from R. R. Futter and A. C. Futter, of Butterworth members of the Corporation of Accountants, praying that the said corporation may be included in the “ Accountants’ Registration (Private) Bill” among the societies whose members are eligible to practise under the Bill in the Union of South Africa.

from G. von Welfling Eybers, of Maraisburg, a teacher under the Cape Education Department, praying for the condonation of a break in his service, or for other relief.

from W. Budge and 37 others, inhabitants of Port Elizabeth, praying for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Veto, whereby men and women may decide by ballot on the continuance, reduction or issue of liquor licences, or for other relief.

from B. Sutcliffe, of Port Elizabeth, a member of the Corporation of Accountants praying that the said Corporation may be included in the “Accountants’ Registration (Private) Bill” among the societies whose members are eligible to practise under the Bill in the Union of South Africa.

from J. P. Hoffman and 109 others, inhabitants of the district of Vredefort, Orange Free State, praying for the construction of a line of railway connecting Parys, Vredefort and Vierfontein, or for other relief and a similar petition from M. M. Behrman and 27 others inhabitants of the district of Vredefort, Orange Free State.

from M. Hutchinson, Accountant, Port Elizabeth, and member of the Corporation of Accountants praying that the said Corporation may be included in the “Accountants’ Registration (Private) Bill” among the societies whose members are eligible to practise under the Bill in the Union of South Africa.

in giving notice of a motion for the appointment of a Select Committee on the petition of G. D. Smith, moved, as an unopposed motion, that the notice be set down for tomorrow as a special notice of motion, with precedence of Orders of the Day.

seconded.

Agreed to.

asked the Minister of Lands: (1) Whether he will lay upon the table of the House all information in connection with the inquiry instituted by the Department of Lands into the question of quitrents; and (2) whether the Government is prepared to meet the request of farmers to have quitrents considerably reduced ?

replied: (1) Yes. The Commissioner’s report will be laid on the table at an early date. (2) When the report is tabled, it will be seen that a case has not been made out for a reduction of quitrents.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether he is aware that a sub-ganger named Else was knocked down by a goods train at Coerney between the hours of 9 and 10 p.m. on Saturday, and was allowed to lie in agony all night; that he was brought into Port Elizabeth on Sunday morning, and no ambulance was placed at his disposal; and that, although he was a mass of clotted blood, he was carried through the streets uncovered by two coloured porters; and (2) whether he will inquire into the cause of this neglect?

replied: Sub-ganger Else was probably knocked down by engine of passing train about 9.30 p.m. on 8th inst. He was discovered one mile and a half north of Coerney by driver of following train at 3 a.m. on the 9th idem, and taken to Coerney Station, whence he was conveyed to Port Elizabeth under care of railway medical officer. On arrival at Port Elizabeth Station, the injured man was placed on railway ambulance, mounted on wheels, and conveyed to hospital by this means. He was covered by blanket, with which medical officer shielded his face in such a way as not to interfere with respiration, but Else objected to his face being covered and tore blanket off. Else was made as comfortable as possible under circumstances. Doctor washed and dressed wounds on the train, and says patient slept and smoked alternately all the way from Coerney to Port Elizabeth. It is unfortunate Else lay so long after accident before he was discovered, but while this is regretted, Administration was not to blame. Administration is pleased to be able to report having received advice that Else is progressing satisfactorily in the hospital.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours: (1) Whether it is a fact that the summer uniforms of the railwaymen for last summer have not yet been issued and, if so, what are the reasons for the delay, and will he cause the grievance to be immediately remedied and take steps to prevent a recurrence in the future; and (2) whether, if it is a fact that the men, by reason of the aforesaid delay when on duty had to wear their own clothing, he will cause them to be compensated?

replied: (1) The bulk of summer uniforms for staff in Transvaal and Natal have been delivered, but a large proportion of the staff in the Cape and Orange Free State have not yet been supplied. Delay due (a) to the fact that this is the first delivery under new contracts embracing supplies for the whole Union Railways, and to unfortunate delay which on this account occurred in placing orders, notwithstanding which delivery should have been effected in November; (b) to time taken in making up all new material and having goods carefully inspected and tested; and (c) so far as oversea contract is concerned, partly to industrial disturbances. Orders are expected to be completed in a few days and steps have been taken to prevent further delays of this kind. (2) In a few cases men have had to wear their own clothes for a short time, but it is not proposed to pay compensation on this account. Being the first contract for the whole of the Union Railways, it was almost inevitable, under the circumstances, that there would be certain delay, but, unfortunately, a combination of circumstances has led to delay being greater than was expected.

asked the Minister of Defence whether in the regulations under the South Africa Defence Act, it will be provided that the sale and supply of intoxicating liquors will not be permitted in the camps held for the training of the youth of the country enrolled in the Union Defence Forces?

replied: The matter will be considered at the fourth meeting of the Council of Defence, which has been fixed for the 12th April next. In the meantime it may be stated that Government is inclined to the course of strictly prohibiting the sale or supply of intoxicating liquors at all camps of continuous training for the Active Citizen Force.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs whether money order forms are still being printed for his department in London, and, if so, whether he will undertake to have them, as well as all other forms required by his department, printed within the Union?

replied; The printing of money order and other forms is now being performed within the Union, the English contracts having expired.

asked the Minister of Justice: (1) Whether it is a fact that the Roeland-street Gaol, Cape Town, is understaffed and overcrowded; (2) whether the warders are paid salaries varying from £7 to £8 per month and are called upon to work 12 and 14 hours per day for seven days per week; (3) whether the superintendent and assistant superintendent live off the premises and leave the management of the gaol largely in the hands of the chief warder, and that the last-named fines warders for trivial offences and otherwise irritates them; (4) whether as a result of the small and overworked staff at least one prisoner has escaped, the prisoners are insolent to the warders, and discipline is generally very lax; (5) whether as a result of these conditions serious discontent and want of harmony exists between the staff and officers; and (6) whether, if the facts are as stated, he will cause an impartial inquiry to be held into the state of affairs in the gaol with a view to placing the management on a more satisfactory basis?

replied: (1) In January last the position described by the hon. member occurred chiefly owing to abnormal illness among the staff and a larger number of prisoners coming forward. It is, however, not a fact to-day. (2) The warders’ pay, including pay for rations and quarters, to such as receive it, ranges from £6 16s. 11d. for temporary men to £15 5s. per month. There will be a substantial enhancement of warders’ pay in the Cape Province under the reorganisation conditions, which come into operation on the 1st April next. The hours vary with the season from nine hours net, after deduction of breaks for meals, in winter, to 11¾ hours net in summer. During January over £7 was paid in overtime to eight warders. It is not a fact that these hours have to be worked seven days in the week. (3) The gaoler or chief gaoler lives on the premises, as he always did. In place of control by a Visiting Magistrate, the daily control of the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent has been super-imposed since Union. They do not live on the premises. The gaoler or chief warder has no power to fine, and no complaints have been made to the Inspector of Prisons at his recent inspection of any irritation caused. (4) The Visiting Magistrate found that a prisoner had escaped owing to one warder supervising the area usually allotted to two, for the reasons above given. It is quite incorrect to say that either the prisoners are insolent to the warders or that discipline is very lax. On the contrary, the Inspector of Prisons, who completed his inspection of the institution as recently as the 28th January-last, finds that discipline is well maintained. (5) The Inspector of Prisons, who invited complaints under the safeguards of Prison Regulation No. 11 at his recent inspection, received none on this point from the warders, and found no evidence of either discontent or want of harmony (6) The main facts not being as stated, and an impartial inquiry just having been held by the Inspector of Prisons, I see no cause for a further inquiry.

asked the Minister of the Interior whether the Government will provide for the removal of serious disabilities under the Marriage Law in Natal, by introducing, during the present session, a short Act on the lines of the Cape Marriage Law Amendment Act, 1906?

replied: I fear that no opportunity will arise during the present session of submitting another measure dealing with the marriage laws. I should like to add that I have no knowledge of the serious disabilities, which the hon. member states to exist under the Natal Law, and I should be very glad if he would supply me with particulars so that they can be noted for future reference.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether he is aware that the object of the students’ demonstration which it was proposed to hold in Cape Town was to celebrate the passage of article 137 of the South Africa Act and not, as hitherto generally supposed, the passage of any later Act or Ordinance, and whether it is contrary to any railway regulation to allow excursion tickets for the purpose of enabling students to celebrate the passing of the Act of Union, and, if so, what the words of the regulation are?

replied that the form in which the application was brought to his notice was that this was a demonstration of equal language rights, and the letter of application received from the applicants clearly conveyed the impression that what was referred to was the recent Cape Province Ordinance. The second part of the question, he found, was general and abstract and difficult to answer, and a good deal would depend upon circumstances.

said that, arising out of the question he would like to ask the Minister, as it was proposed to hold a demonstration to celebrate the passing of Article 137 of the South Africa Act, whether there was any regulation to prevent the issue of cheap tickets for that purpose?

replied that he thought the hon. member should give him notice of a question of that sort. (Hear, hear.) He might say at once that the regulations made no provision for the issue of tickets in such circumstances. He thought that the last application was made to the Administration under the terms of the picnic clause. It was found impossible to bring it in under that section.

asked the Minister of Mines: (1) Whether it is a fact that the president of the Chamber of Mines, Messrs. Lewis and Marks, Mr. Julius Jeppe, and others have been supplied by his department with copies of a proposed amended Precious Stones Amendment Bill; and, if so. (2) whether he will instruct his department to extend the same privilege to members of this House and to the public interested in such legislation ?

replied: (1) In the course of drafting a Precious Stones Bill numbers of persons connected with mines and alluvial diggings, including the Transvaal Chamber of Mines, whose members may consequently have seen the draft, as well as landowners, have, as is usual in such cases, been consulted on various points. (2) When the Government decides to introduce a Bill on the subject, it will be published in the “Gazette” for general information, in accordance with the usual practice in dealing with fresh legislation.

asked the Minister of Lands: (1) Whether he is aware that the inhabitants of the Stompiesfontein, and Strijdpan settlement are suffering the greatest inconvenience through scarcity of water; (2) whether he is aware that when an inhabitant applies for a Government bore he has to deposit the sum of £5 6s.; and, if this is so (3) whether he will, seeing that the harvests of those people are sufficient security for the expenses in connection with boring for water, forthwith give instructions that the deposit of the said payment in advance must not be required in future, and that the department must without further delay proceed with boring operations there?

replied: (1) I am aware that, owing to the recent drought, there has been a scarcity of water at the settlement referred to. (2) and (3) No deposit has been demanded. Boring operations at Stompiesfontein and Strijdpan are undertaken only in those cases where the rent for 1910 and 1911 has been paid, and for those settlers whose past diligence in developing and working their holdings, and whose prospects of a harvest are deemed to offer sufficient security to justify an advance on extended terms of payment for the outlay required for boring on their holdings.

asked the Minister of Public Works: (1) Whether he is aware that the accommodation of the Assistant Magistrate’s Court at Bothaville, Orange Free State, is very limited, and is causing much inconvenience; and (2) whether he is prepared to remedy this state of affairs as soon as possible?

replied: I am not aware of the insufficiency of the accommodation in the Assistant Magistrate’s Office at Bothaville, but am obtaining a report on the subject.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs: (a) What the receipts were of the Post Office at Bultfontein, Orange Free State for the year 1912; and (b) what those receipts averaged per month?

replied: The Post Office revenue at Bultfontein for the year 1912 was: (a) £620; (b) average per month, £51 13s. 4d. The disbursements in connection with the office and the mail service for the same period were £623.

asked the Minister of Finance whether he is aware of the urgent necessity that exists for the introduction of legislation consolidating the various laws relating to insurance companies in South Africa, and, if so, whether it is his intention to introduce such legislation this session?

replied: I am aware of the necessity that exists for the introduction of legislation to consolidate the various laws relating to insurance companies within the Union. The material for framing a Bill has already been collected, but it will not be practicable to deal with the question during the current session.

asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours when it is the intention of his department to commence work on the improvements to the fishing harbour at Kalk Bay?

replied: Improvements to Fishing Harbour at Kalk Bay will be sanctioned immediately Administration can secure right-of-way over small piece of unused ground required to he traversed to reach site of works.

asked the Minister of Mines: (1) Whether the report recently published by the Premier Diamond Company, giving the result of ten years’ operations to the 31st October last, correctly states the distribution of profits for that period, and, if so, why the division of such profits has been more than two-fifths to shareholders and less than three-fifths to the Government; (2) what was the amount paid by the Government for the company’s two-fifths share in the Cullinan Diamond; and (3) what was the amount paid for cutting and for the pieces which resulted from splitting that gem, and to whom was it paid?

replied: (1) The statement published by the Premier Diamond Mining Company for the ten years ended 31st October last appears to be substantially correct. The company’s profits, as shown in that statement, include sundry sources of revenue in which the Government has no share, such, for example, as the profits of the compound store and interest on surplus funds of the company. The Government’s profit-sharing right extends only to mining profits and to interest on funds jointly owned. (2) The amount paid was £60,000. (3) The amount paid for cutting the Cullinan diamond and for the pieces which resulted from splitting the gem was £38,000. The payment was made to Messrs. Levy and Nephews, diamond brokers, London.

moved: That all the papers in connection with the removal of Mr. C. C. Campbell from the position of Messenger of the Court at Bloemhof on the 30th June, 1912, be laid upon the Table of the House.

seconded.

said he would lay the papers on the Table on the following day.

The motion was agreed to.

That in the opinion of this House the time has arrived when a general valuation of real or immovable property in the Union on a scientific basis should be made and machinery established for efficient and equitable valuation. The mover said that this was a very important matter, and one that they would have to debate in the immediate future. He could quote cases where the burden of taxation so far as real estate was concerned, fell more heavily on one section of the population than another. The pointed out that owing to the fact of there being no uniformity in regard to valuation in the Cape Province, it was found, when income-tax assessments were made, that certain portions of the farming community of the Cape Province had to bear greater burdens than other portions. He went on to quote the remarks of Judge Laurence in the report of the Financial Relations Commission, wherein the latter pointed out that a comprehensive valuation would be necessary. Section 85 of the Act of Union laid down the Provincial Council should have the power to tax, and, however much they might like to shelve the burden on to the shoulders of one section, they would have to consider what would be fair to all sections of the community. There was no valuation of property in the Transvaal, and the tax paid by owners was not commensurate with the taxation paid by non-property owners. If they were sincere in their efforts to develop local government in this country, they would have to take action at once, and he considered it was a proper function of the Union Government to undertake the valuation of real estate in the Union.

He found that in some other countries they had divided their properties in this way: first, the unimproved value of the land, then the value of the improvements on the land. On that they made the value of the improvements subject to the income tax, and the unimproved value exempt from income tax but subject to a land tax. They were on sound lines. He would appeal to the landowners in the House that it proper machinery were established to make a fair land valuation the man of enterprise and ability was going to be better off to-day than his neighbour who was slothful and content to sit waiting for the value of his land to go up. They should decide this matter now, whether it should be a matter to be decided by the Union, or whether it should be left to the Provinces to be dealt with when they thought fit.

seconded the motion.

said he was a little bit surprised to hear the eloquent appeal of the hon. member, and ho welcomed him to the growing army of those who believed that land should bear its fair burden of taxation. It was a fact recognised in nearly all ages and nearly all countries, except in the last few years, when the landowners had succeeded in getting rid of the necessity of paying taxes though hanging on to their rights. But he had some doubts whether the motion as moved by the hon. member would have the effect he meant it to have, and he would therefore move as an amendment to add at the end, “distinguishing between site values of such property and the value of improvements existing thereon.” He thought the hon. member would probably accept that amendment, because it would make it clear to the House what they were getting at. There was another point. The hon. member first made a remark that he wished to distinguish between the unimproved or prairie value of land. The second time he left out the words “prairie value,” and he did not think he meant prairie at all, because it was obvious if they only valued land on its prairie value they would let slip a very big revenue when it came to taxation. What they wanted to get at was, he thought, the value of the land itself, wherever it was situated, whether it happened to be urban land, mining land, or farming land. He was not one of those who believed that because the land had minerals underneath it, or because it had large blocks of buildings on it, that land should be taxed at the same rate as cultivated land. What they wanted to find out in this country was what the land was valued at, what its market price was, and what the improvements on it were valued at. Having got that information, there would be material for the Minister to go upon when he thought of altering the present system of taxation and instituting what they considered the only just taxation, and that was the tax upon the unimproved value of land. (Hear, hear.)

seconded the amendment.

objected to the motion and pointed out that it was impossible to do anything with certain lands. The mover had shown that he knew nothing about the subject. It was very nice for hon. members opposite to talk in the way they did, but he feared that there was something behind the motion, and hoped the House would not accept it.

said he could not quite follow the terms of the motion, but, as far as he understood it, it seemed to call upon the Government to incur a great deal of expense for a purely academic purpose. (Opposition cries of “No,” and a Voice: “Domesday Book.”) It seemed to him that his hon. friend did not mean to impose taxation, and he did not even know if it was necessary. Yet they were called upon to take a very far-reaching measure in order to satisfy his hon. friend’s feelings for a scientific basis of valuation. Was it going to be in the future a one value, or was there going to be an annual valuation of all property in the Union? Because it seemed to him that a valuation done once would be of no value whatever. Machinery would have to be instituted to conduct this valuation from year to year, or bienially or trienially. Take the municipalities. They knew that all over the country the municipalities valued the properties for their rates. They said here that the basis of municipal valuation was wrong. The Government was going to conduct a more scientific valuation, and the Government would distinguish between site value and improvements, and in future, in municipal areas all over the Union, the rates would be levied on the site value. That would be the effect of the motion. Then over a large part of South Africa they had no Divisional Councils at all, and this valuation would be a purely academic, scientific operation with no end in view. Well, he did not think they would consider this at this stage. The time might come, though he hoped it would not come soon, when scientific proposals would justify far-reaching steps, hut to-day it was not justified. To-day the expense which the Government would be called upon to incur would be immense, and for that reason he did not think they could entertain the motion.

said he would support the motion as a preliminary measure to secure a uniform valuation with a view to the imposition of a land tax.

said they had all listened with great pleasure to what the Minister had said, but if he had carried conviction it must have been only to a person of a simple mind. Surely the Minister did not think it was desirable that the Divisional Councils should have different bases of values. How was the Land Bank going to make advances when the principles upon which the valuations were made varied in different districts?

The Land Bank will make its own valuation.

said if the Land Bank had any regard for economy it would use existing valuations instead of making fresh ones of its own. He did not know any country in the world where advances on land were made where there was so little material for arriving at the correct valuation of agricultural land. It was amusing to see what a tender spot land valuation was in the hearts of hon. members on the Government benches. (Opposition cheers.) If the present rate of expenditure was to continue, people would have to pay for it in the shape of new taxes, and in anticipation of that time we should put our house in order, and get an idea of what the value of the land was, so that Parliament would have some sort of basis to go upon. (Opposition cheers.)

said members on the Government side of the House were not afraid of taxation, but it appeared to him that supporters of the motion did not take into account the expense which would be involved by a general valuation. Besides the valuation was extremely difficult—that was experienced by the Divisional Councils. It would be excellent to have a uniform system of taxation, but the cost connected with such a system would be enormous. It would mean that certain persons would have to travel all through the country to value the ground, and when they had finished they would have to start afresh. As a matter of fact, they would have to have a permanent commission, and he did not think the time for this had come.

said some of them were of opinion that the present values attached to land did not properly belong fully to those who owned the land—(Labour cheers)—and they thought that these values which had been created as a result of State and Municipal enterprise should attach to those bodies. They would like to know what these values, which really belong to the public were. As to the cost, it had been suggested that the owners should value the land themselves, and in that event the cost would practically be nil. As a check against under-valuation, Government, should be given the power to expropriate the land on the owner’s own valuation. (Labour cheers.) The information thus obtained would be very valuable to the Minister of Lands if he intended to go on with his land settlement scheme.

said the farmers were quite as willing to pay taxation as anyone else in the country when taxation was necessary. The people on the Rand had had railways built on the credit of the land owners. (Ministerial cheers.) The valuation of land would cause a great deal of trouble and expense for very little result indeed.

said he understood the Minister, when speaking on the Financial Relations Bill the other day, to hold the idea that a land valuation was necessary.

It was Mr. Hull.

Oh, the hon. member for Barberton—the musketeer who sits down at the other end. That was decidedly a good shot. Continuing, Mr. Merriman said that land valuation was very necessary, and no one would profit by it more than the farmer himself. At the present time, when a farmer wanted a loan, the great difficulty was to ascertain the value of his security. Sometimes it was found that the Cape valuations were useless for this purpose, and accordingly the owner had to pay to have a valuation made. The people who talked so glibly about the lazy farmer doing nothing to improve the land —most of them had never taken the trouble to go through the agricultural districts to see what the people there had really done. (Ministerial cheers.)

Getting land into order was a most costly thing. He merely mentioned this in answer to the gentlemen who sat on the cross benches and who imagined that some particular tradesman, what they called the working-man, was the only man who did anything far the country. (A laugh.) They liked to talk their trades union chatter. (Renewed laughter.) He did not think however, that the gentleman who had moved in this matter knew what a valuation of this kind meant. He thought the Ministry would be well-advised if they would see to it that some beginning was made some day or other, very soon, with a valuation of the land in this country. It would be good for the country, and he had not the slightest doubt that it would be good for the farmer. If they asked him, after the speeches he had heard, if he were going to vote for this motion, he said no, because they were doing this not with the idea of getting an honest valuation of the land, but they were doing it with some ulterior object of getting at the farmer. (Hear, hear.)

put it to the Minister of Finance whether this motion would not involve expenditure?

It seems to me that it would be impossible to get a large number of valuators to do this work gratuitously. (Hear, hear.)

said that he was very loth to interfere with any motion that was put on the paper, and when this motion was put on the paper it was not clear to him whether this work could not be done with the existing machinery, and he left it to get an indication from the Government as to whether this was contrary to section 62 of the Act of Union. Having regard to the terms of the section and the imperative nature of this motion, he was bound to disallow the motion.

asked whether if they on those benches could show a way in which this motion could be passed and not result in additional expenditure the motion would not be in order?

said he was afraid he must look to the Treasury Bench for the present, and he was informed that a valuation of this kind could not be carried out without additional expenditure.

asked whether it was not possible to move an amendment that the Government be asked to take into consideration the advisability of making this suggested valuation?

said he would be prepared to accept a motion in those terms.

said he was opposed to any attempt to make any of these fancy valuations. The valuation moved for by the hon. member was on the current or market value. What was talked about was, first, prairie value; second, site value; and third, a sort of improved value. He entirely agreed with the right hon. member for Victoria West that it would be an advantage to this country if we could commence as soon as possible a fair valuation of our land. The valuations in the Cape Colony were not of as much value as they might be, but still they were some guide and formed a kind of basis, though nothing like the valuations made by competent and experienced valuers. If it were an efficient valuation, it would be possible to show the holders of South African stock that this country was in a magnificent position relatively to its indebtedness. Furthermore, such a valuation would be of great advantage to the farmer himself. It was not from the taxing point of view that they on that side urged this, but from the point of view of the country and the farmer. He moved that the original motion be amended to read: That in the opinion of this House the Government should take into consideration the advisability or otherwise of causing a general valuation to be made of real or immovable property in the Union on a scientific basis.

said that, on a point of order, he would like to ask the Speaker whether he could accept an amendment to a motion which, according to his ruling, was not before the House.

I am admitting the resolution to be put in such a form that it can come before the House.

in seconding the amended motion, said he entirely agreed with what the right hon. member for Victoria West had said. He could fully sympathise with the hon. member for East Griqualand, who had been scared off supporting a thoroughly good measure because of the threatening aspect which had been put upon it. This was another instance of how a good beginning was crabbed by deliberately importing suggestions which it was well known would not be accepted and which only deprived the measure of support. This was not in any sense a confiscatory measure. He would ask the Government whether they did not want to know what they had got? They had land throughout the country and no valuation, and they had debts.

Why should they not let people know— those who wished to go on the land—that they could get land at a reasonable figure? There was another thing. Railways were being asked for for different parts of the country. Schemes were placed before members of the House, and they were asked to vote upon them without having information about those particular parts of the country. Would it not he of advantage to members of the House and to the taxpayers of the country to know the value of the land, and what effect the railway would have over a particular part of the country? It might be a very good thing for some people to hide the fact that there was a large amount of ground held in large holdings and exploited, but what about the 99 out of the 100 people who did not own land, and who wished to go on the land? How were these people going to get upon the land? There were companies holding large tracts of land, and absentee landlords. Why did not the Government get at them? He did not agree with any measure that tended to the confiscation of anybody’s property, but he put forward the plea on the common sense ground that the Government wished to know just what it had got. They should at least, as the right hon. the member for Victoria West had said, make a beginning, and he could promise them that in ten years they would not have sufficient information.

said that the hon. member for Pretoria, East, talked about the confiscation of land, and then said that they wanted to know the extent of land that was held by companies.

Value?

I accept the correction. Continuing, he said it had been stated that there was no ulterior motive about this matter, but he had heard discussions about compulsory expropriation. He did not see how anybody could have any objection to a valuation of land. But there were difficulties in the way. A valuation that was made at the present time would be of very little use in two or three years, owing to the rapid rise and fall in the value of land in this country. The right hon. member for Victoria West had said that such a valuation would be useful to farmers who wished to raise money. He (the speaker), thought that companies would attach as much importance to a Government land valuation as they did generally to anything which the Government did (Laughter.) Even where there were Divisional Council valuations these companies got private persons to make other valuations.

Not always.

I can assure my hon. friend that such is the case. Even if there was this general valuation companies would have their own valuations made. The rise and fall in price of land in this country is so great that in a few years this valuation would be of little use.

What is the use of the Divisional Council valuation?

They attach very little weight to it. Continuing, he said that this was going to be a very expensive process. If a valuation of this character would last ten or fifteen years perhaps it would be worth while going on with it. But if it was only going to last for three or four years at the outside then he considered that it would be a most costly undertaking. He pointed out that farmers, as well as other people, were crying out for extra expenditure, and if further taxation came they would have to remember that they were just as much to blame as anybody else. If they carried out this valuation they would have to have an army of valuers, and even when their task was completed it would not be satisfactory. In conclusion, he said he was reluctantly compelled to vote against the motion.

said that the remarks of the hon. member for Pretoria, East, seemed to be an echo of what he had said on the previous evening. Continuing, he said that some members on that side of the House could not get up without gibing and kicking at members of the Labour Party. What was more, was the fact that there was never any point about those kicks. The hon. member for Pretoria, East, had said that the motion was crabbed by the amendment of the Labour Party.

was understood to say that such was not the case.

Does the hon. member not agree with the sentiment expressed by members on these benches?

No. (Laughter.)

Does he not agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Fordsburg?

made a reply which was inaudible.

Does he not agree with the tax on the value of unimproved land? Continuing, he said that before he went on to discuss the motion he would like to refer to what had been said by the hon. member for Victoria West. That gentleman had often accused the Labour party of making wild, rash, and random statements, but he would like to point out that the insinuations that the Labour party had called farmers lazy farmers was totally incorrect. The right hon. gentleman went on to say that the farmer was the only real working-man. Well, they all recognised that the farmers do work hard, and they wanted to see that every man who farmed did work, and to see that the man who desired the opportunity of working on a farm got it. Also, he wanted to point out that the fact that a man possessed land did not make him a farmer. The hon. Minister of Finance said this motion would involve the Government in an immense amount of expense. The hon. member for Commissioner-street pointed out the way in which that difficulty could be overcome. He said they should let every man value his own land. The right hon. member wanted to know what sort of values they would get. He did not seem to have much confidence in the moral sense of the farmers. If an expropriation clause was put in legislation dealing with this matter, and then they allowed the man to value his own land, they would get over the difficulty; because if he valued his land too low to escape taxation, then the Government would buy it from him, and if he valued it too high, because he thought it might be bought then they would tax him on the high valuation. Hon. members who supported the motion wanted to have the unimproved value of land taxed. What was the use of the motion as it originally stood, except to bring about a situation which the Minister seemed to desire: that the farmer or land owner could raise a loan? Was the machinery of the State to be put to such use as that? That was the whole point of the right hon. gentleman’s speech. The object of their amendment was to see that the right men paid these taxes. They wanted to distinguish between the site value of such property and the value of the improvements existing thereon, and why on earth hon. members on the Government side of the House did not support this, was beyond comprehension. They wanted a tax upon unimproved value, not upon improvements. The hon. Minister of Finance stated as a clinching argument that if this was introduced, they would have taxation on site value in municipalities. That was precisely what they wanted. The hon. member instanced cases in which a map who had done nothing to his land found it enhanced in value because of the improvements carried out on a neighbouring property, and said it was because they believed that the only equitable basis of taxation was upon the land, that they would support the motion of the hon. member for Newlands.

said he thought that all hon. members on his side of the House would agree that the speeches coming from the hon. members on the cross-benches were at least honoured. When they came to other people, they were not quite so well satisfied. When they came to the hon. member who held out this inducement to them, that by this taxation they would be able to get at the large holders of land—

I did not say that.

said that when they brought that matter into the Transvaal Parliament, the hon. member and every member of his party was against it. There was another reason why he did not agree with those patriotic speeches. It was because his memory carried him back to 1907, when he also heard the hon. member make a patriotic speech. He talked of the noble part played by the voortrekkers in Zoutpansberg in forming a barrier between the natives and civilisation, and he agreed with the Bill, which he afterwards wanted carried out in a certain way.

Ah, I agreed with the Bill.

But when we find him in the back blocks of Woodstock, this is what we find. He said: “Continuing, Sir Percy referred to the extraordinary alliance between the Nationalists and the Labour Party. The latter, which was against the private ownership of land, did not want landlords and desired closer settlement, unanimously voted for a proposal to compel the Minister of Lands to distribute Crown land to people who had failed to carry out their occupation agreements.”

That is what your Minister said yesterday.

When the hon. member says this, it is a shameless perversion of the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I think that is not in order. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg has charged me with making a shameless perversion of the truth. The point is this: I quoted what the right hon. Minister for the Interior said yesterday.

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not quite catch it. Did the hon. member use the words?

Yes.

The hon. gentleman read an extract from some scraps of paper he has there.

From the “Times” newspaper. The only—

I don’t want him to apologise. (Laughter.) He says it is a shameless perversion of the truth. It is what the hon. Minister said yesterday.

I said, and I repeat, that if the hon. member says that we want distributed Crown lands, then I say it is a shameless perversion of the truth, because it is not Crown lands which we want to distribute to people who did not carry out their contracts; it is private land held under title the same as any other land.

Whose is it?

The registered owner, if the hon. member knows what that means. What they supported was to remove certain irksome conditions in a title of land privately held, in other words, they supported a motion to ask the Government to carry out their part of a contract with private people.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring now to a speech which took place in a previous session.

I am following the debate.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask your ruling? Is it in order for an hon. member to revert to a debate which has taken place in a previous session, and which has been finished?

The hon. member’s mind travels faster than mine. I have not got as far as that. I am just trying to follow the hon. member. The hon. member will proceed.

said it was difficult for those on the Ministerial benches to follow these patriotic speeches, and until they really knew what the object of the motion was, and whether it meant taxation, he for one would not vote for it. (Ministerial cheers.)

said the hon. member for Zoutpansberg had made a violent attack on the hon. member for Pretoria, East, accusing him of having gone back on a speech he made in the Transvaal Parliament in 1907. Yesterday the hon. member for Pretoria, East, supported the proper administration of the Act of 1907 under which the Minister of Lands had every right which the hon. member for Zoutpansberg wished that the Minister should have. What the hon. member for Zoutpansberg objected to was the way in which the Minister administered that Act. The hon. member for Pretoria, East, voted yesterday as he did in 1907, and he had absolutely nothing to be ashamed of Continuing, Mr. Wyndham said he was in favour of the taxation of land. There was nothing hidden about the matter. The members for Newlands and Port Elizabeth had been quite frank, and the gentlemen on the cross-benches also had been frank. However, if hon. members opposite were so upset and so frightened at the possibilities of the taxation of land that they could not face the necessity of having a valuation made of the assets of the Union they must vote against the motion. The Minister of Justice had brought forward only one objection to the motion— that any valuation of land would be out of date almost immediately. If, however, they were going to progress on that line they would never do anything. No Act of Parliament had a longer average life than five years. Were they then not to pass a single Act of Parliament? (Hear, hear.)

opposed the motion, and said that there was something behind it. It seemed to him that the members from Johannesburg wanted the land in rural districts taxed on the same basis as their own properties. Whenever a farm came on the market they knew its value from the amount which it fetched, so that a valuation was not required. Let them draw a sharp line between valuation and taxation, he urged, and if they wished to tax anything, they should tax that land which was lying absolutely idle and undeveloped. He was against the principle of taxing the land in the rural districts, which was being worked by whites, because the effect of that would be to render the land absolutely valueless. Let them tax the farms which were occupied by Kafirs.

said the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Wyndham) was almost indiscreetly frank when he said that some of them were in favour of a taxation of land values and some were not.

He did not say that.

said the Labour Party heartily supported the hon. member for Newlands, and the latter, with the hon. members for Fordsburg and Denver, was to be condoled with upon the rebuke he had received from his own party. Proceeding, Mr. Creswell asked the farming members on the Government benches not to be misled by the Minister into looking upon the motion as being directed against the agricultural interests, but they should remember that there were other values, such as city and mineral values, which would also have to be taken into account. The point to be considered was whether by basing taxation upon the unimproved value of all land they would not arrive at a better state of things and obtain most admirable results in an indirect way. The Minister of Finance, with his usual subtlety, had urged that the motion was useless, because there was no land tax in existence, but he had no doubt that the Minister, if a proposal were made to impose a land tax, would pooh-pooh the idea because the land had not been valued. The other day continued Mr. Creswell, reference had been made to high rents. But these were not due to the cost of building, but to the fact that owing to there being a monopoly of land it had a very high value.

They found people holding land round thickly populated areas, merely with a view, later on, of selling it at a greatly enhanced value. Then they had in the country numbers of men who were landless, while others were accumulating farms which they did not use, and which they were allowed to keep without paying any contribution to the State. This was not a wild chimera. Land taxation was in force in other States, with most excellent results. He believed that if hon. members on both sides of the House were to devote some study to the subject, they would find that basing the raising of taxation much more largely on the principle of taxing unimproved values of land, would not only do them no inconvenience, but would confer an immense benefit on the people of this country. (Hear, hear.)

said that the hon. member for Jeppe, in his daily lecture to the hon. members on those benches, had disclosed a weak joint in his own armour. He had said that hon. members on that side were divided on the question of land tax. But he always failed to grasp the fact that members who sat on those benches were allowed some latitude in matters of this sort. They had seen lately that the hon. member for Jeppe and the gentlemen who sat with him were tied by the leg like a pig being driven to market, and that they had to blindly obey the dictates of their party caucus. They had an instance of that during the women’s suffrage debate.

asked whether the hon. member was in order.

What is the point of order?

The hon. member has said that the opinions I expressed in this House—

That is not a point of order.

continuing, said the hon. member was rather sensitive, more sensitive than some whom he daily attacked in that house.

He (Mr. Meyler) was in favour of land taxation. He represented a progressive farming community, who had had the benefit of the land tax in the past, and who had found, as a result, that they got white neighbours with whom they could work, instead of the land being given up to natives and jackals. He hoped that with land taxation the Minister of Lands would see that it was possible to find a little corner of ground in the vast territories of the Union upon which he could put oversea settlers. To-day he told them that he was overburdened with applications, and that he could not get land for people who desired it in this country. South Africa was a doomed country unless he could very soon induce people to come from oversea to settle on the land. If the Minister would only follow the Natal system he would probably get for the first few years as much land as ever he required.

said it was very easy to taunt them with absurd theories as the Minister of Justice did when he referred to what was known as the single tax. He (Mr. Haggar) went with the single tax as far as it went, but it did not go far enough. He did not mean to advocate that honesty was the best policy in this House or anywhere else. (Laughter.) His experience was that the honest man was a fool. (Renewed laughter.) Honesty might be the best principle. Whatever there might or might not be in what had been advocated, it certainly proposed to seek and to secure a more equitable distribution of the burdens of taxation. There was no country in the world where the burdens were so inequitably distributed as they were in South Africa to-day. The Minister had referred to the rapid rise and fall of land. That instability was due to speculation. The introduction of such a tax would at least clip the wings of speculation and give them a little more security. The Minister of Finance asked how they were to do this, and conjured up a huge bogey. Only a few years ago a land tax was passed in Natal. The Government required that every man should value his own land. There was no expense about it. If any doubts existed as to the correctness of the valuation, the Government could step in. There was no cost, and no difficulty about it. It was so successful in Natal, that very soon they did not want the money.

Proceeding, he said it was the opinion of hon. members that the men who owned the capital were entitled to the first claim on the interest or earnings. He was certain they would say that. In Natal a Committee was appointed to go into this question. The members were not agitators. They were simple, solid conservative Scotsmen, of Natal. They said in effect that because the value of land in Natal had been largely increased by the expenditure of public money on railways and in other directions, they considered the land should pay a portion of the taxation. That was in accordance with the principle which he had mentioned, that the owner of the capital should be entitled to interest. If the Government expended money in improving land, then the Government should have some claim upon what he preferred to describe as the unearned increment. When a railway was put over land, which previously was worth £1 10s. a morgen, the Government in its generosity built this railway and raised its value £5 per morgen, was it not reasonable that they should tax it? The owner had not spent a farthing on it, and, probably if he had, would not have allowed the Government to spend money on it. But its value had been raised £4 10s. a morgen, and they proposed to tax that increased value in proportion with the amount which had been spent out of the public treasury.

With regard to what had been described as an alarming failure, he protested that there was not a single instance in the civilised world where it had been anything like a failure. Taking the case of South Africa, he mentioned that a few years ago a valuation was made in the borough of Durban. He thought the valuation was about 7½ million pounds. It was then calculated, not by a red-tie man, but by an anti-red-tie man, and a very competent accountant. It was shown that if a tax of 2½ per cent on the value of the land were levied, the finances of Durban would benefit by £20,000, and every building would be free. That was only one case. At present they taxed industry, and penalised the very man who ought to be free. If the Government improved man’s property the Government had a right to tax the improvement which the Government had made. He would like to correct a phrase they often heard. He referred to unimproved values. There were no unimproved values, all economic value was due to some improvement, and unless there was some improvement in connection with land there was no value attached to it. What value was communicated was created, and the Government should have the first claim upon it. Farmers would find in most cases—there were some who did not pay any tax—but if the farmers in that House were honourable men, they would pay their dues. They would find that they would have to pay less taxes than they were paying now. The Customs cost an enormous amount, and if they had those taxes, that would be swept away. Before this happened where-ever they went that the men who paid taxes most were the very men who were going to be benefited most of all. He hoped they would get back to the sound basis that the State coffers should be filled by the funds which the State created. He asked those who were opposed to the motion to study the question in its application to South Africa, as it had been applied in other countries and on the basis of sound principles.

said that the last speaker and the hon. member for Jeppes had let the cat out of the bag. They wanted to have a land tax and at the same time to abolish all other taxes. He opposed the motion, and held that the single tax would be most unfair. The theory of the Labour Party was not new, for it had been announced 200 years ago. He referred to France, where in the past there had been a strong feeling in favour of a single land tax. Voltaire had proved the fallacy of this in his book “The Man with Forty Crowns.” There were lands which went up in value, and if it was the intention to tax these lands, would they also compensate those lands which depreciated. There were many facts he argued in addition to the running of a railway line over ground which contributed to the value going up. There were always various causes which contributed to the prosperity of an enterprise. Would, for instance, the “Cape Times” be as valuable if it were published in Prieska instead of Cape Town? They should not rush into this matter, he urged, as it would be unfair to lay all taxation on the landowners.

said that he wanted to keep to the practical side of the question, and he did not think that members of the cross-benches had rendered any particular service to the motion of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth by talking about a single tax. He was certain that it would be a long time before they could get a single tax—

Who said single tax?

said he understood that the single-tax argument had been brought forward. There was a land tax in existence in the Cape Province at the present time, and he failed to see how landowners could argue that the general valuation would be against their interests. He pointed to the inequalities that existed in the Cape Province at the present time, and said that to the farmers in that Province alone, such a valuation as suggested would be of immense advantage. If they were to have an income tax in the future, he thought it would be an immense advantage to the farmer that it should be on the principle of the land tax. He thought that the hands of the Finance Minister should be free. He did not know whether fresh taxation was to be introduced: but in view of the increasing expenditure and the large amount of legislation that had been placed on the Statute-book, he thought it was bound to come, and he was convinced that a general valuation would be in the interests of everybody. He considered that it would be well if the House agreed to the motion proposed by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth.

said he did think that the Minister of Finance should accept the motion proposed by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth. It was a question that had to be closely studied, and it would take years to get a satisfactory solution. He referred to the trouble in England caused by the crude legislation for the taxation of land. Land taxation was bound to come sooner or later, and if the matter was fully considered, they would get legislation that would be beneficial to every landowner. He thought they should tax idle land.

What about land that has been improved?

said that such land would be taxed in the ordinary way. He hoped the Minister would accept the motion, for they should not come to a decision upon such a complex problem without mature consideration. He was in favour of moderate land taxation, because he thought it would be in the interests of the country and the farmer. He thought that the House should pass the motion, so that machinery should be devised whereby a measure on a beneficial basis could be carried out in an equitable fashion.

held that any legislation devised for the purpose of getting at a particular class was wrong. He was in favour of the taxation of all land, because he believed it should contribute a fair and reasonable amount to the revenue of the country.

All the right hon. gentleman said about the troubles of the farmers was right, but he should remember that they all had those troubles in every walk of life. He wanted to bring before the House a point of view that might have escaped them. He did not often have the pleasure of agreeing with the hon. member for Jeppe, but he certainly agreed with something he had said that afternoon. He said that from 40 to 60 per cent of the rent paid on the Rand was not interest on the buildings, but on the ground. An ordinary house that had been erected for some little time was paid for by the tenant sometimes three times over, and the rent therefore was the interest on the land. Immediately in the neighbourhood of Johannesburg a large amount of land was held by corporations, who held on to it while the townships grew and the value of the land became greater, and then offered it for sale at outrageous prices. The Municipality found means to tax them. They extended the borders of the town and taxed that land, and immediately that was done, the corporations found it advisable to sell. When they did, the corporations sold their holdings on easier terms. They wanted industries in this country. Many hon. members had pleaded in this House for legislation that would encourage industries. What was going to be one of their chief obstacles to the establishment of industries in this country? It was generally said it was the cost of living; but what was the most serious item in the cost of living? The rent. So they would find that this land question was at the bottom of most difficulties of this sort. Largely, but not altogether, the present condition of affairs on the Rand had been brought about by the cost of living. It had been proved by experience that one of the best means of making a change in that condition of things was the taxation of land. That was the same thing as that proposed today. He wanted to see the land taxed, and when he voted for this motion, if would be because it was the first step in the direction of the taxation of land. It was very far-reaching in its effect, and he hoped that hon. members opposite would not hinder them in it. One of the attractive things held out to people on the eve of Union was that they were going to have cheaper living, because the Union would be administered more cheaply than the separate Provinces.

He had tremendous faith in the ability of the Minister of Finance; but there was something lacking in him, because here were they in the third year of Union, and nothing had been done to relieve taxation. He maintained that no farmer, miner, or any other person should have cause to look forward to more taxation. This question of the taxation of land had not in view the immediate imposition of a tax on farmers. He agreed with the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. J. X. Merriman) that a man on the land was generally a better man than the man not on the land; but he would like to point out that the day would come when it might be necessary to find more taxation. Where were they going to get it from? The farmers need not, be afraid that the first step they were asked to take was an immediate proposal to tax all land. He believed that all land should be put under cultivation. He agreed with General De la Rey, who was a wise old man and a good South African, when he said that the farms were too big. Any legislation that would gradually force into use more land must be of benefit to everybody. He believed that the time would come when the hon. members opposite would find this a blessing in disguise. Therefore, for those reasons, he hoped the motion would pass. What he felt sorry about in this country was this: They all felt the necessity of these things; they all wanted the country to go ahead; but they did not make a start. If the Minister of Finance would only do something, no matter how small—but he sat there, and nothing had been done. He was capable of much. Why, then, did not he do something? (Hear, hear.)

said the hon. member who had just sat down said he hoped there would be no further taxation, but he wished to have land taxation, and wished to put before the Treasury another source of taxation. Hon. members on the cross-benches often spoke of the time when they would be occupants of the Treasury benches. When the (the hon. member) thought of that, his nightly prayer was: “Not in my time, Oh Lord; not in my time.” (Laughter.) He would like to point out to them that when their forefathers were asked to occupy the land, they were asked to be buffers between the savages and civilisation. It was due to their efforts that the country was now safe; It had been given out that the idea was the taxation of land.

In a way, he did not object to the taxation of the prairie value of land. This was where he blamed the present Government for not unifying the laws and taxation throughout the Union. Many members from other Provinces did not know that they in the Cape already had a system of taxation through the Divisional Councils. (Hear, hear.) It was such an iniquitious thing, that when he found in the Financial Relations Bill that the Divisional Councils’ revenues were going to be handed over to the Provincial Council, he found it in his heart to say that he would have nothing to do with the Bill. He looked upon the present motion as the thin end of the wedge. The idea of having a single tax was gaining ground. He did not think that the Labour members represented all kinds of labour, for the Unionists represented a certain number of working men, and he had the interests of those men quite as much at heart as had the hon. members on the cross benches. (Opposition cheers.) In conclusion, Mr. Blaine said he hoped there would be no further taxation, and for that reason he was going to vote against the motion.

said he had been studying the Labour Party, and found that it consisted of one Socialist, one Syndicalist, one expropriationist—(laughter)—

called the hon. member to order.

said he sympathised with the hon. member for the Border (Mr. Blaine), because the latter was apprehensive of the attitude of the Labour Party. The hon. member’s fear was that if that party had any say in the matter, things would go from bad to worse. He (Mr. Struben) disclaimed any connection with their Syndicalist ideas of expropriation right and left for the sake of what they called “the community.” (Cheers.) The line they went on would destroy individuality and enterprise, and would take away from a man the fruits of his labour. (Cheers.) The Labour Party’s proposal was a very different one from his. Continuing, Mr. Struben said that the valuation methods employed by the Divisional Councils were hopeless and antideluvian. One Council was asked to increase its valuations because the farmers said their properties were damaged when they came upon the market because of their low valuations. Consequently, in the following year, the valuations were increased so that people might be induced thereby to pay higher prices for the farms. If they were going to face the question of local government, concluded Mr. Struben, they must face this question. He did not call the farmers lazy, but why continue the present unscientific method of taxing the energetic farmer more than they did the lazy and inefficient one? Mr. Struben intimated that he did not object to the amendment.

The amendment was negatived.

called for a division, but shortly afterwards withdrew his request.

then put the main motion, and declared that the “ Noes ” had it.

called for a division, which was taken with the following result:

Ayes—35,

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Berry, William Bisset

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Fitzpatrick, James Percy

Haggar, Charles Henry

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

Juta, Henry Hubert

Long, Basil Kellett

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Nathan, Emile

Phillips, Lionel

Quinn, John William

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Runciman, William

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Smartt, Thomas William

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

H. A. Wyndham and J. Hewat, tellers.

Noes—67.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus

Johannes

Blaine, George

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Brain, Thomas Phillip

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederick Reinhardt

Cullinan, Thomas Major

Currey, Henry Latham

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fawcus, Alfred

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Fischer, Abraham

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Hull, Henry Charles

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

King, John Gavin

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Langerman, Jan Willem Stuckeris

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Sauer, Jacobus Wilhelmus

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrick Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrick Willem

Wiltshire, Henry

C. Joel Krige and M. W. Myburgh, tellers.

The motion was accordingly negatived.

moved: That copies of all papers, including the record of the preliminary examination, in connection with the recent trial at the Circuit Court, at Kokstad, of P. P. Mare, formerly a booking clerk, at Malenge, who was charged with the theft of eight shillings from the administration, be laid upon the Table of the House. The hon. member said that this motion embraced the liberty of the subject and the administration of justice. It would appear that one P. P. Mare, who was a booking clerk at Malenge station, was charged by the Railway Administration with stealing 8s. sterling from natives. The allegation against him was that in small sums of from 5d. to 1s. he had given the natives short change. He was brought before the R.M. in due course, and he demanded that, if prosecuted he should not be tried by the magistrate, but by a judge and jury. The Attorney-General indicted him, the trial took place at Kokstad, and Mr. Justice Sampson presided. The case had not proceeded very far when the learned judge stopped it, observing that it was impossible for him to administer British justice on such evidence, and the jury returned a verdict of acquittal. In discharging the accused. Mr. Justice Sampson said that he tendered his sympathy with the accused in the position in which he had been placed. The reason why he (Mr. Nathan) moved for the papers was a very simple one. The present Minister of Justice had only been in office for a short while. He hoped when he got the papers to draw the attention of the House and of the country to what he considered a serious defect in the administration of justice.

seconded the motion.

said that to accede to the hon. member’s request would be an unprecedented proceeding. It was an extraordinary position to ask for the papers in order to review the decision of the Superior Court, or even of the Inferior Court. He (the Minister) did not want to quarrel with the verdict of the jury or the summing up, or were they going to re-try the case. What was the object? So far as the proceedings were concerned, all the papers that he could produce were public. He hoped the House would not accede to the request.

said he was sorry that the Minister had not paid greater attention to what he had said. He did not say that he wanted to review the decision of the Court and jury, but he did say that the liberty of a subject was at stake and there was a question of the administration of justice. He contended there never should have been a prosecution in that case, and in that sense he wished to convey that there had been a miscarriage of justice. If the hon. Minister thought it undesirable to lay the whole of the papers on the Table, he would be satisfied with the preliminary examination, so as to have an opportunity of showing that there should have been no prosecution in the case. The man had been dismissed, and had not, to his knowledge, been reinstated. The question of the liberty of the subject might be a small thing to some people, but it was not to the individual concerned.

The motion was negatived.

moved: For a return showing: (1) Various services rendered to local authorities by Government engineers in connection with schemes for town or village water supply and drainage since Union; (2) the number of days taken up on each scheme; (3) the amounts paid by local authorities in each case for such services; and (4) the actual cost to Government including salaries, transport, and proportionate share of office and administration expenses.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved: That in the opinion of this House the Government should take into consideration the advisability of obtaining, by means of surveys and reports, further information as to the relative advantages of providing increased facilities for the carriage of coal from the Natal coalfields to Durban by building an auxiliary coal line, instead of improving or doubling the existing main line. He said that owing to certain information having come into his possession, he did not feel prepared to proceed with the motion and he would suggest that the debate be adjourned.

seconded.

The debate was adjourned until Wednesday, March 12.

moved for a return showing: (1) In which districts of the Transkeian Territories East Coast fever has appeared since its introduction: (2) how many cattle have died of that fever in each such district; (3) total number of cattle which have died owing to inoculation against that fever; (4) how many dipping tanks (a) public, (b) private (assisted by loan from Government), (c) private (not assisted), have been built in each district up to the end of 1912; and (5) how many of these tanks have been erected wholly or partly by natives, and how many by Europeans?

The motion was agreed to.

Return showing in which districts of the Transkeian Territories East Coast. Fever has appeared since its introduction, and further particulars.

rose to move that the petition from R. H. Boyd, president of the Shop Assistants’ Association, Johannesburg, and 1,007 others, shop assistants in the Transvaal, praying that the Transvaal Provincial Council may be empowered to deal with, or alternatively that the House may itself introduce legislation on, the subjects of shop hours in the Transvaal and the importation of shop assistants under contract, presented to the House on the 11th February, 1913, be referred to the Government for consideration. He said that the subject of the petition was of very great moment to a very large number of shop assistants. It was intimated that there would be no objection. Mr. Creswell then said he would move the resolution formally, and in doing so would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that it had been circulated that some employers had expressed great disfavour with the procedure of the petitioners, and had used influence to prevent the shop assistants from signing the petition. Representations had been made to him that that matter should be made public. He considered that nothing was more detrimental to the usefulness and the duties of Parliament than that any citizen should have pressure brought to bear to deprive him of the privilege of appealing to the Parliament of his country. He begged to place his protest on record.

seconded the motion.

said that when the petition was first sent out the wording misrepresented the facts. The hon. member for. Jeppe had said that employers had tried to discourage their assistants from signing. He hoped that the House would be careful in accepting the information, though he did not cast any doubt on the word of the hon. member. So far as his business was concerned, he personally saw that the petition went into his place, but because many of his assistants declined to sign he had received two letters from the promoters of the petition using intimidating language and threatening a boycott. There had probably been something of the sort on both sides. He hoped that the petition would be considered on its merits, and some of the points were worthy of the Government’s consideration.

pointed out that at a meeting in Johannesburg several employers had expressed themselves very strongly about this matter, and, therefore, they must not be surprised when the impression went abroad that it would have been rather bad business on the part of their assistants to sign the petition. He did not suggest that the hon. member for Troyeville had done anything of the sort.

The motion was agreed to.

moved: That the papers and documents relating to the retirement of Charles Currie from the public service of the Union and to the grant of a pension to him be laid upon the Table.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the practice of garnisbeeing wages, the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Mr. moved that the committee consist of seven members.

seconded.

moved that the committee consist of eight members.

seconded.

The amendment was agreed to

The amended motion was agreed to.

moved that Messrs. Hull, Oliver, Nicholson, Mentz, Meyler, Sir David Harris and the mover be members of the committee.

seconded.

asked the Select Committee to consider the Administration of Justice report of 1911.

The motion was agreed to.