Government to put it right, and we shall do so. We do not need a commission for that. What people are asking for an enquiry? There is no doubt about it you have had in various quarters a desire to make political capital out of these unfortunate accidents.

That is wrong.

Just this morning again a report was published about a broken rail at Middelburg and at once it is said that this must be one of the Belgian rails. If that is not evidence of the desire to create what the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) called a “railway atmosphere.”;

The people are genuinely alarmed.

With a telegram like that I say it was done to make political capital out of it and nothing else.

You are wrong there entirely.

What grounds had they for making a statement like that if not to damage the Government, because they say the accidents are due to buying railway material outside Great Britian! That is the burden of the charge. Every time when there is a broken rail the say it is either a Tennessee rail or a Belgian rail. I gave the information yesterday that the rail was purchased in 1896. The hon. member said that the executive heads will welcome an enquiry. I have discussed the matter with the heads of the Railway Department and they say “if Government wants an enquiry, let them have it. We are not afraid, but we tell you the enquiry will do no good. They cannot tell us anything we do not know.” The Government does not run the railways—they are run by our technical advisers, and we must naturally be guided by their opinions. The deliberate opinion of the General Manager and of our engineers is that an enquiry such as is now asked for will be of no assistance whatever. The hon. member says he had an enquiry into the grain elevators. If we have a similar matter, we will have an enquiry, but that is different from a general enquiry. When railway accidents occur there is a judicial enquiry and a thorough departmental enquiry in every case. Naturally it is to the interest of the railways to remedy defects if they are found. We take proper action when the cause is ascertained. As far as all these accidents are concerned there is not a tittle of evidence that there is a general underlying cause; in most cases the cause has been definitely ascertained. The hon. member talks as if our experience regarding accidents has been singular, but that is not so. We have had very serious accidents attended with great loss of life before this Government came into office. I have given a return of serious accidents and derailments when the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) was in charge of the railways, and their number is greater than the accidents which have accurred during the last few months when we have had all these scares.

I would like to see those figures.

Unfortunately my hon. friend was not in the House when I gave them. I invited hon. members opposite to mention a single week in 1924 where you had not from ten to twenty derailments. You did not hear such a pressing demand for an inquiry during those times for our people were more patriotic in those days; they did not want to make political capital out of these scares.

You came into office in June, 1924.

The return from which I quoted covered the period from November, 1923, to April, 1924. I have already said there has been no evidence whatever that there has been anything wrong which would warrant an enquiry. The whole demand has been based on what hon. members opposite call a larger number of accidents. I do not think it fair that we should try and encourage that feeling in the country—the feeling that there is something very much wrong with the railways. Hon. members who have been pressing me on the subject have admitted that they have faith in our management and technical officers. If that is so let us accept their advice. I have given the matter serious consideration, because we have heard these alarmist reports and what I have informed the House is the deliberate opinion of those who are supposed to know. If hon. members opposite think we can get people from overseas who know better than our own people, they are entitled to their opinion, but from every quarter of the House confidence has been expressed in the people whose duty it is to run our railways. No suggestion has been made that through the change of policy for which this Government is responsible, our railway management has been hampered in any way. An hon. member has spoken about discipline on the railways, I deny that the Government has interferred in any way, with the proper enforcement of discipline by the management. That being so, the management is responsible, for they have to run the railways and they say there is nothing which would warrant the holding of an enquiry. Under these circumstances I regret I must abide by the decision that we do not think it necessary to agree to the demand which has been made.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee now.

House in Committee:

Clauses, schedules and title, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment and read a third time.

I move—

The motion is for the purpose of ratifying the agreement which has been entered into between the Union Government and Messrs. Rosenstrauch Brothers and Korbf. This agreement was fully discussed in this House two months ago. Details were dealt with and after the discussion it was referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. The Select Committee’s report has been before the House for some considerable time. It contains all the evidence that was given before the Select Committee, and the Select Committee made a unanimous recommendation that this agreement should be ratified with certain minor modifications. All these modifications are embodied in the new agreement. As hon. members know the other day when the agreement came before the House without the modifications, exception was taken on that side of the House, and the agreement was withdrawn. It is now before the House in its final form and includes the proposals recommended by the Select Committee on Public Accounts. If there is one industry which South Africa has never had, but which essentially belongs to South Africa, it is the diamond cutting industry. If there is one industry which can be regarded as indigenous to this country surely it is a diamond cutting industry. We are in this extraordinary position, I think that I am safe in saying that 99 per cent. of the people in South Africa are eager and anxious to have a diamond cutting industry in this country. The question might be asked, why, if South Africa as a whole is keen to have a diamond cutting industry, which is of such value in other countries, it is that we have not succeeded in South Africa in establishing such an industry? It is not for me to say why, but it is for me to say that this Government is going to do all it possibly can to see that that industry is established in South Africa on a substantial scale. This is the first attempt which has been made by practical people with substantial financial backing, to establish in South Africa what this country has been crying out for for years, namely, a diamond cutting industry. We have diamond cutters in a small way in this country, but never have we succeeded in establishing, or making it possible to establish, diamond cutting on a large scale. Yet we, in South Africa, were, ten years ago, producers of about 95 per cent. of the world’s diamonds, and today we are the producers of about 80 per cent. of the world’s diamonds, and the cutting of those diamonds, which is of great value, is done in New York, Amsterdam, Antwerp, and other places overseas. In Amsterdam and Antwerp alone the amount paid in wages for diamond cutting is in the neighbourhood of £5,000,000 a year—and with South African diamonds. I hope this House will be patriotic enough and will show sufficient of the South African spirit to see that this diamond cutting contract which has taken six years to negotiate, is ratified. It is six years since the directors first approached the hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries, Senator F. S. Malan. When that Government left office they were in close negotiation with these same people for the establishment of a diamond cutting industry, more or less on the lines in which we have it here to-day. But it did not materialize. Again, they were always so near, and yet so far. One of the points, of course, was that any cutter was compelled to pay, not the producer’s price for the diamonds, but the dealer’s price, which meant that it had first to go through the syndicate, and then they had to pay the syndicate’s price. When this Government took office one of the pledges it gave the country was that it would do its best to try and start a diamond cutting industry in this country on a big scale. We have passed Acts, since we have been in office, which give the diamond cutter benefits which he could not otherwise have. Now I know that some of the hon. members on the other side are going to raise the point that Clause 11 is ultra vires, that they cannot export on the terms laid down in the contract rough diamonds under one carat which is proposed here, partly cut, that they can only export the remnants or fragments as they are termed in the Act which was passed in 1919. But my hon. friend, the Minister of Mines and Industries, who has asked me to take this motion, has gone very fully and very carefully into the legal aspects. I think any member of this House will agree that when the Minister of Mines and Industries, who himself is quite a good lawyer, goes into a legal aspect thoroughly, fully and carefully, then he is on pretty safe ground if he comes to the conclusion, that the provisions are not ultra vires, but that they are intra vires. I am prepared to stand on a legal matter like this behind the Minister of Mines and Industries rather than behind the lawyers on the other side. This is not his opinion only, but it is also the opinion of the Government law advisers. Their opinion on that legal point which I know is going to be raised is exactly the same as that of the Minister of Mines and Industries, that Clause 11 is not ultra vires, but falls within the legislation which we now have. The other point which I want to anticipate that hon. members opposite will raise, is that the Public Accounts Committee recommended that similar conditions which these contractors are going to get should be extended to other diamond cutters in the Union. On that point may I say that this contract does not give a monopoly to the contractors. This agreement does not give any monopoly whatever to the contractors, in fact, is specifically states that it does not.

Are you prepared to extend these privileges to other diamond cutters?

The Government went out of its way to ensure that no monopoly in the terms and conditions of the agreement was granted to Messrs. Rosenstrauch and Korbf, so that it is open to any contractor to make its proposals, it is open to De Beers— the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris), I see in the select committee stated that his company is prepared to come forward and, after all these years, set up a diamond cutting industry in South Africa. It is a strange thing that De Beers’, the largest producers of diamonds in the world, with their home in Kimberley, should at the eleventh hour, just on the point of our ratifying the agreement with contractors from overseas for the establishment of a diamond cutting industry on a substantial scale in this country—I say it is a strange thing that the hon. member for Beaconsfield and his friends should now come along and say that they are prepared to set up a diamond cutting industry in this country but on one condition, and that is that we do not enter into the contract with these people who have been negotiating with for six years. I say it would be a grave reflection on the bona fides of this country, it would be a grave reflection on our national honour, if I may use the term, to allow people from overseas to spend thousands of pounds and their time in this country, doing their best to negotiate with the Government a contract which would enable them to establish diamond cutting in the Union, if we now throw them overboard and place ourselves in the hands of De Beers, who could have done this years ago. That does not say that we do not appreciate the offer which De Beers are prepared to make, providing they come forward, and leave out this agreement altogether, and say they want to start a diamond cutting industry in Kimberley or any other part of South Africa. That proposal would be just as much welcomed and as fully considered as the agreement now before the House with Messrs. Rosenstrauch and Korbf.

Are you prepared to give them the same privileges?

The conditions being the same. I am not prepared to commit the Government to say what we would do under any given circumstances, beyond this, that just as this agreement has been negotiated on its merits, so any definite proposal which is submitted to the Government in future for the establishment of another factory will also be considered on its merits and dealt with in the same way.

What about the existing undertakings?

The small ones? We have had no definite proposal submitted to the Government beyond this one by Messrs. Rosenstrauch and Korbf, who have been negotiating for six years. Other cutters, seeing that the Government are in earnest in this matter, seeing that we mean business, and that we mean to establish the industry even if it involves some expenditure by us, are now coming forward and saying, “What are you prepared to do for us?” We are prepared to consider any of their proposals, exactly as we considered this one, but we are not prepared to put this one aside until the others have been dealt with. This is the biggest attempt which has been made yet in this country to establish the industry on a substantial scale. What does it mean? It means that in the first year they will cut diamonds to the value of £100,000, in the second year £200,000, in the third year £300,000, in the fourth year £400,000, and in the fifth year £500,000, making £1,500,006 worth of diamonds which they are prepared to cut in South Africa. Who with? Skilled men, in the first place, who will be imported, and 500 of our South African boys who are going to be trained as diamond cutters. Is not this something that this country ought to welcome? Yet, I have no doubt that hon. members opposite will do their very best to defeat the ratification of the agreement which is now before the House. I say that in view of past experience. I hope I am wrong. If the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) and his supporter the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter), who are in charge of the diamond interests, are prepared to get up and say that they welcome this, and in addition they are prepared to put forward proposals which will help in stimulating and establishing the diamond cutting industry in this country, I will be the first to express my appreciation, and I think South Africa would, too, but if they are going to try and argue round this so as to defeat it, then I say they are doing the worst possible day’s work that they ever did in the interests of this country. I do not want to go into the details. I have touched lightly on the essentials. The main provisions of the contract are well known. It has been before the House for weeks and weeks, it has been discussed in this House, and it has been fully considered in the country, by all who are interested in the matter. I do appeal to every member of this House who has only the interests of our boys and the interests of South Africa at heart not to let this Parliament rise until this agreement is ratified and in a few weeks’ time we shall have our diamond cutting industry started in South Africa on a scale which has never been attempted before, and in such a way as to be to the lasting good of the people, and especially the youth of this country.

seconded.

Whenever a diamond question comes up in this House, whether it is a Minister or an hon. member, they always have a dig at the syndicate and the De Beers Company. The De Beers Company, I admit, have never started a diamond cutting industry in this country.

Why?

Because it is not their business. The company produces the rough diamonds and they sell them in the open market, and they get cash for them and they cannot possibly be in any better position. We know nothing about diamond cutting. We have never prevented any firm from starting it in this country.

Why do they offer now then?

Because they don’t like the firm with whom the Government is dealing. That is the reason. The hon. member seems to take a very great interest. He will have an opportunity later on of giving his opinions to the House. I do not occupy the time of the House very much and my time is limited and I think there might be a little more chivalry in this House. Why the syndicate and De Beers have come forward with that offer, without any special favours or any support from the Government, is because we are afraid of this firm. We have no confidence in them and we are not the only ones. I will show that people on the continent in the places in which Rosenstrauchs have done business have without the slighest doubt cast reflections upon these people and said they are not trustworthy.

Why did the select committee unanimously recommend that we ratify it?

I will go into that directly. The Minister criticises the diamond syndicate and tries to create an atmosphere of doubt. The Minister does it in a more modified form today than formerly. The syndicate have done business in this country for 35 years. During those 35 years they have purchased at least £160,000,000 of diamonds. They have had contracts running for periods of five years and those contracts have always been renewed. There has never been a lawsuit or a serious difference of opinion. There might have been some little difference of opinion with regard to the interpretation of a clause in the agreement but beyond that the whole business has gone smoothly. That is a testimony that would do any firm credit. They buy the raw material of this country. They buy the produce. There is no crime in that. There is just as much credit due to those who buy diamonds as to those who purchase wool. The Minister reflects upon the De Beers Company because they have not started a diamond cutting industry. Why don’t you manufacture your wool into cloth? Because it does not pay. You cannot do it. When this question first came before the House I promised to place certain papers before the select committee which would prove that Rosenstrauch Brothers were of bad repute and should not be entrusted with public money. I kept my promise. I placed certain documents and statements from very important people before the select committee and although the select committee has recommended the ratification of the agreement, I am still of the same opinion that I expressed when this question came first before the House.

Would the select committee have recommended that if they were of bad repute?

I am giving my own opinion. My opinion is not shaken. I quite realise the difficulty of the select committee, because against the statements and documents that I produced, Mr. Joseph Rosen Strauch in his evidence gave a categorical denial.

He produced evidence.

I can also prove what I said. I will produce evidence.

He proved himself completely to the satisfaction of the committee.

My time is limited, and if the Minister takes up half my time I shall have to ask for an extension. My information came from Belgium and Amsterdam. When this thing came before the House before, the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) made some remarks. I have the Hansard here and I see his remarks are corrected; they have been revised by him. He says—

How does the hon. member know that? He simply trusts to his imagination. He goes on—

He repeats it later on [extract read]. When the hon. member made that statement I felt it was an exaggeration. I knew from my own experience that no firm either in Antwerp or Amsterdam ever employed a thousand workmen. It astonished me very much when the hon. member said these men had a thousand workmen in their employ who were driven out of their employment and were still out of employment owing to the action of the syndicate. When the statement was made, I sent a cable to Antwerp. This is what I said—

I got this reply—

From whom?

Wait a minute. From Isidore Lipschutz, president of the Union of the Belgian Diamond Cutting Industry at Antwerp [letter read]. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) said 1,000; the man on the spot says 22; I leave the House to judge which is correct. For a reason best known to himself, the hon. member gave an exaggerated idea of Messrs. Rosenstrauchs’ importance. The hon. member must have been told that by somebody, and I say he was told by Mr. Rosenstrauch, who deceived him, otherwise I do not think the hon. member would have made such an exaggerated statement in this House. It does not follow that because Messrs. Rosenstrauch had a small factory they are not capable of managing a big factory, but I want to show that Messrs. Rosenstrauch Bros wanted to impress on this House their very great importance, and made a tool of the hon. member for that purpose. I also received a telegram from the president of the Belgian Diamond Workers’ Union and one from the chairman of the Diamond Workers’ Union of the Netherlands, and here is what they say [telegrams read]. The 22 men who struck found employment during the same day, when the hon. member for Vredefort said that 1,000 men were thrown out of employment and still are out of employment.

What has that to do with the contract?

Wait a minute. He goes on to say it is incredible that the South African Government entered into negotiations with people like that. This is the chairman of the General Diamond Workers’ Union of the Netherlands, and this is corroborated by the chairman of the Diamond Workers’ Union of Antwerp.

Why is it incredible?

He knows these people, and the hon. member does not know anything about them. I am simply giving you information from the other side. These gentlemen volunteered further information—I shall not take up the time of the House—but all the information they volunteered is discreditable to Messrs. Rosenstrauch, and reflects very badly on their character. But Mr. Rosenstrauch denied all those allegations before the select committee, and said that they have simply made these allegations because they were jealous of their trade and did not want to see it damaged by being established elsewhere, and that they were actuated by prejudice against Rosenstrauch Bros.; in fact, Joseph Rosenstrauch posed as an injured innocent. I have lived a long time in this world, but in the whole course of my experience I have never known such a combination of suspicious circumstances having been brought against any reputable firm or respectable individual, and as far as I can see, the only credentials, despite what the Minister said about their financial backing—which he believes, but which I very much doubt is in existence—to my mind, the only credentials of Messrs. Rosenstrauch Bros., as far as I can gather, are the denials of the allegations made against them.

Supported by documents.

The Government is well acquainted with all the circumstances. The whole matter has been brought before them and their eyes are opened; if they trust these people with public money, well, upon them rests the responsibility. These gentlemen who criticized Rosenstrauch occupy important positions in the diamond industry and have disclosed their names and official position. I cannot imagine for one moment that all these men have conspired to blacken the character of either Mr. Rosenstrauch or Mr. Korbf. I do not know any of these gentlemen, and I have never met them. I would not know Mr. Rosenstrauch or Mr. Korbf if they stood before me, but I cannot conceive that these gentlemen would malign Messrs. Rosenstrauch and Korbf because they intended to start a diamond cutting industry. They can go to Belgium and bring an action against these gentlemen for libel, and they would get very heavy damages. I will set aside for one moment all these statements made from Antwerp and Amsterdam, and read a portion of the judgment that was given in Antwerp against Mr. Rosenstrauch. Legal proceedings were taken in the Court of First Instance on October 21st, at Antwerp. At that time Rosenstrauch had no thought of coming here to establish a diamond cutting industry. Therefore they cannot accuse the court of being prejudiced against them. Messrs. Peeters and Landau gave Rosenstrauch a letter of credit to purchase diamonds in different parts of the world. Rosenstrauch Brothers were to divide the profits with Peeters and Landau, but they so manipulated these credits that the cheap diamonds Joseph Rosenstrauch sent to his brothers and the diamonds which were not so cheap he sent to Peeters and Landau. The whole profit on the transactions should have gone to joint account, but Mr. Joseph Rosenstrauch very cleverly manipulated these credits, depriving his partners of the profit and sticking to them for his own firm.

That is not correct.

This is an extract from the minutes.

That is merely an extract from the case which was submitted. I investigated it.

When Peeters and Landau smelt a rat, they instituted legal proceedings, and the first thing the court did was to seize Rosenstrauch’s correspondence. Among these documents were letters written by Mr. Joseph Rosenstrauch to his brothers. This is what the judge said—

According to his various letters and cables to Peeters and Landau, Joseph Rosenstrauch had during the whole of his stay of approximately two months in New York, endeavoured to release the parcel deposited at the customs house, but without success. It appears, however, from the private correspondence of Joseph Rosenstrauch with his brothers, that the parcel in question had duly been removed by him (therefore with the money of Peeters and Landau) but that instead of sending the diamonds to the latter, he realized them in New York for his own gain.

The following is an extract from a letter written by Rosenstrauch to his brother—

Here is an extract from the judgment of the court—

After that Peeters and Landau met Rosenstrauch, who must have been a little bit nervous, and they came to an agreement, which was to be “binding only in the event of Peeters and Landau withdrawing their accusation and an undertaking not to prosecute in this matter”, They promised to give Peeters and Landau 250,000 francs in settlement provided they would guarantee that they would not prosecute. Then Peeters and Landau withdrew their charge. It was to the interests of Peeters and Landau to whitewash Rosenstrauch so as to get the money. How that came about I cannot say, but I can imagine it. Then they had banker’s testimonials which are not very creditable. I will leave it at that. The De Beers company have come forward principally on account of the danger they feel will accrue to the diamond industry if these people are entrusted with this contract, and the support of the Government. Honestly, I do not believe they will ever carry out the contract, and they will set back the diamond cutting industry of this country for many years, for I am certain they will never carry out the contract. I will refer to some of the evidence given before the select committee. Mr. Vermey, who is a diamond cutter, has been established for some time in Johannesburg came before the committee and said: “I may say I landed in this country with a few hundred pounds, started a diamond cutting business, and last year my income tax payment amounted to £1,025, which will give you an indication of the extent of the growth of my business in six and a half years”. I calculate this gentleman must have made £7,000 in diamond cutting and polishing in one year in Johannesburg. I think that is very creditable for a man starting in a small way. He is entitled to all the profit he can make with his energy, ability and skill. He goes on further—

Well, he is making £7,000 a year, and he still! wants more facilities for getting a better class of diamond. He wants, naturally, as every outsider would want, the diamonds that are in most demand. While this gentleman, with all due respect to him, was making £7,000 in one year, neither the Premier Company nor the De Beers Company paid a dividend. Who has any regard for these concerns? Here is the diamond industry which laid the foundation of the advancement and prosperity of South Africa, and here we have a lot of foreign adventurers coming into the country and taking the cream off the milk, and these companies have no protection. Everyone is allowed to pick at us. That, to my mind, is very unfair. If the diamond cutting industry is carried on in this country to the extent the hon. the Minister thinks should be done, you would have every diamond produced in this country cut and polished here. That is his idea. I differ from him. I say that would materially injure the whole of the diamond industry. Of course, that will never be done. I think if 10 per cent. of the production of rough diamonds in South Africa were to be cut and polished in South Africa, that would not damage the industry. That is my opinion from long experience, but if a lot of people are allowed to set up diamond cutting, and they pick out the eyes of our diamonds, the very best and most saleable, it will be most difficult to sell the inferior qualities. How is the diamond industry going to carry on? The Minister of Finance, the other day, said quite rightly that the policy of the Government was to encourage local industries. I do not object to that. I may have my own feelings with regard to free trade and protection, but this is not the time to discuss that question. Although the Government’s policy was to encourage local industries, they could not allow the primary industries to be damaged or injured by secondary industries; they could not allow secondary industries to be started to the detriment of primary industries. What is this? Which is the primary industry, the cutting or the mining? Here is a determined and decided attempt to establish and encourage a secondary industry at the expense of the permanent one. Hon. members know that the diamond cutting and polishing industry is of the very greatest importance to Holland and Belgium. I do not say it is their paramount industry, but it is a primary industry in Antwerp and Amsterdam. It is only natural that the people who are engaged in this industry are anxious to retain it in their own countries. They have millions invested in machinery, their factories employ thousands and thousands of people, and they are very wealthy firms with large capital at their command and extensive bank credit. Do you think for one moment that these people are going to sit down quietly and see a large number of their men thrown out of employment and their mills closed down? There is no scarcity of diamonds. If you were to cut and polish, say, half the diamonds produced in this country, there would not be sufficient diamond.s from this country to keep their mills going. But there is the Belgian Congo. What will the Belgians do? They will increase the output from the Belgian Congo. What will the people in Amsterdam do, and the people in Belgium too? They will encourage the production of diamonds from all parts of the world, wherever they can get them, and they can get an enormous quantity of diamonds from Angola and Portuguese West Africa. These people have any amount of money at their command. The people who are producing diamonds in those parts of the world will be approached by the manufacturers in Antwerp and Amsterdam with the idea of inducing them to increase their output so as to keep their mills going. It is only natural. It does not make very much difference to the manufacturers in Belgium or Holland what the price of the rough is, so long as they keep their mills going. They will get the same price for cutting and polishing the stones, no matter how low the prices of the rough stones may be. The consequence of that will be that you will have world over production.

The same old story.

The hon. the Minister only likes to listen to his own old stories, and some of them are very ancient. They are not very dignified interjections either for a Minister. As I said, these people will look elsewhere for their diamonds, the same as Manchester had to do in years gone by in regard to its supplies of cotton. At one time the Americans exported nearly the whole of their raw cotton to Manchester. Subsequently, America, being a highly protected country, consumed a large quantity of its cotton in the making of cotton goods, and there was a dearth of supplies. What did the people of Manchester do? They sent their agents to all parts of the dominions and they encouraged the production of cotton in various parts of the world. These people will do the same. They will encourage the production of diamonds in other parts of the world in order to keep their mills going in the same way that Manchester did in regard to the production of cotton. [Time limit extended.] I won’t be long. This country in that event will be the biggest sufferer. We must be very careful about this diamond industry. It is a very delicate industry, and the people who are engaged in it are very nervous about over production. We have had experience of what over production means in this country in the case of ostrich feathers, which now, on account of over production, are a drug in the market. It has caused ruin to a large number of people in the district of Oudtshoorn. This diamond industry requires very careful handling. We must take care that we are not the victims of our own greed. We are not satisfied with producing the rough and finding markets all over the world without let or hindrance, but then we must go in to polish a very large proportion of our production, which will result in injuring the whole industry, and we may be digging a grave for South Africa. Now we have passed in this House a Diamond Control Bill and a Precious Stones Bill, and the Government today has got the largest interests in the whole of the diamond industry, The Government derives in direct taxation from the diamond industry more than the whole of the dividends paid out by the four big companies—South-West Africa, Jagersfontein, the Premier Company and the De Beers Company. We will leave the indirect taxation out. Now the Government today have control, not the De Beers Company. What is the use of having control of the rough when you have no control over the polished? What is going to happen? You might as well have no Diamond Control Bill or Precious Stones Bill. The only way I can see that this industry could be protected would be for the big producers, in which I include the Government—the Government would be indirectly concerned—would be, as I was saying, for the Government, the mine producers and the syndicate to combine together to establish a diamond cutting industry in this country, and then they must work in sympathy with the cutters and polishers of Antwerp and Amsterdam. That is the only way that I can see in which you can foster the industry to the benefit of everybody. We should then be injuring neither the diggers nor the producers; we should establish a diamond cutting industry in this country, and it would not be injured by the advent of foreign adventurers the same as those gentlemen with whom the Government are going to enter into a contract.

We have heard the reason why the other side is opposing the contract, namely, because, as the hon. member has said, he does not trust the men with whom the contract has been entered into. He said it to begin with. Otherwise the attitude of the hon. member’s company is, in any case, quite inexplicable. We have heard for years and years that the great producers were prepared to establish a large diamond cutting industry in the country, but it never went so far. For a time it was even stated that the light in our country was not good enough; then, subsequently, the difficulty was that they could find no experienced men here. Now someone comes to establish such a company, and we might expect the hon. member to offer us his assistance. A reasonable criticism would be criticism of the conditions, that they were bad, and could not possibly lead to success, but the hon. member does not oppose the agreement for that reason. It seems to me that there is a much greater and a different reason than that he does not trust these men, namely, that the interests of the syndicate in London must be protected. It pays the syndicate much better to have the diamonds cut in Amsterdam and Antwerp than here. The financial benefit to the syndicate is much greater than by establishing an industry in this country. I have been told—I know very little of the operations of the syndicate—that the diamond cutters in Antwerp and elsewhere buy all the diamonds in parcels. The parcels are opened, and they state exactly how many carats they contain and what the value is, and they have to buy the packets without opening them. In this, way the syndicate dominates the cutters, and gets great benefit. I have been told this. The agreement we are now discussing appears to me to be a very hard one to force on the contractors. It is not a profitable contract. They assume the obligations, and it is to their credit that they are going to train our youth. If we do not take that opportunity our children may curse us for not giving them this opportunity of learning the diamond cutting trade. It was always one of the chief arguments against the establishment of a diamond cutting industry, that we can get no trained people here. These contractors in Clause 5 undertake to employ 100 pupils during the first year, a further 100 the second year, 150 the third year, and another 150 in the fourth year, in all 500 boys. During the first year they will pay a wage of £1 a week per pupil, the second year £2, the third year £3, the fourth £4, and during the fifth year £5 a week. In other words, the boys of South Africa who are to be trained— because it is provided that they must be South African boys—will, in the course of the five years, get, per hundred, not less than £76,000 in wages. The State is paying the contractors a subsidy of £15,000 the first year, £10,000 the second year, and £5,000 the third year, in all £30,000, but the contractors pay the 500 pupils five times £76,000 during the course of their five years’ training. And then they are criticized as men who want to get a tremendous profit. I think we ought to be thankful for the obligations they have assumed. The reason why diamond cutting would never be established in our country was because the people were afraid they would get no diamonds. Did De Beers ever come and say they would guarantee that good diamonds would be supplied to the cutters? They never did that, in their whole thirty or forty years’ existence. The State now comes and says that the people will get stones. The fact that a subsidy is being given is a guarantee that the Government will protect them in relation to the supply of diamonds. The hon. member who has just spoken has quoted telegrams from a high body, but I want to point out that the people behind the telegrams are all interested in a large diamond cutting industry not being established in this country. It will interfere with the great producers and with the great cutting industries overseas. There are thousands of families in Antwerp and in Holland who live on diamond cutting, and the interests there will, of course, do everything to oppose a cutting industry. The least and most insignificant thing which can be said about the career of the contractors will be cabled to South Africa, but I ask the hon. member if he will make the statement outside that these people are of bad character. Will he do so? Notwithstanding the fact that the Government and the Ministers and the select committee have investigated the whole matter, and concluded that the people must be entirely exonerated from complaints of that kind against them, and from the blot which has been thrown on their honesty and career, the hon. member again says that the people are of dishonest character. Will he say it outside? He does it under cover of the privileges of this House, and possibly his statements will be circulated throughout the world, and the people who want to establish the industry here with the Government’s assistance may get a bad name among the business men of the world. The chairman of the syndicate says that the people are of bad character, and this might injure their name. We recently heard that the hon. member’s company was prepared to do diamond cutting here. The hon. member has not said so here. If they are so prepared, I want to ask the hon. member why they have not done so all these years. And I further ask in whose interests they are opposing it. Will De Beers get a smaller price for their diamonds if they are cut here? Who is going to lose by it? Does the hon. member possibly also have an interest in the cutting establishments of Amsterdam, Antwerp and New York? Then I can understand why he is opposing the establishment of the industry. The hon. member attacked the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Muunik) for exaggerating certain statements. I do not know what the figures are, but I say they are not exaggerated, that Holland in former centuries had to thank the diamond cutting industries for its development, because it was one of the steadiest industries in Holland, and money thereby became available to grant assistance for the development of industries in various directions, and today there are still 16,000 families in Antwerp alone who directly or indirectly live on diamond cutting. What will it not mean to South Africa? There will immediately be 500 people directly concerned in the cutting, and we shall take a great step forward in the development of our country. I, therefore, think that the Government is taking a very wise step in deciding to assist in establishing the industry. The hon. member represents that the only way to make a success of diamond cutting will be for the Government to bring together the great producers (De Beers) and the cutters, and then create a combined cutting industry to co-operate with the industry in Holland and Belgium. For what reason? The Government will then be jointly responsible with the London syndicate, and the diamond cutting industry in Antwerp and Amsterdam, and very probably New York, and the De Beers will have a say in connection with this industry. As soon as we develop, Antwerp will say that we must not do so, because we are injuring them, or the syndicate will say that it is losing £1,000,000 in London, and that we must not extend so much. The syndicate in London will exercise control, and I hope the Government will not consider it. I remember how, seven years ago, when the Unionists and South African party were not yet united, and there were also two parties in opposition, a motion was introduced to establish such an industry here. I then took up the same attitude as I am doing today that the great producers and the syndicate in London, who are all hand in glove, and say such an industry would crush them, unless the only policy were followed, namely, for the Government itself to undertake the matter, because the Government is strong enough financially to even crush De Beers if it were necessary. Today the Government is taking a step in the right direction. It can see that the industry is not crushed through lack of diamonds, and in this connection the State diggings are, in my opinion, a guarantee that the people will always have good, and not bad, stones cut. That is why the great producers and other interests are afraid, because they see that the Government is determined to create a permanent industry, and hence the opposition. We do not know what is going on behind the scenes in London and Antwerp, but it is clearly in the interests of the syndicate and other interests the intention to oppose the establishment of an industry here. Hon. members opposite say that we are not getting rid of unemployment—the poor whites—but every step we take to develop industries is criticized by the other side. What is the reason? Do they want the country to retrogress industrially so much that they can go and say that under this Government industries have retrogressed? When we take steps to fight unemployment and the poor white problem hon. members opposite oppose us. Is it to benefit by it at the next election, if they can prevent any development taking place? I say to the hon. members that the South African public will prove at the next election that it appreciates what we have done for the benefit of our country, and that the Nationalist party will come back with an overwhelming majority. I do not doubt that for one moment. The number of hon. members opposite has become less and less every year, and in about five years they will be so few in number that there will be plenty of room for them on the cross benches. It is their own fault, because they always allow themselves to be led by big financial institutions in Europe and elsewhere, and are always afraid of taking steps for our own development, and of intervention by the State. But if private undertakings in the country create the danger of the development of the country being ruined, then the Government must itself intervene and take the lead.

There is one statement made by the Minister, which is perfectly correct— that the agreement had been before the House for some weeks—he might have said some months. This matter was introduced as far back as last November, and has been shilly-shallied about ever since. There is absolutely no reason why this should be kept back from the House, and introduced on the last days of the session for final decision. There does not appear to be that keenness on the part of the Government to bring this forward, or they would have brought it forward weeks and months ago. There is some mystery about this, which I cannot understand. My hon. friend over there is entirely wrong when he says we are against a diamond cutting industry. Why, we have signed the report—all the members of the South African party on the committee— but we want to introduce and start it on sound lines, and that is the reason why we put in this recommendation—this condition [condition read], but that has not been done.

We cannot do it in this agreement.

Then why not bring in an Act of Parliament? They could do it quickly enough if they thought it necessary.

Will you support it?

Undoubtedly. I will vote against this, because you have not carried out the most important thing in our recommendation. I doubt whether this recommendation would have gone through had it not been for this condition. It is a mistake to think there are no cutters in South Africa; I think there are about eight employers, and four appeared before us—two working men and two employers.

On a very small scale.

One is almost as big as these people will be. They started in a small way, and they have grown. They are doing £100,000 a year, and that is not a small thing. Mr. Vermey made a statement before us, which will be found on page 73 of the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. He said—

Why did Mr. Vermey not apply for Government help?

Because he pushes his own business alone. He does not worry about politics or the Government. It is a burning shame that these people should not have the same support as that which it is proposed to give to Mr. Rosenstrauch.

Why cannot they get Government support?

Because in order to do that there must be an agreement which cannot be entered into until next session. Government should introduce a Bill to extend the privileges it is going to give to Rosenstrauch to other people in the diamond cutting trade. If the Government had been in earnest it could have introduced a Bill long since. Great stress is laid on the fact that Rosenstrauch is going to train young South Africans, but Vermey is quite willing to do the same. In Holland and Belgium the diamond cutters have highly organized trade unions which are very jealous regarding the extension of the trade, and it is possible that Vermey may not be able to obtain cutters from Europe. In Holland only about 200 to 250 apprentices are engaged in a year. Evidently all the trade union principles of Labour members of the Government are going by the board now.

No, it is a special case.

If Vermey is to carry on, he must have the same privileges as are promised Rosenstrauch, one being an adequate supply of diamonds. If Rosenstrauchs are able to get large diamonds and the other people are not, how can the latter compete with them? Another very important privilege Rosenstrauchs are to have is the right to export remnants at a reduced rate of duty. Hon. members can see the different treatment, how one business is going to be handicapped as compared with another, and the handicapped business is the business that has made the progress and has not asked for any assistance. They have the right under Clause 11 to export diamonds under one carat in weight. They cannot export anything at the present time without a permit from the Government, and they naturally pay the full 10 per cent., but these people are given the privilege of exporting and need only pay 2½ per cent. for the first two years, and then 5 per cent. Hon. members can See the tremendous pull which Rosenstrauch Brothers and Korbf are going to get. Give these other people also the right to all these privileges and advantages which you give to Rosenstrauch Brothers and Korbf. To do that, the Minister will have to bring in a Bill. It may be only a single paragraph, but I think it ought to be a condition of acceptance by this House of this agreement that that Bill is put through this session so that everybody is put in the same position, and unless it is put through it cannot be done until next session.

I think the contract holders are amongst the most lucky people in the world. They came upon the scene some four years ago, and for those four years do nothing whatever in this country. They do not spend £100 in it; they do not bring out a single diamond cutter; they do nothing whatever except wait on the doorstep of the hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries, and there, using only their great persuasive powers, they ultimately persuade the Government to hand them out one of the nicest concessions one could possibly get. I ask my hon. friend, the Minister of Labour, who is now in charge of this motion, what he would have said four years ago at this contract? It supersedes all the cutters established in the country who have taken their chances, built up an industry, and shown at their own cost that it was worth the taking possession of by visitors from Antwerp who come in and collar the prize. I can understand the position of the hon. the Minister for Mines and Industries, who only approaches these matters from a legal and limited point of view, but my hon. friend has been brought up in the struggle for existence, with a knowledge of the question of right and justice, and he knows it cannot be right or just to bring in a concession like this over the heads of those who have worked hard to sustain the diamond cutting industry in the country. They have had a very hard struggle. For 8 or 10 years they have striven against the company of the hon. member for Beacons field (Col. Sir David Harris). In every case they have found the greatest difficulty in obtaining rough diamonds to cut, and no encouragement whatever given by the Government. Indeed, the Government has done all it could to tie these people up with restrictions and regulations so that they might not pursue their industry to advantage, but in spite of that severe hardship they have succeeded. Now we have these outside adventurers coming on the scene and at absolutely no cost to themselves or their backers getting a valuable concession like this handed out to them, which they can form into a company, and though they are not supposed to part with it for three years, they can issue bearer shares and put them in the market and so make £200,000 or £250,000 profit out of it. The day will come when the, hon. the Minister will regret that he had anything to do with a contract of this kind, which will bring nothing but trouble. It is born in inequity, and its Whole existence will be one of worry to the Government, who will heartily wish they had never seen this concession contract. The contractors will first throw on the Government the full responsibility for not only getting diamonds to cut, but obtaining them at such a cheap rate that they can undersell anybody in the world. They are looking at the Namaqualand production which they are eager to get hold of, and they will say: “Your valuation is far too high, we cannot sell our cut goods in the open market, so you must reduce the cost” and the Government having lent themselves to completing such a contract, and having the first hundred apprentices (working up to 500) will have to supply rough stones cheaply, or pay those people an enormous sum to get out of it, or else they will be in the law courts and enduring the worry of it all the time. I cannot see why the Government entered into this obligation after four years’ of consideration. They could have had very much better offers if they had made the question open, and they have very much better offers on hand now. Existing cutters are polishing £200,000 worth of diamonds a year, and I ask the hon. gentleman what becomes of his bold slogan, “South Africa First.” It is not South Africa first; it is Antwerp first; the gentlemen adventurers from abroad first. It is South Africa last, to allow these people to come in and gather the harvest from seed others have sown. They are looking to the Namaqualand diamonds. Naturally all these diamond people want to be in it. I do not envy the Government when they come to deal with that question and show no preference as they have promised. The Minister must admit that even with this contract in hand, the Government had better offers. There is the offer that the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) mentioned, and there are other far better offers from substantial people who are perfectly willing to come in on a fair basis. It is all very well to promise the same treatment all round, but it cannot be done. These people have the lead, they have the contract signed and in spite of others being willing to do it on better terms, without all the bonuses and benefits. Those better offers will now be put aside and we will have this concession run by the Government to the detriment of the country, and to the cutting industry we all want to see established on a fair basis, open to all. There was one thing I fail to follow. I am not a lawyer, but I cannot understand the differential expert duties allowed to these contractors. This differential duty is under Act 2 of 1927, section 3 [quoted]. In Section 10 of the contract, a 2½ per cent. export duty on a particular class of partly cut stones and then three years at 5 per cent. Section 11 apparently, in spite of the Act, says that 2½ per cent. shall be for three years and 5 per cent. for the remaining two years. Where is the authority for the extra year of 2½, instead of 5 per cent.?

The second is a royalty.

Well, I am not qualified to argue that specific point, but I must say that the differential duties will get the Government into endless trouble. The proper thing would be to decide what we want, and let cutters export what they don’t require to cut, and pay their 10 per cent. like anybody else. But no, these gentlemen having the ear of the Government, persuaded them to put in this ticklish allowance of duty thing and the supposititious idea is that all cutters are being helped.

Section 11 only deals with rough diamonds, not partly cut diamonds, not the remnants.

Why should you have any differential duties? Let cutters cut in this country what they want and export what they don’t require on the usual duty. This computation is going to give endless trouble and keep the C.I.D. busy all the time. We who desire to See diamond cutting want it on a fair basis, no differentiation, and everybody treated alike. This is the land of lost opportunity, and the Government has failed to grasp the chance that offered itself. For years we have had people gradually building up a decent industry, and doing without all these advantages. Now what are Government going to do in fairness and honesty to those firms who have worked without bonuses or bounty? I ask the hon. gentleman as the Minister of Labour, as a great apostle of working-class interests, what is he going to do in regard to these people who get no bonus for their apprentices, who get no advantage to bring workmen cut here, or tools imported free of duty? Is he going to stand for that injustice? He has departed entirely from the whole of the principles that we hold and thought he held. I come to the last thing, that is, these assurances that are given. These assurances are only half-hearted; they are not written down; there is nothing behind them. The Government is to consider other offers on their merits! There will come into authority these who “knew not Joseph,” and may or may not carry out such assurances. Let the Minister state them definitely so that we may have them recorded for future reference. I want the Minister to pledge himself in such a way as his party will understand that he pledges himself, and the honour of his Government, that every concession made in this contract shall be extended, and extended at once, to all those who are struggling to make good in this industry, that there will be no differential treatment whatever. I see the Minister shakes his head. I quite see his unwillingness. At all events, I say his promises, so far, have been only half-hearted. They are not satisfactory to existing cutters, and I want him to deal fairly and squarely with men who have suffered the heat and burden of the day and have put in their capital at their own risk.

I had hoped when the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) rose that he would correct the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris), and that he would, in fairness, have read him the lesson which, I think, he deserves from this House. I am not in the habit of lecturing the hon. member, but I do want to say that the manner in which this charge was brought up against Rosenstrauch and against his character is one of the most doubtful actions that, I think, has ever taken place as far as high finance is concerned, to discredit a man financially. The hon. member placed before the select committee what purported to be a charge and the finding of a court against this firm of Rosenstrauch, and this was a statement made in this House. The committee investigated this matter, and let me give the names of those gentlemen on the committee from the other side of the House, We had Mr. Blackwell, Gen. Byron, Mr. Jagger, Sir William Macintosh, Mr. Nel, and Mr. Stuttaford. These gentlemen found, after having the case before them and investigating these documents, that there was nothing in it, and that it was a baseless charge wrongfully brought up. Why we did not put in a recommendation was, perhaps, in deference to the hon. member for Beaconsfield, because he had appeared to give evidence, The evidence was quite clear that the plaintiffs’ case and ex parte statement put before the judge of instruction before the court at Belgium, had been used by the hon. member as the finding of the court, and had been used under the sacred privilege of this House to blacken the character of that man with whom we are entering into a contract. The committee found that the charges were unfounded. The judge of instruction withdrew the charge— and the procedure in Belgium is identical with that here, that once a criminal charge is lodged no man can withdraw it, and if a crime had been committed Rosenstrauch would have been prosecuted for fraud in Belgium—but the court withdrew the charge and held there was no charge against him, and they then went to arbitration. It was not the arbitration with the result that the hon. member led the committee to believe. The arbitration was in favour of Rosenstrauch on all the points, and gave him 99 per cent satisfaction. Yet the hon. member comes here and repeats the charge after the select committee has gone into the whole matter, after it has thrashed out the details and found that Rosenstrauch was quite a responsible party upon which we recommended the ratification of this contract with certain reservations. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is a very fair-minded man, and he was quite satisfied that the contract should be ratified, with this reservation. The hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) made a further statement in this House, and said that why the syndicate objected to these people getting this contract is that they mistrust them, and that they are a lot of scoundrels; but he made an offer on behalf of Mr. Solly Joel and Sir Ernest Oppenheimer, and he was quite willing we should back up these reputable gentlemen to go into any contract into which the Government is willing to go. Is it right for him to come to this House and tell us that the only competent men to handle the diamond cutting industry are the Diamond Syndicate when he knows the principal persons of Messrs. Barnato Bros. are his cousins? Does he remember the incident of the stones in Kimberley left under a loose flagstone, and a bag of money was found, and that Jack Joel had to leave this country on suspicion of I.D.B.? But Mr. Rosenstrauch, according to the hon. member, is a scoundrel. When England was at war with Germany an expedition flew over under the aegis of the Oppenheimers to frighten German shareholders that their shares would be confiscated; we have the Consolidated Mines of South-West Africa, and the German shareholders done out of their shares. If the hon. member for Beaconsfield wants to go into characters, we can go into characters which will surprise him as far as those Simon Pures with whom he deals are concerned. But let us deal with his arguments. He said I made a suggestion in this House—probably Messrs. Rosenstrauch and Korbf misinformed me—that they had 1,000 employees. We had the evidence before the select committee, and it will be seen the whole question was based not on the number of factory employees. Not one employs 1,000, but they have 150 fixed employees and give work out to the small cutters in Antwerp and Amsterdam, as occasion arises. There is no doubt that both Mr. Rosenstrauch and Mr. Korbf were employing a very large number. When the ukase was issued against him, 600 were employed by him, and they had to quit work on that day. Here is the official organ of the organization, which we had in the select committee. The official notice signed by the management of that organization called out the workers and employees of Mr. Rosenstrauch. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) quoted the case of these “two adventurers” suddenly arriving on the scene. In 1923 the late Prime Minister, the late Minister of Mines and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) met a deputation which was introduced by Mr. James Moir, of Kimberley, and they negotiated a diamond cutting contract with Mr. Korbf. but, through the clever juggling of people, who do not want to see diamond cutting carried on in South Africa, the contract has been put away. The first contract was entered into on the pretext of having diamond cutting here, but always with the idea of not doing it; that is the difference between the action of the late Government and the present Government. The present Government has entered into the contract with the object of having diamond cutting carried on in South Africa. I have no doubt that the consequent dislocation of the diamond industry is going to be particularly painful to the Diamond Syndicate, because they are going to lose the £3,000,000 profit they make annually by selling uncut diamonds to Amsterdam and Antwerp. I have no doubt that when the Diamond Syndicate recognises that serious cutting is going to take place here, they themselves Will have to cut in South Africa as well. The “Diamond Felds Advertiser” of May 17th, published a cablegram under the heading: “Boom in cut diamonds. Enormous demand from United States of America”. Yet the hon. member for Beaconsfield tells us the syndicate must control the position, or there will be a slump. He knows for a fact that the only object of the syndicate is to enhance the value of diamonds so that they can make a very big profit on the sale of uncut stones. Of course, we have to interfere with the primary producers now the Diamond Syndicate is prepared to form a company with a capital of £1,000,000 to cut diamonds in South Africa. The hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) was very disappointing when he quoted a case of the small cutting factory, with all due credit to Mr. Vermey. He has impressed the committee with his evidence and the committee inserted a proviso that the Government should consider the advisability of extending the same provisions to those cutters already in South Africa as were given to Rosenstrauch Bros. & Korbf. The hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) objected that he had gone through Vermey’s books and found that in one year he had made £7,500 profit. I have not the slightest doubt he objects to Vermey making that, but does not object, to the primary producers making 3£ millions profit out of the sale of the whole of the stones.

I said nothing of the kind. He is misquoting me.

I venture to say that if this contract is passed, and if the Government is honest in its intention to give those people facilities for cutting, and sees that the people get the stones they require, it will not be very long before a larger percentage than that will be cut by the syndicate themselves, and we will see the difference in the appreciation of the value of the uncut stones to the State. In other words, our £15,000,000 worth of diamonds will have to be dealt with. I want the House to be quite clear that the select committee devoted a great deal of time to this contract and heard a great deal of what we considered was thoroughly impartial evidence, and the recommendations we have put forward have all been embodied in this agreement. There is only one small alteration, and that is in Clause 9. By mistake the committee put in the word “value”, and we have decided that it should be “weight”, so as to correspond with Clause 12. Coming back to the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), he is quite satisfied that the contract should be ratified, but he wants it ratified subject to the proviso that the same conditions shall be extended to all other existing cutters. I cannot see how that can affect this contract. I believe the Government are quite willing to consider every case put forward on its merits as far as individual cutters are concerned today. The hon. member stated that if this contract is passed there will be such a large amount of cutting, and the privileges will be so great, that it is possible that they would act in detriment to the other smaller cutters. In the evidence given before the committee it appears that in Antwerp and Amsterdam at the present time, on the contrary, where they have big factories working today, it led to the establishment of a large number of small job cutters, who received their work from these factories, and so far from these people driving out the smaller cutters, they would encourage the smaller cutters to cut. The small cutters will grow in proportion as the big factories function in this country. I hope that the House will ratify this contract, for it is good business for the Government, as far as we are concerned. The obligations which the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) has stated were non existent are there, the guarantees have been put up in cash, and the wages that will have to be paid to the employees, as far as the apprentices are concerned, will more than compensate the Government for the small outlay that they are giving as bonus as far as this contract is concerned. The committee is serious in its recommendations that these privileges should be extended to existing small cutters at the present time, that if the Government see that it is not getting enough apprentices they must go on and increase their apprentices, so that we shall have enough men in South Africa for this industry, and be independent of Antwerp and Amsterdam, who are making a dead set against the industry being established in South Africa, and who are guarding their entrenched position so carefully that they hope to be able to defeat the extension of this industry to South Africa. As far as I know, we have got sufficient grit in South Africa to carry these things through.

I want to ask the Minister, seeing that we have had a long day and, some of us, an exciting day, whether we may not now adjourn. I do not think, so far as I can find, that the remainder of the discussion will take longer than perhaps two hours, and I would like to urge the Minister, under the circumstances, to agree to the adjournment.

No. We have had an afternoon off. This is a very important matter, and one which has been before the House so long that I do not see any reason whatever why we should not be able to go through with it tonight.

I should like to point out—

There is nothing before the House.

The hon. member has moved the adjournment.

Has the hon. member moved?

I will formally move— That the debate be adjourned.

I want to point out to the Minister that we have practically nothing left before us—

Yes, we have.

Gen. SMUTS:—Except this matter under discussion and a few other small Bills, which are not contentious at all. It will occasion no difficulty at all. It seems to me quite easy to put all these through tomorrow.

Will you do it?

Yes, if the Minister will agree, I see no difficulty against putting these matters through tomorrow.

What have you on the list?

I have the ratification of the diamond cutting agreement, the Electoral Amendment Bill, the Naturalization of Aliens and the Radio Amendment Bill.

And what about the Industrial Conciliation Bill?

I am reading the list of work that has been handed to me in the House. This will not detain us and there is no need for us to be sitting at this late hour. We have sufficient time to put these through, and it will all go through, so under the circumstances I appeal to the Minister not to subject us to the ordeal of sitting at this late hour tonight, when it is quite unnecessary.

If the leader of the Opposition is prepared to give an undertaking that he will help to put all these things through tomorrow—

Those he has mentioned.

But there are two other important Bills on the Order Paper which we ought to put through. One is the Industrial Conciliation Bill.

You cannot get it through.

You know your own people have put an embargo on it.

Not at all, and the other Bill is the Apprenticeship Bill.

No, neither of them.

Both are important Bills. As far as I am concerned, I am going to do my best to get them both through.

Not on the last day of the session.

There are only two more speakers on the other side, the member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) and the member for Newlands (Mr. Stutta ford).

No.

We might just as well finish tonight, if the right hon. member will only organize his forces to expedite the business. We have had three hours’ holiday to enjoy ourselves at the football match at which the right hon. member himself was present, and enjoyed it, and surely we can put two hours on tonight for the three hours we had this afternoon.

I hope the Minister will agree to the adjournment. It does not follow because some young energetic members go to see a football match that I should be kept here till 2 in the morning.

Do I understand that the Minister thinks lie is going to put the Industrial Conciliation Bill through?

I hope so.

What an optimist you are.

I would appeal to the Minister. The right hon. member has asked quite reasonably that we should adjourn, and he has told the members on the Treasury benches that the items which he has read out can easily be dealt with tomorrow.

Will you do it?

Those items I have read will go through tomorrow.

Will you include the second reading of the Industrial Conciliation Bill?

No, certainly not.

I want the Minister to say he will agree to it. After all, we sat at 10.30 in the morning and the officials and the press have also to be considered. When the Minister says he will take the second reading of the Industrial Conciliation Bill, he knows an embargo has been put on that Bill. The Minister knows that as far as the other Bill is concerned there is perhaps more opposition to it amongst a certain section on his own side of the House than there is on this side. It is a sorry make believe that does not carry any weight of any sort. This is practically the end of the session. Tomorrow we can start again and get these other measures through, but is it right that we should have to sit after 11 o’clock at night? Does the Minister not know there is an important function tomorrow, and if hon. members have to sit late they may be so exhausted that they will not be able to take part in it?

Well, all right.

Motion to adjourn the debate put and agreed to; to be resumed tomorrow.