from J. A. E. Markus, formerly Commissioner of Police, Bloemfontein, who served for various periods under the Cape Colony and Orange Free State Governments from 1887 until the occupation of Bloemfontein by the British Forces during the late war, praying the House to consider the circumstances of his case, and to grant him a pension, or for other relief.

from Lavina K. Marais, a teacher in the Elandsfontein Public School, who has served under the Education Department for over 15 years, but, not having a teacher’s certificate, is not entitled to receive a good service allowance or a pension, praying for consideration and relief.

from P. E. Roux, principal of the Hope field Public School, praying for the condonation of a break in his service, or for other relief.

from G. W. Klerck, who entered the service of the Table Bay Harbour Board in 1896 and was transferred to the Customs Department in 1907, praying that his service in the Table Bay Harbour Board from June 12, 1899, to June 11, 1907, may be recognised for pension purposes or for other relief.

from R. Scharffenorth, of Cape Town, who served as a chief constable in the Cape Police Force from 1893 to 1897, when he was transferred to the Railway Department, and, in 1912, was retired on a pension which was subsequently reduced, praying for consideration of his case and for relief.

from W. Stokes, travelling overseer in the Public Works Department, Tsolo, praying that the House may consider his circumstances, and that on his retirement he may be granted a pension or gratuity, or for other relief.

as chairman of the Select Committee on the Fidei Commissary question, brought up the report of the Select Committee, and moved that it, together with the evidence, be printed.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the report be considered on April 2.

The motion was agreed to.

Scale of rations for Coast Garrison and Acting Citizen Forces in camps of continuous training.

Papers relative to purchase by Government of Kowie Railway Company, Limited (in liquidation).

Annexures to General Report, Census 1911.

moved that the three notices of motion stand over until the first Order of the Day had been postponed. He thought it would meet the wishes of the House if his hon. friend delivered his Railway Budget.

did not think there would be any objection, although it was inconvenient having the Order Paper altered.

The motion was agreed to.

was cheered on rising to resume the adjourned debate on the motion for Committee of Supply on the Estimates of Expenditure to be incurred during the year ending the 31st March, 1914, from the Consolidated Revenue and Railways and Harbours Funds, respectively.

He said that in endeavouring to lay before the House the state of the railway finances he was happy to be able to say that he would be able to show that they were on the whole in a satisfactory position. (Cheers.) It might be convenient if he began by referring to the state of things in connection with the current financial year. His predecessor budgetted last year for a surplus of £280,000. There was every prospect of that surplus being nominally £500,000—(cheers)—and £300,000 was a real net surplus. The amount was arrived at as follows: There was a surplus budgetted for in 1912-13 of £280,000; the railway revenue had exceeded the estimate by approximately £100,000, revenue from Harbours had exceeded the estimate by £120,000, and there had been a saying in interest charges on capital of £120,000, owing mainly to the difficulty of getting material in Europe, and to a shortage of native labour. That made a total of £620,000. But there must be deducted an excess of railway expenditure over the estimates of £95,000 and an excess of harbour expenditure of £25,000, which left a balance of £500,000. The excess of railway expenditure had taken place in spite of the considerable rate reductions made last year, amounting to £444,167.

What is the gross revenue?

twelve millions odd. Continuing, Mr. Burton said the amount of £500,000 was a nominal one, and of that sum £200,000 was required for expenditure to be incurred this financial year, and for which provision was already made in the Additional Appropriation Bill. There was an item of £218,000 for miscellaneous expenditure in the Additional Estimates of Expenditure now before the House. Of that sum £18,000, as well as the other amounts that had to be voted had already been provided for, so that out of the whole amount of £393,600 only £200,000 would have to be voted in reduction of the nominal surplus of £500,000.

You accept it, and we pay it.

It is wrong, all the same.

Well, my hon. friend must not direct his quarrel to me, but to the hon. member for Barberton. It was he who pressed this matter up to the hilt, and he succeeded, and I am inclined to agree with him. Proceeding, he said the next amount was £82,000—an additional contribution to the superannuation fund. Hon. members would find it fully explained in the Estimates, but he might say, briefly, it was an amount required to meet the contributions of a large number of men who would have to come on the fixed establishment this year. Hitherto they had been temporarily engaged, and now, under the Act passed last year by his predecessor, they would all have to come on the fixed establishment. The next item was £75,000—a contribution to the deficiency in the pension fund. That amount had also been provided owing to the Railway Act of last year. It was a tenth part of a total estimated deficiency of £750,000. The next item was £220,000, a loss as the result of opening 1,168 miles of new line. Then there was £300,000 for relaying lines, work now in progress, and £293,776 for an increased contribution to the Depreciation Fund. Those items gave a total of £2,762,772, From that had to be deducted an amount of £116,250, representing rates reductions not effected during a certain portion of the period of 10 months after Union; a decreased contribution to betterment of £350,000, and rates reserve fund £115,000, and the balance, an approximate net gain by economy, £271,000. These items on the other side of the account totalled £852,772, and the balance shown was £1,910,000, which was the difference in the profit estimated to be made. Then in regard to the contributions to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the railway had contributed, since Union, £3,179,000, so that altogether during the first four years of Union the railways had contributed to the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the country a total sum of £4,500,000.

Does that refer to agricultural produce?

No, it refers mainly to coal.

That comes home to somebody.

What does?

Agricultural produce.

Of course it does. The reduction on coal has not come home to the consumer, because the middleman takes it. You have had coal reduced at Witbank by 1s. 6d. a ton, but the average consumer, the small householder on the Rand, has not got a single farthing of reduction. (Hear, hear.) In the retail price of coal the average householder on the Rand has got no reduction. It may come; I do not say it won’t come, and I hope it will.

Take the United States railways.

I am taking State railways. Proceeding, he said that he found that in almost all particulars our railway rates were the cheapest. Bricks were cheapest in every instance, except under 50 miles. Candles were cheapest in every instance. In cement our rates were the second cheapest at 50 and 100 miles for the local article, and cheapest at 200 and 300 miles. As to coal, the South African rate on coal was the cheapest in every instance, and there was, in addition, the rebate of 1s. As to sheep dip, the South African rate was the cheapest in every case. Dynamite, our rate was the cheapest in every case, fencing material ditto, fertilisers cheapest except over 50 miles, fruit cheapest for canned, and grain the cheapest in every case.

Compare the rates with the United States.

I have not done that. Perhaps my hon. friend will give us that comparison.

Did you say coal?

Yes; the cheapest in every instance. Proceeding, he said that agricultural machinery was the cheapest in every case, and sugar was the same (for the South African article), tobacco was the same, live-stock the cheapest in every case for cattle, and cheaper than Victoria and New South Wales for sheep. He now came to the distribution of traffic to the competitive area. During the second six months of 1912 the percentage worked out as follows: Cape ports, 14.2; Durban, 32.57; Delagoa Bay, 53.23. The percentage of traffic passing through Delagoa Bay had been reduced from 57 to 53 approximately, and Natal and Cape ports had correspondingly benefited. During the last two months, January and February, the percentage of the Cape ports for January was 14.18.

They have not reached the agreed minimum yet.

Oh, yes, they have. I am coming to that. In February it was 16.2. Natal was 34 and 32, and Delagoa Bay 51 per cent. for each month.

What is the total number of whites?

The total is over 5,000. He went on to say that the interesting feature of the increase was the fact that in very many instances these men had made satisfactory and encouraging progress—(hear, hear)—and they had been able to show that, although they were described as poor whites who were not able to do anything that was useful and were an encumbrance to the country, they could with encouragement do very good work indeed.

Why don’t you give them good wages?

said that a large number of these men had been able to obtain promotion. When he turned to the language qualification of the people who had been engaged on the railways, he found that there was very satisfactory progress indeed. There also they must go slowly in the nature of the circumstances. (Hear, hear.) The new appointments during the year showed that about 50 per cent. were bilingually qualified, and the increase during the last two months had been up to about 60 per cent. The moral appeared to be that our South African youths should endeavour to run practically the whole of the railway service. Our youths, who had a distinct talent for mechanics, should turn their hands to things other than those appertaining to soil. There was no reason why they should not be encouraged in the matter of technical education—in which the State had done little enough—(cheers)—so that they could bear a controlling share in the working of the railways.

When it came to coal, you said it was the other way.

said that the hon. member was mixing the issue; they were not the same at all.

said he hoped the Minister would devote the most careful attention to ascertaining whether the great reduction that had been made in the railway rates reached the persons they were intended to reach, and whether the huge sacrifices made by the Railway Department benefited the consumer. He hoped that the country would bear in mind the fact that when the revenue of the country was higher than it had ever been before, and when trade was better than it had ever been before, the Minister laid before the House a Budget statement which meant a deficit of £1,124,000, for which he made no provision. He moved the adjournment of the debate.

The debate was adjourned until Thursday week.

moved for leave to introduce a Bill to apply a sum not exceeding four million pounds on account of the service of the year ending 31st March, 1914.

seconded.

said he would like the Minister to give the House some explanation concerning the measure. The object of a Partial Appropriation Bill was to tide the Government over that period occupied by the consideration of the Estimates and the passing of the Appropriation Act. It had been the custom to take something on account in order to tide the Minister over that time. According to his calculation, four millions would take the Minister over three months, and the Estimates had generally taken a matter of six weeks. The House, he considered should not be asked to vote more than was actually required to tide the Government over until the Appropriation Bill was passed. Last year the Minister asked for three millions, and in 1911 he asked for three millions. Last year the expenditure up to June only came to four millions odd, and the Estimates were through before the end of May. If there were any special reasons for the voting of this large sum of money, then he thought that they should be laid before the House. He objected strongly to this large amount of money being voted, seeing it was hardly possible that the Estimates would take longer than the middle of May. At a latter stage he would move that the amount be reduced to three millions.

said he agreed with what had been said by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, and thought that the best course for the House to pursue was to stint the Minister, for the oftener he came before the House asking for money, the better chance they would have of finding out things that they wished to know. He asked the Minister when the Government intended to carry on the functions of an ordinary Government in dealing with the affairs of the country, and giving less time to matters that occupied most of the mornings. There were important matters that were receiving no attention from the Government. He would draw attention to the great growth of unemployment in the big industrial centres. The Government might not receive much correspondence on this subject, but the members on the cross-benches did so. He objected to the Government, and especially the Minister of Railways and Harbours, preening themselves on what the Minister was pleased to call the extension of the white labour policy. They were doing nothing to improve the position of the white man. The fact was that they were reducing white men to despair, and driving them to accept any kind of wages. The Prime Minister in his recent speech showed how hollow must have been the cry which he joined in against Chinese labour.

It was about time the Government tackled this matter. Unemployment in this country was growing apace. The Government got a Land Settlement Act last year, and they were supplied with funds. Had hon. Ministers ever discussed measures of mitigating this unemployment by giving men land? What about all the gold mines that were shut down? The Government had the power to put them in order and set them to work. Had the Government exerted any pressure upon the owners of those mines to get them to work? Then in regard to the State mines; those Government areas which the Minister of Mines had been advertising and for which he had not received a single bid. Had not the Government considered the proposition of undertaking the work themselves? They were not only responsible to the wealthy people of this country, but to poor people also. He asked the Minister to make some statement to show that this matter had engaged their attention, and that the Government had some definite plan in order to relieve the growing unemployment on the Witwatersrand. Then, he had asked in the House whether and when the Minister was going to introduce some Act amending the Miners’ Phthisis Act of last year. He replied he was waiting for some information from the law advisers of the Crown. He wanted to tell the Minister that every month that elapsed since the passing of that Act saw the fulfilment of the predictions he (the hon. member) and his colleagues had made. The £8 per month was simply inflicting an enormous amount of hardship upon the men. Another matter they wished to bring to the notice of the Minister was the Industrial Disputes Act of the Transvaal. It merely restricted the men’s liberty to drop their work if they wished without giving them any compensation. He wanted to know if the Government intended to carry out its promises. The hon. member for Woodstock moved some time ago that the Government should amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and the Minister amended the motion to read that the House recommended that the Government should introduce a Workmen’s Compensation Act on the lines of the Transvaal Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1907-10. Also, two years ago it was moved by the hon. member for Woodstock that the House urges upon the Government the necessity of introducing in the present session legislation dealing with factories, including a fair wage clause. That was amended to read “as soon as possible,” and the Minister of Finance said it would not be possible to get such a measure through this year, but he hoped to get one through next year (that was last year).

Two years had elapsed, and nothing had been done. One received letters continually hoping that the Act limiting the hours of labour was not going to be shelved again. Was the Government going to introduce this Bill this session, or was the Government going to hustle along as fast as they could to get the Estimates through and then prorogue Parliament? If they were going to do that and dissolve Parliament, they would help the Government with both hands, because it was the right thing they should do. But if they were not going to do that, why could not they go on with the Factory Act, Workmen’s Compensation Act, Industrial Disputes Act, and Miners’ Phthisis Act, and, in short, why could not they attend to the business of the country? The country was much less concerned with the Government’s ephemeral quarrels than it was with the legislation of the country.

said he would also join with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, in pointing out to the hon. Minister that it was rather unusual to ask for so large a sum of money. He might well consider whether it was wise, because to give the Government a large sum of money like that took the control entirely out of the hands of Parliament. He thought his hon. friend the Minister of Finance might consider it as a constitutional point. He had only one more word. He had seldom listened to such an ungrateful speech as that made by the hon. member for Jeppe. When he considered that every member on the cross-benches sat there by the aid of the Government (the hon. member’s eloquent lieutenant was absolutely put in by the Government’s votes being used against his Unionist opponent)—now he ungratefully turned round and rent the Government. He had to record his protest against such ingratitude. (Cheers.)

said he wished to associate himself with the protest of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, on the grounds that the Minister of Finance asked for by far too large a sum of money, it being practically one quarter’s supplies for the whole year.

said he doubted very much whether it would be possible, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, said, to get through with the Estimates by the middle of May, and he was very much afraid that they would be this year in the same position as they were last year. A similar Bill to this was passed for three millions, and before the end of the session they had to come once more and ask for another million.

Oh, no; you are wrong there.

said he was under the impression that last year they first passed a Bill for three millions and subsequently they had to come and ask for another million. Perhaps he was wrong. Hon. members must bear in mind that this was to provide not only for services on the Exchequer account for revenue, but also for loan services. It was intended to cover loan services and ordinary revenue services.

We have not got the Bill.

Leave has not been granted.

If both the administration services are taken together it is not much below two millions a month. Proceeding, he said that very heavy charges would have to be met in April on account of the interest on their loan. He thought if they were to reduce it from four millions to three millions— of course there was no serious objection to that—they ran the risk of having to come to the House again and ask for a further supplementary vote.

He was surprised that a debate of such an acrimonious character should have been raised by hon. members opposite at this stage. He was sometimes surprised at the tone of hon. members opposite. They posed as the defenders of white labour in this country, but very often the statements they made in that House and on platforms outside, supported the impression which prevailed among many people, not shared by himself, that the Labour Party were in many respects the greatest enemies of white labour in this country. He did not make that charge, but that impression was abroad, and the statements which had been made that afternoon certainly lent colour to it. For hon. members to say that the Government’s white labour policy was to degrade white men surpassed his comprehension.

On a point of personal explanation, what I said was that the Government by their policy reduced men to such a state of despair that they were glad to take any kind of wages.

I took down the words of the hon. member, but no doubt he did not intend them to be taken at their face value.

said that the Minister seemed to forget that his hon. friend (Mr. Creswell) had got to live up to his reputation. The reason why the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, had drawn attention to the matter at this stage, was for the purpose of saving time, so that the Minister could think over the situation. If his hon. friend included the loan services in this Bill, he hoped the two amounts would be specified separately. Another reason why the House should be careful about voting more money than was absolutely necessary was that it gave the Government an opportunity, having got sufficient money to carry them on to the end of the session, to delay the Estimates until the last day of the session, and the House was not able to exercise the control that it ought to have over the financial policy of the Government.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a first time, and set down for second reading, with precedence, on Wednesday.

That the House go into committee on the Estimates of the Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue and Loan Funds during the year ending 31st March, 1913. He said that he had already spoken so fully on the more important items included in the additional estimates, that he did not know any purpose would be served by any lengthy statement now.

seconded.

said he did not think they should pass this proposal without some consideration. (Hear, hear.) Every financial year there must be occasions when the vote given by Parliament had been exceeded by the Government on necessary works, and at the end of the year the Government came forward to Parliament to have that additional expenditure condoned and get the approval of Parliament to what was called an Additional Appropriation Bill. His complaint against this Bill was that it was in no sense an Additional Appropriation Bill of that character, and it was from that point of view that he wanted to lay before the House a few figures which he thought would illustrate a point they ought to consider. The House would see that they were asked here for an additional amount of £585,000 and that the savings were put down at £518,000, so that they got an additional amount, over and above the estimates, for the year of £67,000. Therefore, they wiped out at once the whole of the savings made in the ordinary expenditure of the year—(hear, hear)—and they spent an additional sum of £67,000 during the current year. They had seen during the year with some satisfaction that the expenditure was being reduced. At the end of February they looked forward to a saying of something like three-quarters of a million. At the end of January the savings amounted to £624,000. That was for ten months. For eleven months the savings amounted to £677,000. Those savings had been reduced, according to the figures put before the House, at the end of March, to £518,000. The point was that £160,000 of those savings was being disposed of in March. In addition to that, they had to take £585,000 included in the Bill, to be spent in March, and that brought the extra amount to be spent in March to £745,000.

Up to the end of February we effected a saving amounting to £677,000, but the whole of that had to go in March. This Bill was not to cover unavoidable expenditure incurred during the year. (Hear, hear.) What it was for was to dispose of the savings effected during the year, and its object was to enable Government to get rid of these savings and to evade the Act of Parliament. (Cheers.) Instead of a saving, there was an excess of expenditure on last year’s Estimates of £67,000. Let him put it in another way. The actual expenditure for the eleven months to the end of February was £14,609,000. The Government told them that to the end of the financial year the total was £17,195,000. So that in March the Government was going to get rid of £2,586,000, but he did not think it would be able to do so. The average monthly expenditure for the year was £1,427,000, and in March they were asked to spend £2,586,000. The Government was now asking for authority to spend this money. There was another point. Government said it had saved £518,000, the chief item being buildings and bridges—£238,000. That did not represent savings, for the work on which it was intended that the money should be spent had not been constructed. Now the Government wished to divert that money to an entirely different purpose. That was entirely improper. (Hear, hear.) He was not always in accord with opinions that appeared in the Government organs, but he did agree with the “S.A. News” when it said that in this matter the Government was deliberately evading the terms of the Public Debt Commissioners Act. (Cheers.) There was a correct and an incorrect way of carrying out transactions of this kind, proceeded Sir Edgar, and the Government had taken a course which could not be at all justified. The money voted for the works specified should be used for them and for no other purpose, and if those works were no longer necessary, the money voted for them must be surrendered in the ordinary way. Take the case of the defence vote of £250,000. That was not going to be spent, and under the law that money should be surrendered, but the Minister proposed to create a fund with it. There was nothing more dangerous than creating these outside funds. It was a dangerous practice. The proper course was to allow these savings to go into the Sinking Fund in the ordinary way, and then for Government to come to Parliament and ask to be allowed to take the money from the Sinking Fund for a special purpose. The Minister was evading the law. (Hear, hear.)

What right had the Government to say that it would not construct certain buildings, but would spend the money voted for that purpose on education? The Public Debt Commissioners Act laid down the correct procedure to be followed under these circumstances. Did that procedure mean that whenever the Minister of Finance had a surplus he was going to make away with it? (Cheers.) The Minister was setting a most dangerous example. If it were done once, he (Sir Edgar) was afraid it would always be done, because there would never be a time when the Treasury could not make use of a surplus. Should it happen that a general election was near, it would be a very great temptation to Government to spend its surplus in public expenditure. The hon. Minister had not laid before the House any definite reason for following the course he was going to follow, except that he had got the money and wanted to get rid of it. There was nothing to show that there was an extraordinary reason for spending the money in that particular way. The whole of the Bill was new expenditure, and not additional expenditure which had been incurred during the year. It was not unavoidable, and if he wanted to be rude, he (Sir Edgar) would say it was an attempt to obtain money by false pretences.

Which has been found out.

said it did very nearly come to obtaining money under false pretences. It was making improper use of a surplus which had accrued during the current year. The hon. Minister had evaded an Act of Parliament, and in order to accomplish certain ends he had adopted a course which was calculated to mislead the public.

said he was very much surprised that the hon. member for Barberton was not in his place to register his protest. The additional expenditure, to his mind, was nothing but a manœuvre to get round the provisions of the Public Debt Commissioners Act of 1911, which laid down that the surplus must be paid over to the Public Accounts Commissioners. His hon. friend had adopted his present policy to avoid that. The surplus should have been a great deal more, but so anxious was the hon. Minister to get rid of his surplus and to evade the law, that he had arranged for all the charges he possibly could to be brought in the present year. This idea seemed to have commenced at the end of February. What was the general expectation with regard to surplus? Most of the hon. members expected it to be between £800,000 and a million, and the present state of affairs was the result of the desire of the hon. Minister to get rid of the surplus. The hon. member proceeded to give figures to show that the policy of the Minister in charge of the Bill in getting rid of his surplus in the way he proposed to do commenced during the present month. In the case of agriculture, his average expenditure for eleven months was £37,800, but his expenditure for the present month had gone up to £58,518. Again, with agricultural education, the average had been £8,735, and that had increased for the current month to £31,120, on the basis of the Estimates. In respect to defence, there was a saving up to the end of February of £85,500, but the whole of those savings and £250,000 besides were to be appropriated for stores, and £130,000 for another purpose, which was not revealed in the Estimates. Higher education, pensions, and miscellaneous had been similarly dealt with. During March the expenditure would be £2,586,000, an increase of £1,258,000 per month over the ordinary average expenditure for the preceding eleven months. It was perfectly clear that up to the end of February the ordinary policy had been pursued, but at the end of March the whole matter was changed; it was evident that every department has been instructed to bring forward every possible charge that could be brought forward. Many charges that could have properly been held over had been brought into the current month. If they looked at the details under agriculture, they would find evidences that even the agricultural societies had been circularised to bring forward their demands. In regard to higher education, last year Victoria College was granted £10,000. He (Mr. Jagger) did not think that money could have been spent, but now it was proposed to give another £15,000. It would have been sounder to have given out this money to the colleges when they required it. Victoria College would receive this £25,000, which it would take some time to spend, and in the meantime they would invest it and get the interest out of it. In pensions, too, there were £21,619 which ought to be paid out gradually, but the hon. Minister thought that it would be better to pass the whole thing at once and get done with it. When the Treasury received the estimates for the various departments for the coming financial year, the hon. Minister had found that the expenditure was going to be very much higher than his estimates of revenue, so he had proceeded to bring every possible charge into the Estimates which could be brought forward. What he should have done was to start cutting down expenditure. But there had been no retrenchment. To transfer a vote from one year to another, money that had to be paid all the same, was not economy. The money should have been given into the hands of the Public Debt Commissioners, and the hon. Minister should have reduced his expenditure for the coming year. The practice that he had adopted simply meant that he had put off the evil day of increased taxation. But for this manœuvre, he would have had to introduce increased taxation, but that was now put off for twelve months.

thought that more of these matters should be referred to the Public Accounts Committee for the reason that he thought that it was difficult for the House to closely scrutinise detailed estimates. There was no doubt that suspicion must enter into the minds of hon. members of that House when estimates of this kind were referred to the House at the end of the financial year. The Minister on each of these votes had to justify his demand for the money. If the charges were proved by the Minister to be legitimate then he had the right to demand the money. If the House answered in the affirmative to the question as to whether expenditure had been incurred rightly, then the Minister was justified in coming before the House and demanding the money. This expenditure, he thought, really fell into two categories. A certain amount of this expenditure was covered by warrants, and though the Minister had a right to come to the House and ask for the money, it was a pity that these amounts were not more clearly stated. With regard to Cape wineries, the Government had probably been investigating the matter since Union. It had apparently been brought to a conclusion. A loss had been found, and if the Union Government accepted that loss then the Minister had a right to come to the House.

We have had no time to examine the report.

said that that bore out his contention that some of these items should have been referred to the Public Accounts Committee. With regard to the Pension Fund, he must say that he found himself in sympathy with the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. The vote for the Orange River Colony land settlement contribution had evidently been agreed upon after long investigation, and he thought that the Minister was justified in coming to the House. He wanted to show that while the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, were not willing to give any credit to the Government, he (the speaker) thought that a great deal might be said for the greater part of the expenditure—that was that it should be included in 1912-13. The Minister might be able to show in every case that it was absolutely necessary to come to the House He thought that the amount for the ocean steamers subsidy was perfectly legitimate, Hon. members must not run away with the idea that the Minister, seeing that he was going to have a surplus, had come down to the House in order to get hold of it. That was the insinuation.

Certainly.

said that hon. members would have to prove that these amounts did not constitute legitimate expenditure. With regard to the amount of £250,000 for defence, he did not see any difference between the suggestion of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, and the proposal of the Minister. The Minister wanted to take it now instead of going to the Public Debt Commissioners next year. It was a matter for argument whether the Minister’s was not the best policy to pursue. The Minister wanted a quarter of a million. He proposed to take it from the surplus. What was the difference? In conclusion, he said that the House would be justified in striking out any item for which the Minister could not furnish a reasonable explanation.

said that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, North, was no doubt in an exceedingly difficult position, because in his anxiety to defend the position of the Government he had had to put into his pocket most cherished principles about which he had spoken time and again. He sympathised with the Minister of Finance for the root of the trouble seemed to be that the hon. member for Barberton as usual had under-estimated his revenue and had had a surplus. That being so, he wanted to go on and spend it. While there was no breach of the law, he thought there was a gross breach of the spirit of the Public Debt Commissioners Act. He was asking the House to ascertain and determine the surplus in a different way. There was no doubt that the surplus should be handed over to the Public Debt Commissioners. The Minister seemed to have two things in his mind. In the first place he wanted to deal with those who were clamouring for expenditure, and in the second place he was anxious to make the position look a little better than it otherwise would be.

He had three courses open to him. First of all he had the course he had taken. Then he had the absolutely straightforward course, which was to pay this surplus into the Public Debt Commissioners and then include such expenditure as he found absolutely necessary in the Estimates for the ensuing year. The effect of that would be that the deficit he now contemplated would have been greater, which, of course, would have meant fresh taxation. The third course was to do as his hon. friend (Sir E. Walton) suggested. That was, to pay the money into the Public Debt Commissioners and then ask Parliament to allow him to take the money out of sinking fund, and in order to do that he would have to show that the case was urgent and legitimate. If he had done it in that way he would not have asked Parliament to vote all this money, and to that extent there would have been some economy. However, he had chosen to do it in this way, and the spirit of the Act had been evaded. He quite agreed with the hon. member for Maritzburg, North, that he could not say that the criticisms which the Opposition had made, applied to every item in these Provincial Estimates. There were, obviously, some items that were legitimate. But some of these payments ought to have gone into the Estimates for next year. The money had not been spent, and there was no reason why some of the money should be spent for months and months to come. Also there were other items which he thought should have been foreseen. For those reasons he did not think the Minister deserved their support in this matter. (Cheers.)

said he wished to draw the attention of the House to one or two items in the Estimates. He referred to the Interior Vote, No. 9, a sum of £5,350, which the vote stated had been expended as excess due to the fact that, whilst provision was made for four months only, it was found impossible to complete the work in connection with the Census in that period. On page 70 of the Auditor-General’s report, one found some light thrown on this subject. The Auditor-General explained that owing to some of the tabulation having been done at Pretoria instead of at Cape Town, an amount of £5,000 additional expenditure had been incurred. He would ask the Minister which of the two statements was correct. If the latter he desired to know why money had been wasted in this way. He was afraid it was on a par with a good deal of the wasting of public money.

In vote No. 14, under the head “Justice-Legal Expenses,” was an item of £1,488. The hon. member for Germiston asked for an explanation. He would find it on page 115 of the Auditor-General’s report. He would find that in the case of Whittaker and Morant v. The Minister of Justice—

was understood to say that the hon. member could not go into the details until they were in committee.

said he was merely explaining the matter for the information of the hon. member for Germiston and of the House. He submitted that the expenditure incurred in that case should not have fallen upon the country. In other cases money had been wasted also. He would point out also that in the vote of the Master of the Supreme Court of Natal (page 11, vote 17, £2,900) money had been wasted to make good the peculations of an officer in the Master’s office at Pietermaritzburg. He would like some details regarding that. With regard to the enormous sum of £250,000 excess on Defence, he had not yet heard a warning note sounded in connection with the enormous Defence expenditure. Where was it going to end and where was it going to land the country? Then take the losses on loans to wineries, £54,321. That money was thrown away. He would like to know what responsibilities the individuals had to whom the money was lent. Two gentlemen (Dr. Perold and Mr. L. B. Smuts) had been appointed as a Commission to report on the various sums lent to Co-operative Wineries. He would like to know if there was any joint and several responsibility, and whether the members of the societies were not in a position to repay this money.

said he believed that only £45,000 of that year’s surplus would be carried over for the redemption of debt. It seemed a sound line they had adopted some 3 or 4 years ago, that when through unforseen circumstances, there was a surplus, that money should go towards the extinction of public debt. When they had had a deficit it had had to be carried to the public debt account, so that when they had an extra good year, surely they should utilise the surplus to wipe out public debt. He would like to point out that the surplus was not brought about by unexpended money on works. It was through excess of revenue. To carry only £45,000 to the extinction of debt was very unsound finance.

said that with regard to what hon. members on the opposite side of the House had said, of course, logically, they were perfectly correct. There was the law, and this was a way of getting round the law. But he wanted to put it to them: What did they want to do? Did they want to borrow this money? Because that was one way of doing it. Somebody said they could give it over to the Debt Commissioners and then give it out. They could only give it out in one way. They would have to have a Loan Bill. In regard to the way in which the Minister had put this down, he wanted to point out that he would have his work cut out if he got this Bill allowed before March 31. He would not be able to spend any of this money, and, being under the Audit Act, the balances would be surrendered, and they would have to form part of the surplus. He would have to take some other method of dealing with this £250,000. In the same way with the £40,000. As to the £54,000, wineries, he really did not see why it was down there at all, and why it should be taken out of the surplus. They had already borrowed the money The money was lost. Who were they going to pay that money to?

Pay it out of the Loan Fund.

What do you want to increase the Loan Fund for? In order that you may start some more of these rubbishy things? At the same time, I would point out that although this method may be wrong, it is very convenient. It is no use discussing the details at present until we get into committee.

said that the right hon. gentleman was full of surprises. He had always looked upon him as certainly a pundit in the matter of national finance and the right way of doing things. He had laid down a most healthy principle that additional estimates should be merely for the purpose of sanctioning expenditure which the Government, in the course of the year, had been obliged to incur, and that was all. He (Mr. Creswell) thought that was a right constitutional principle. But the right hon. gentleman went on to say that the Treasurer found himself with a nice little balance in hand, and instead of sticking to that sound principle and saving the 3½ per cent. and so forth, he said let them take it out and, through the Additional Estimates, make use of it this year. He (Mr. Creswell) thought it was a most dangerous principle that this House was going to affirm that just at the end of the year, when the Treasurer found he had got a little bit of a surplus, he should be able to depart from the healthy principle of saying that it should be devoted to the reduction of debt, and that he should include it in the Estimates of Additional Expenditure.

said it seemed to him that the right hon. gentleman tried to allay any conscientious stirrings that the Minister might have had with regard to this matter, and he was very much surprised at his (Mr. Merriman’s) attitude. If there had not been a surplus there would have been no need for borrowing, because the expenditure, or the greater part of it, would never have taken place at all. It was because they had this surplus that the Minister yielded to the demands which were always at his back, and handed out a little more. He felt it was better to placate some of these demands for additional expenditure than to adopt the prosaic and humble but very necessary course of reducing the debt.

It was true that no breach of the law had been committed, because the law said that if there was a surplus it should be paid over to the Commissioners in redemption of debt, but the Minister had taken very good care that there should be no surplus. He got that surplus by not doing works which his predecessor came forward last year and said were necessary and required, and induced this House to vote money for. The reason for these works was still with them. This money had been saved, not by reducing expenditure in the ordinary way, but by refusing to carry out expenditure which this House had voted. He was surprised at the right hon. gentleman coming forward and backing up his privateering friends. (Hear, hear.)

said that, in view of Act 18 of 1911 (clause 5), which the hon. member for Barberton got the House to pass, he hoped that his hon. friend (Mr. Hull) would not support the extraordinary policy which had now been advocated by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman). A saving of £238,000 had been made on “buildings and bridges.” The House was asked to vote a certain amount of money for certain specific purposes. The Minister had not carried out those works. He had defeated the intention of Parliament, and refused to carry out works that he himself or his Government had asked Parliament to vote money for, and now he came down and, by a side issue, tried to devote the savings on those works for other purposes which had never been placed before Parliament. Surely, that was an unconstitutional proceeding. (Hear, hear.)

The Minister asked them to vote certain services which Parliament never contemplated and never discussed. That was not a constitutional position, and no one knew it better than the right hon. member for Victoria West. (Opposition cheers.) He could see the hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) was heartily ashamed of himself under the circumstances, for they looked to the right hon. gentleman to lay down the principles which should guide the House. The honest course for the hon. Minister would have been to put a clause in the Appropriation Act authorising him to use the money to carry out works previously sanctioned by Parliament. In committee there would be a considerable amount of difficulty in explaining the extraordinary attitude the Government had adopted. Sir Thomas closed by appealing to the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull) to give the House the benefit of his ripe experience. (Opposition cheers.)

said he could not see what the object was of following this remarkable procedure on the part of the Government. We should equip the country as far as possible out of revenue, but the course adopted by Government seemed to him to be a direct tampering with a most important financial provision. He very much regretted that the Minister of Finance should have attempted to tamper with the Public Debt Commissioners Act. A large portion of this expenditure would not be paid for at all in this financial year, but the Government was using the revenue of this year for another financial year. Replying to an interjection by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, North (Mr. Orr), Mr. Fremantle remarked that surely the ex-Auditor of Natal was not so entirely obliterated in the supporter of the Government that he had forgotten all his financial principles. (Opposition laughter.) They ought to pay homage to the principle that the surplus of the year should go to the sinking fund, and if they wished to divert the surplus they should openly suspend the section of the Act which embodied this principle, but this new departure on the part of the Government would be a source of great trouble in the future, if any needy Treasurer were to be allowed to repeal by a side-issue what was one of the most essential clauses in the financial law of this country. The House should honestly face the position, and pay the sums out of the revenue for the year 1913-14. In this case after Parliament had decided that certain works were to be done Ministers made no effort to expend the money, and the result was a surplus which was to be used for a totally different purpose. (Opposition cheers.) Continuing, Mr. Fremantle remarked that the Estimates of the Ministers of Finance and Railways aroused a good deal of suspicion. The House had had too many of these Estimates and warnings that there was to be a deficit—warnings which ended in a surplus. It was unsound finance. (Opposition cheers.)

said that the hon. member for Uitenhage called this unsound finance, but the answer to that had been given by the hon. member for Victoria West. What would be the sense of putting money into the sinking fund with one hand, and with the other borrowing money again, or imposing additional taxation? There was no other alternative. Take the standard stock account for defence purposes. This expenditure was absolutely necessary, and would have to be proceeded with this year and also in following years. It was absolutely necessary and most urgent to make provision as soon as possible for this purpose. It would have been permissible to buy this material, but instead of doing that Government said it was going to forestal this surplus before it reached the Sinking Fund. That seemed to him to be perfectly permissible. It was argued that this was an evasion of the spirit of the Act passed two years ago. Look at the results that Act was leading to. Government had paid more into the Sinking Fund than it had borrowed. He did not see the sense of borrowing when they had a surplus. Government was doing what was absolutely just and fair under the circumstances. If, however, Government had not been making provision for repayment of the public debt the circumstances might have been different. The object of the Act was to make proper provision for the repayment of the public debt, but the provision for that purpose so far had been not only adequate but outrageous.

With regard to the question of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, they had diverted money which had been voted for public works and were using the money for other purposes, all necessary works which it was quite impossible to execute within the year. There was a good case for that. As to grants to the colleges, the Higher Education Department some time ago declared that certain improvements were necessary and it had now been found possible to provide the money for these necessary improvements. There had been some criticism with regard to the wineries, but the same course was being followed that had been followed for a number of years. He was sorry that there should have been so much criticism of the Estimates, but he thought on the facts and apart from mere figures the procedure adopted was amply justified. He hoped that when they went into committee it would be possible to justify in detail every vote that it was proposed to make.

The motion was agreed to.

in response to the question as to a suitable date, said that the House knew that the time was very short to get through this vote, and if there was no objection he would ask the House to go into committee on Wednesday.

Why not now?

expressed his pleasure at the suggestion, which he would agree to.

said there was no other important matters before the House.

It was agreed to go into committee, and Mr. Speaker left the chair.

asked a question regarding the increased grant to agricultural societies.

said that last year certain regulations were issued by the Agricultural Department in regard to which improvements had been effected by the societies. It was not possible to say in advance what amount was to be set apart; it depended upon the cost of the improvements, and it had been found that the expenditure was under-estimated and a larger amount would have to be paid out. In answer to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, he said he had not got a list, but the demands were in accordance with the regulations referred to.

asked a question regarding a sum of £7,800 for Laboratories and Field Research.

said the expense was caused by partitioning of the farms for investigations into gal-lamziekte. Some of the cattle were allowed to graze and some were kept muzzled. The former had died. The enclosures were continually reduced in size, so as to discover which particular sort of grass caused the disease.

in connection with the matter raised by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, said the Treasury was to blame for the conditions which prevailed in the Port Elizabeth district. Cattle were dying in large numbers. Experts had made recommendations, and yet the position was as bad as ever it was.

Are we taking these Estimates vote by vote?

replied in the affirmative.

said he would like to hear what it was proposed to do with regard to the area mentioned by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth. When he was travelling in the district recently he was told by the farmers that they had lost an enormous number of cattle.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said that when the House adjourned he was seeking information in connection with this vote. He was then pointing out that the ravages of gal-lamziekte were serious in the Port Elizabeth area and in the vicinity of the Addo and adjoining neighbourhood. He believed that one of the officers of the Agricultural Department went down there to make inquiries, and a few months ago there happened to be a sale, he thought at Addo and he (the speaker) met several farmers there who told him the condition of affairs was of a most serious character. He had thought that they in the northern area of the Union were alone suffering from the disease, but he was informed that things in the Port Elizabeth area were even worse. He understood that arrangements were going to be made whereby certain farm, or a portion of it, was to be placed at the disposal of the Government for nothing, and he understood that a farmer had agreed to give his services to carry out the work that was necessary on practically a nominal salary. When everybody thought the arrangements had been fixed up, the Agricultural Department stated that it was not going on. This had caused considerable dissatisfaction among the farmers, and he thought it only right that his right hon. friend should inform the House why proceedings were stopped, and if there was any reasonable hope of the Agricultural Department dealing with the disease in that part of the country. So far as farmers were concerned, gal-lamziekte was far worse than East Coast fever. They knew that in effective dipping they had a cure for East Coast fever, but gal-lamziekte was causing havoc throughout the country. He also said to his right hon. friend that the result of any investigations or experiments made with the disease should be communicated to the farmers without delay, so that any who were pursuing investigations and experiments in the same direction could save money, and work in another direction. He would also say to his right hon. friend that money spent in endeavouring to get a cure for the disease was money well spent.

said it was a most difficult question, as the disease was novel to them, and its cause had still to be discovered. It was now being thoroughly studied at Onderstepoort, near Pretoria, during the absence of Dr. Theiler, and cattle were being placed in stable there and fed with grass which was taken from infected places. Inquiries were also taking place at Vryburg, Bloemfontein, Bestersput, and Graham’s Town. To Dr. Theiler, who was actually in charge of these experiments, had been given a practical carte blanche. Inquiry in the southeast of the Cape was not being prosecuted so actively, as Dr. Theiler thought it was not necessary to spend more money there pending his return. There were not sufficient technical men in South Africa, and the Government had accordingly requested Dr. Theiler to look out in Europe for a couple of the most highly qualified bacteriologists. On searching the archives it had been found that the disease was not really a new one, as it was found that it had existed at the time of Dutch rule at the Cape. It had already caused heavy losses, but the speaker could give them every assurance that the Government was doing all in its power to exterminate it. The Minister continued that he would give a list of agricultural societies who received allowances from the Government, as asked for by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central. The allowances were made in accordance with the regulations, and were too long to read out. Those payments were made on the pound for pound principle on the cost of the permanent buildings up to a maximum of £1,000, whilst for their ordinary work they received 5s. in the pound to a maximum of £500. A society, therefore, which did good work could get up to £1,500. Several pre-Union Governments had made promises to particular societies, which promises had now been complied with, so that all now stood on an equal footing.

asked what had become of promises that were made before Union? Did he understand that none of the societies were getting grants on the principle of £ for £ or 5s. in the £ on ordinary expenditure?

replied that about £14,000 would redeem the promises made before Union.

asked that veterinary surgeons should be sent to such places where outbreaks of gal-lamziekte were reported. He asked what steps had been taken in Kenhardt.

explained the nature of the investigations made by Dr. Theiler. Camps had been divided and sub-divided, and a number of animals muzzled. He had found that the animals which had been muzzled did not contract the disease. A veterinary surgeon was not an expert in gal-lamziekte, and could do very little when once the disease had broken out on a farm.

said that it had been ascertained that the disease itself arose from certain plants under certain conditions; but they did not know yet what the conditions were. What they did know was that if they ploughed the ground and fed the stock on the stuff that was grown they did not get gal-lamziekte. But in Uitenhage they had a large area of ground which they could not plough. Practically the whole district was limestone. They had never had gal-lamziekte there before; but it had come upon them now. The farmers had no other way of living but by breeding cattle. They could not even keep sheep there. It was not one or two of them that were affected, but practically the whole of them, and they were faced with this position now that they had to abandon the land. These farmers met Dr. Theiler, and he said he was going to put an experimental station in their district and try to arrive at some knowledge of the grasses there. They appointed a local man, who was a botanist in the museum, and he collected the grasses in this area and sent them to Pretoria, but now they had stopped even this work. Dr. Theiler had gone away, and nothing was happening except that the cattle were dying. The farmers were discontented, because they believed that Dr. Theiler was going to carry out his promise. He wanted the Minister of Agriculture to face this question, and he wanted him, if he would, to say there would be an experimental station placed in that district. He believed the whole thing could be done with a few hundred pounds. The local man could do the work, and it would give the farmers some hope. At present the poor beggars were sitting there in despair watching their cattle die.

replied that he agreed that something should be done. He hoped the hon. member for Port Elizabeth would leave the matter in his hands. At present the Government lacked men of the requisite experience, and the only few experts they had had to travel all over the country. The speaker added he would certainly do his best to help the farmers in the south-east, of the Cape Province.

said he would ask the Minister of Agriculture if he would do it promptly; if he would send the message to-morrow, or the next day, to say that he was taking this matter in hand and was coming to their help. If he would do that he believed the farmers would be content.

referred to the seriousness of gallamziekte. When it broke out in the speaker’s district, he feared the Government was too lethargic in the matter, but afterwards he became convinced this was a disease which they should not try and deal with in a hurry. He thought the best to do in regard to an outbreak was to destroy the affected animal. It was not worth while trying to save him. They should look for a preventive, as there was no cure for the disease.

referred to outbreaks of “gauwgauw ziekte” in sheep, and asked the Minister whether a cure could not be found. Gal-lamziekte in the Pretoria district ought also to be fought, and though he admitted that the Government should not act too rashly, yet it was a fact that the farmers were suffering heavy losses.

said that he would like to bear out what had been said by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton). He did not think that the Prime Minister recognised the fact of what had been done, because it was not a question of investigating the disease or investigating something, but it was a question of fulfilling a promise that had been made. People had allowed their cattle to die, expecting these experiments to take place. Immediately Dr. Theiler went away the Agricultural Department had broken its promise, and it was of more importance to keep that promise than to have a large surplus in hand. He (Mr. Brown) knew what these farmers had suffered, and he knew that the district in question was of no use but for cattle. In Bechuanaland they had one of the finest farming countries, and he had been informed that if once they got rid of that disease there, it would become one of the finest countries for cattle farming they could get. What the Government was asked to do was to keep its promise.

alluding to a vote of £11,000 in the Additional Estimates, said that it did seem to him to be an extraordinary thing to add that sum to an original vote of £16,000. Surely that was beyond all reason, and a business man who went on like that would soon come to grief. Then there was an item of £1,500 for steam ploughing more than the original Estimate of £1,000. In regard to incidental expenses, the original Estimate was £150, and there was an addition of £850, or nearly six times the original amount. If the country was going to be conducted on those lines, they were hopeless. (Laughter.)

said that ever since the Prime Minister had started the central co-operative agency they had had it hanging round their necks like a millstone. On these additional Estimates they found that instead of there being a gain of revenue, there was a loss of revenue of £850. The hon. member went on to refer to the history of the agency since the date of Union, and said they must have an explanation from the Prime Minister of the extraordinary procedure connected with it. Backed as it was by the Government, it competed in Johannesburg against hard-working commission agents. The Auditor-General was kind enough to say that that society had been of great use to the farmers, but anything would be of great use to the farmers if backed by the Government to the amount of £53,000. (Laughter.) As to that £850, when were they going to come to a final settlement? (Hear, hear.) The day when it was going to be taken over was May the 31st, and they were informed that the amount owing to the Government was £995. They thought that they had come to finality when they had had the Auditor-General’s report. They should like to get definite information what that £850 was, and whether next year they would have to pay that amount, or 20 years hence they would have to pay that amount. They would like to have a final settlement of what they considered to be a very wrong action on the part of the Government.

said he had received a letter from a very large flock master in Natal complaining that the blue tongue serum was entirely useless, and failed to protect sheep from the disease. Hundreds of sheep had died from the disease, and scores were still dying which had been inoculated.

said some hon. members were annoyed because Government would not do for farmers what the latter ought to do for themselves. He would not say all he had to say that night. (Opposition laughter.) He was not talking to the Opposition— what he had to say was for the good of the country. Continuing, Mr. Haggar said that, seeing the uncertainties that still surrounded the study of bacteriology, if Government officials failed, the whole of the blame should not be put on them. The Minister should put aside sentiment, local interests, and all this talk of trusting in Providence, and choose half-a-dozen first-class men, and insist that the right thing should be done. He (Mr. Haggar) wanted this mere carping criticism of the Government to stop. (Opposition laughter.)

asked for information as to how the vote of £7,800 for laboratories and field research was made up. As some of the animal diseases were due to poisonous substances eaten by the stock, he hoped a portion of the sum would be spent on the employment of botanists.

said he must apologise for mentioning anything so unimportant as matters affecting the health of the people when stock diseases were being discussed. Under the regulations issued on February 22 last by the Bacteriological Department, the use of tuberculin was put under the control of the Veterinary Department, so that it would be difficult for doctors to obtain supplies of tuberculin.

referred to the eight steam ploughs bought by Natal just before Union for £16,000. Five of them had been sold for something like £5,000. The Auditor-General in his report, dated March last, stated that all the contracts for these ploughs had been completed. Yet the House was now asked for another £1,500 on this account.

said he thought the steam plough question had been entitled, but it had appeared afterwards that some of the ploughs had further work to do, and the costs incurred thereby came in the present Estimates. Ploughs had been bought at £1,000 each. The Government still had two of them, and were negotiating their sale.

brought back to the notice of the House the question of gal-lamziekte. Why had it spread? About a month ago he asked the right hon. gentleman whether there was any provision made to prevent a movement of cattle, and his reply was that the disease was not contagious or infectious. But it was spreading into districts where it had never been before. Everybody was anxious about it, but nobody knew anything. Surely, in such circumstances, it was well to take some precaution, as if it were known to be infectious. His hon. friend had spoken about the Addo Bush, where the disease had never been known before, and there were many other districts where they had never had it before. If it were due to a grass, plant, or a weed, how had that grass, plant, or weed spread through the country? All sorts of explanations were given, but the fact remained that the disease was spreading. One could hardly believe that it was due to any particular plant, and it was said not to be due to the movement of cattle; but, in his mind, the first thing to begin with would be to stop the movement of cattle. He had the greatest admiration for the work of Dr. Theiler, but he had made one great mistake—he did not believe in dipping for East Coast fever. He was the best authority in the land, but he made that one mistake, and a frightful price had been paid for it. If the disease was not communicable from animal to animal, why was it spreading?

The study of botany was necessary. His hon. friend had asked for a botanist to be placed at Addo; simultaneously the work of the Botany Department had been abolished. He could not conceive anything more mad than that. Here they were complaining that they did not get the work done. Europe was being ransacked, and simultaneously they had knocked smash the one department they had got for the investigation of that work.

said he could not allow the last speaker’s remarks to pass in silence. What must he as Minister do? Give credence to street chatter or trust the reports of the experts? He held that he had taken the word of his technical advisers; Dr. Theiler had told him that the one animal could not infect another; what more did they want? What was the use, in that case, of forbidding transport? Dr. Theiler and Mr. Burtt-Davy had instructions, if necessary, to devote all their time to gal-lamziekte. What could be done by the Government, he held, was being done; but they had now arrived at a point from which it was difficult to proceed. Dr. Theiler had stated that, so far as he could see, the disease was caused by the effect of the sun on the grass. In dry years that was easily to be understood. The disease had also raged in Europe, and they were well acquainted with it there. They ploughed the ground and planted new grass. Ploughing was a good plan, but owing to the nature of the ground that method could not always be adopted. They had now come to a point where the technical men said they could get no further. At the same time, with the technical knowledge at their disposal, it was hoped that they might be able to get further soon.

In respect to the remarks by the hon. member for Pretoria, East (Sir P. Fitzpatrick), the Minister denied that anyone had been discharged. He held, however, that the botanical work could be dealt with better at the colleges. (Hear, hear.) Replying to the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Wyndham), General Botha advised the hon. member not to get so excited. More money had been lost on worse undertakings than on co-operation. Very little money had been lost over this matter, and this £1,170 was not a new item, but simply the final instalment of the original settlement made for this purpose. The central agency had satisfied its debt to the Government, the matter was now settled, and the business was being conducted at the cost of its own members. The Government had therefore nothing further to do with it.

said they were not against co-operative societies, and recognised what they had done, but the methods of the Government in dealing with them was not the best way. It was a wrong policy to be spoon-feeding them at every turn. They would be far better left to find their own way, and they should not be left to feel that they had the unlimited purse of the State behind them.

said that the work going on was the most successful in the direction of co-operation that had ever been done in South Africa. It was started some years before Union. At Union the organisation was taken over by the societies themselves, and became a clearing house for these societies. A settlement had to be effected in regard to the expenses which the Government had incurred prior to Union, and that settlement had now been carried out. This amount was needed to carry off the old liability incurred by the Government.

said he did not bring this forward as an attack on the Government or the Agricultural Department, or the Minister of Agriculture. He understood from the Minister that he had taken the highest technical advice. But when that highest technical advice told the Government that it did not know what it was, surely it was time to take steps to protect the country against something worse? However, that was a matter of opinion. There was this other point concerning the botanical department. He did not wish to raise a discussion on the point. What he meant was this; by dispersing the botanical department and spreading this original research and defence work among the agricultural colleges, they were not going to get any results. He quite appreciated the necessity of doing some of this work in the colleges, so that students might gain practical knowledge of the best character, but this real research and defensive work could only be done properly under a single head where there was complete control. It had been said that this disease was due to a poisonous plant. Where was the spot where they were growing these plants and testing them? It did not exist. It could not be done at five different agricultural colleges. It was not possible. He knew that it would be expensive to carry on the work, but it was a serious matter. (Government laughter.) Well, he supposed it was a laughing matter, as it only concerned the farmers. At any rate, he would not waste any more of their time, seeing that hon. gentlemen on the other side took such a great deal of interest in it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what was being done with regard to rinderpest. They had heard reports of rinderpest spreading in German South-west Africa, and he wanted an assurance from the Minister that steps were being taken to protect the interests of farmers in the Union. He would be pleased if the Minister would give such an assurance.

said rinderpest had broken out in German territory, and the Government had taken steps to get the co-operation of the German authorities to notify the authorities in this country as regarded the progress of the disease, so that all possible steps could be taken. Those steps were being taken.

said he would like an assurance from the Minister of Agriculture that he would take into consideration the reorganisation of the scientific departments of the Union. Chaos seemed to prevail in these departments, and while such conditions prevailed they could never hope for satisfactory results. He understood that Dr. Theiler had gone to Europe for a year. Who was taking Dr. Theiler’s place? Could the House imagine that it was not possible to get a competent man to take Dr. Theiler’s place? Could the House imagine that it was not possible to secure the services of such an expert in Europe? Was it not possible to obtain the services of a competent botanist? He quite appreciated the fact that valuable work of a subordinate nature could be done at the agricultural colleges. That would be all very well if they had a central head who would control everything in a competent manner. They had not been able to get an assurance from the Minister. The Government was muddling along without properly organising any department. They had been making alterations to departments which were in a far better state before Union.

Before this vote was passed he would like an assurance from the Minister of Agriculture that this grave state of affairs would not continue. He did not want to raise extraneous discussion, but he would like to refer to the botanical department. There was a disease attacking mealies. Where did the House think experiments were being carried out? On the roof of the botanical laboratory of the S.A. College! Was that a place from which they could hope to obtain results that would tend towards the cure of this disease? What they wanted was some practical garden situated in Cape Town. He knew that Professor Pearson was an excellent man, but he had not the machinery for getting the results. He hoped that the Minister of Agriculture would give the House the assurance that it would take into consideration the reorganisation of this department.

said there was a central head to each section of the Department, including the botanical section. Experiments were being made by the head of the department on a large plot of ground near Pretoria. The hon. member for Pretoria, East, accused the department of cultivating poisonous plants. But the department did not know what the poisonous plants were, and how then could they cultivate them? Their experimental station had been transferred from Skinner’s Court to Groenkloof. It was useless establishing experimental stations all over, as they would simply all work against each other.

said that Dr. Theiler had been allowed to go to Europe at a period when gal-lamziekte was creating havoc in the country. Surely before he went away it would have been possible to get a man of standing out here to continue his experiments? It seemed to him that the Minister did not realise the seriousness of the question. There seemed to be too much jealousy about these experiments. They had had an excellent officer in Natal who had found the means of combating East Coast fever by dipping. Altogether there was too much friction and jealousy about the whole business. Who suffered? The population of this country suffered.

My fault?

My right hon. friend is in command. He is in control. He must take the responsibility. He is responsible for the administration of the department. Somebody said the other day that heads should be knocked together. It is the duty of my right hon. friend to knock those heads together. Continuing, he said that the Minister should see that the farmers of the country got the best possible advice. Surely it was time to use some of the hundreds of thousands of pounds for which the Minister of Finance had asked that afternoon in order to get the best possible advice on such an important matter.

said he was astonished at the Leader of the Opposition. They could not expect any experts imported here from elsewhere to be fully acquainted with the conditions of the grasses of the country without having had time to study the climatic conditions. Dr. Theiler undoubtedly had done excellent work for South Africa, but his health had become so bad that he had to have a holiday, which should not be grudged him. In his place Dr. Robertson had been appointed. As regarded Dr. Watkins Pitchford, General Botha said that he had done his utmost to keep this gentleman’s services for the country. He had offered him £1,000 salary, had been prepared to meet his wishes as much as possible, to allow him to work at Onderste Poorte, and to carry on a separate work. But Dr. Watkins Pitchford was opposed to the policy which hon. members so strongly supported, namely, of having one central head, in fact he had not been prepared to stand under Dr. Theiler. It was very difficult to get capable men to come here, and the Government had offered a bonus to enable a South African youth to go abroad and study bacteriology.

said really he could not understand his hon. friend. The main portion of his argument was an appeal to the House whether he (the hon. member) expected he (the Minister of Agriculture) was going to get people to carry out the work with no knowledge of the conditions of this country. He did not object to Dr. Theiler taking a holiday, and he was not objecting to his studying and investigating in Europe. To the contrary, he thought the doctor was doing good work. But his right hon. friend would remember that last year this question was discussed for hours in the House and they then pointed out the necessity of getting out one or two men to supplement the work of Dr. Theiler. The right hon. gentleman said that in Dr. Theiler’s place was Dr. Robinson. Dr. Robinson was drawn away from admirable work to take Dr. Theiler’s place, so that they were still one man short. What he would say was that the Government was culpable and negligent when they knew the ravages of this disease, last year, when it was pointed out to them, because they did not adopt the attitude that was urged by both sides of the House. They should have got out one or two of the best men they could procure. Did not the Mining Department get Sir Almroth Wright some days ago to do some important work in connection with the health of the mines. Did not the Government get out Professor Koch at the time that rinderpest was ravaging the country? He would say that they should have supplemented the advice they had in this country in regard to this disease of gal-lamziekte. He was acquainted with the conditions in Bechuanaland, and he knew the havoc that was being wrought there by this disease, and he said, that under these circumstances, the Government should have given more attention to this matter and should have had more help before Dr. Theiler took a holiday. Of course, he knew it was very difficult for his right hon. friend to cope with the business of his department when he had to cope with the business of keeping his Cabinet together. (Cheers and laughter.)

said that in reality the hon. member for Fort Beaufort’s arguments went against him, because he might inform the House that Prof. Koch’s hypotheses had all broken down and being thrown to the winds. The theories of that gentleman were repudiated to-day by the scientific world. Every cobbler should stick to his last. Then in regard to tick fever—

The hon. member must confine himself to the vote.

Mr. C. H. HAGGAR: Sir, I am dealing with bacteriology.

The hon. member must keep to the matter of gal-lamziekte.

Yes, sir, under the heading of bacteriology. I am trying to show that the arguments of the right, hon. gentleman are baseless, because they are controverted by facts. Proceeding, he said he wanted to point out that Col. Watkins Pitchford did not discover the treatment of tick by dipping. It was discovered in Texas twenty years ago.

said he would not contribute to the debate, except to say that it was sometimes difficult to know which particular last the shoemaker came from. And he was sure that after listening for two years and two months to the hon. member who had just spoken, the House did not quite know what particular business this shoemeaker knew anything about. In dealing with bacteriology and Dr. Koch, he (Sir Henry) made a statement, and a denial was thrown at him with the characteristic courtesy he expected from the hon. member. The fact was a little learning was a very dangerous thing, especially when it was wrapped up in a cloud of words which might cost the country thousands of pounds. Where Dr. Koch made his mistake was in declaring that animal tuberculosis was not communicable to human beings.

said he preferred the statement of the “Lancet” to that of the hon. member.

The vote was agreed to.

said he did not want to say anything further on the subject of agricultural education. But he wanted to say that a certain amount of money was being asked for year by year for the purchase of pedigree stock. About three or four weeks ago a large consignment of pedigree stock was imported by the Government and was taken through Cape Town while Parliament was in session, and nobody knew anything about it. (An HON. MEMBER: How did you find out?) Well, he had found it out at the Rosebank Show. If the Government wanted to interest people in the money they were called upon to vote, let them take a little trouble to let members of Parliament know that the stock was passing through, and induce them to get a look at what they had bought for the country. A few weeks ago the first imported pedigree stock under the new contract arrived, he thought, by the Cluny Castle. Parliament sat there and knew nothing about it. He hoped that the Minister of Agriculture would give instructions to someone in his department to keep them posted with information as to when the shipments were coming out, and take a little trouble to advise members of Parliament as to their arrival.

said that in the newspapers information was generally to be found as to when that stock was to arrive, or when it had arrived. He was quite willing to give instructions in the direction the hon. member had indicated.

said that he desired some information from the Minister with regard to the item of £11,500, “stock and equipment taken over from the O.F.S. Land Settlement Board.” He wanted to know what goods were referred to, because he thought that they had got a million and a quarter.

replied that the money was lent, and it was now being paid back. They must take over the goods at the farm Roodepoort, which were valued at the amount stated in the vote. His department was taking over the goods, and those which were in good condition would be sent to the experimental farms, and those which were not in good condition would be sold, the proceeds to go into the Treasury.

said that he wanted to know what stock had really been brought out. He took a great deal of interest in stock coming into the country, but what he was afraid of was that they were going to import stock to too large an extent, and that the money was going too fast. The stock which they imported must be of the highest possible character, and what had done more harm to stock-breeding in that country than anything else was that stock which was imported was not always of the highest possible class. They were importing large quantities of inferior animals which were supposed to be pedigree stock, but which, in many cases, had a fictitious value. Farmers were therefore buying these imported animals instead of purchasing better animals bred in that country. He supposed that they must vote that money because these animals had been purchased already, but he did not think that the Government had a right to ask the House to vote money above and beyond what it had already voted, unless it was of an urgent character. He would like his hon. friend to give a list of the animals bought with that £8,000, and he would like to know if the money had already been spent.

replied that he was in a position to give that information. Because of foot and mouth disease in Europe the Government had not up till recently been able to import animals, but now that they could import these animals they were doing so at the earliest possible opportunity. They had accordingly sent over two people to buy cattle. That gave the people of the country an opportunity of acquiring pedigree stock. He quite agreed with what had been said by the hon. member about the necessity of these animals being of the highest possible character, and that they should be pedigree stock. But that, he would like to point out, was just the kind of stock they were importing. They had sent Mr. Molton, of Tweespruit, across; and amongst the animals which were imported were: 32 dairy shorthorns, 40 Ayrshires, 39 Friesland bulls and cows, and 42 pigs. If his hon. friend desired it, he would furnish a complete list later of all the animals that had been imported, as well as horses. For years no such animals had been imported, but now that they could do so they were importing them as soon as they could. The cattle were required for the agricultural colleges, and were of the best kind.

said that he did not object to these animals coming here, but he thought it would do a great deal more good if most of the animals were sold to the farmers for stock-breeding purposes, than if they were sent to the agricultural colleges. They were never going to breed the animals that should be bred at these colleges unless they were under the control of an individual who knew where he was going. If they took Elsenburg, they had during the past few years had different people administering the place. By all means let these colleges have a few animals, which were samples for the students to see, but let them send the rest throughout the country, so that they got into the hands of practical breeders, who knew how to make the best of them. (Hear, hear.) In regard to the £5,000, he would like to know whether the animals had been purchased?

replied that their men who were across the water were at present purchasing animals.

asked who had given authority to spend that £5,000? Was the man across the water waiting for the cable that night, and thus get authority to buy the animals?

said some of the cattle conveyed here by the Union-Castle Co. were brought out under very indifferent conditions indeed.

remarked that the time had come that they should lay down a good standard of one definite sort of cattle they required in this country. It was no use getting a number of different kinds here.

replied that the difficulty was that farmers differed as to what was the best kind. If farmers could Co-operate, it might be possible to arrive at some good standard.

The vote was agreed to.

wished to know how the sum of £5,350 for salaries, wages, and allowances, was made up. The money had been wasted.

said the hon. member had mixed up the vote for this year with last year.

referred to the item, Purchase of furniture, etc., of the Koopmans-De Wet collection, £3,000. Such articles (remarked the hon. member) might have a certain amount of value as family relics, but their purchase was not a proper investment for the tax payers’money, seeing that they might have little or no artistic value. He supposed a great deal of it was a lot of rubbishy old furniture and glass. He would protest against any such expenditure of the taxpayers’ money.

said he wished to support the protest made by the hon. member for Umlazi. He wanted to know the general condition under which the money was contributed. Would the articles to be purchased become the property of the nation, or would they be handed over to trustees?

stated that £3,000 was contributed by the Government under certain conditions, the principal being that the public had to collect another sum of money for the same purpose. The collection would be a public one.

Has the Government got someone buying at the sale? The House ought to have some more information as to the conditions under which the Government is contributing the money.

requested the Minister to repeat his remarks in Dutch.

said that a Public Committee was formed in Cape Town for the purpose of acquiring the Koopmans-De Wet collection for the nation, as it was felt that it would not redound to the credit of South Africa if the collection were dispersed. (Cheers.) The Government’s contribution would go towards the purchase of articles of antiquity which were of real value. (Cheers.) A committee had been through the collection, and selected what articles it thought desirable, and were bidding for those articles at the auction. But he did not think it was in the public interest now to go further into the details, seeing that the sale was still on, and that one did not want to show all one’s cards while one was playing. An attempt would also be made to buy the house in Strand-street, and if that were done, it would be the most suitable building in which to place the collection. If that were done, there would be room left for additions to the collection, and once the nucleus of such a collection was formed, he had very little doubt that other articles of value would gradually be added to it. If the committee did not succeed in getting the house for a reasonable price, the articles purchased at the sale now proceeding would be housed at the Castle.

said there was another point. The public had already raised an equal amount, and they had not finished; there was more money to come in. It was impossible to buy the collection as a whole, but it was necessary to bid for the things as they came along.

said that as it appeared the Minister of Finance would not give the information in Dutch, he would ask the Minister of Education to do so.

complied.

said that he had always been willing to recognise the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, as an authority on most subjects, but this was the first time that he had noticed him posing as an authority on articles of antiquity and artistic value. He (Mr. Fawcus) had been told that there was very little of artistic value in the collection, and he would move an amendment to delete this grant of £3,000, even if he had to divide the House on it. He moved the deletion of the amount.

said they had got a man who understood what he had to buy and how much to give for his purchases. It was very strange that there should be opposition in respect to something which their sentiment taught them that they should make an effort to possess. He did not know a country in the world where they did not make an effort to preserve things of a similar character, and often at a much greater expenditure, yet here, where we were proposing to spend a few thousand pounds, to which the public had subscribed as well as the Government, objection was being taken. Objects of this collection could be made the nucleus of a national museum. A fair selection would be made, and what was worth keeping only would be bought.

said, as one who was to a certain extent responsible for this vote of £3,000, he would like to say a few words in reply to the hon. member for Umlazi. The hon. member had referred to the artistic sense of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, who, however, had sufficient artistic sense to give a handsome cheque towards the purchase. That showed his good taste, and he hoped the hon. member for Umlazi would do likewise. As to there being a good deal of rubbish, that might be, but they did not intend to purchase that, but only objects which were unique and characteristic of this country. Let them make a beginning; let them begin to show that they had that sense which appreciated objects such as were being sold from that collection. The public would appreciate the value of these objects, which would be a guide as to the life of those who had gone before, and would be of great interest to the present generation and to those to come. He hoped the hon. member would withdraw his amendment.

referred to the value of the collection as serving a very useful purpose as models for the future. There was another point. The preserving of these articles of furniture and other objects would maintain that spirit of reverence which was required in every country. Children of the present day would realise from these models of the past that the people who lived in those days were as capable of thinking, perhaps better able than those who lived at a later period. On those grounds he hoped the hon. member for Umlazi would withdraw his amendment. He (Sir Lionel) had something to do with the committee, and he was satisfied that the gentleman who had been appointed would only buy things which were of real value for the purpose, and would not give more than the market prices of the articles themselves. It would be a splendid beginning for a national museum.

said that there was a serious principle at stake in the Government spending this large sum of money without much information. At any rate, he was disappointed at the support he had received, but he supposed he had better withdraw and let the Government go on and show them what was right and proper in the way of artistic taste.

said he hoped that his hon. friend would not withdraw. He recognised the artistic sense and the obligation of preserving relics of those who had gone before. But he questioned whether they had enough expert knowledge of the value of the articles that were being sold in spending this large sum of money. He did not wish to pass any remarks on the committee that had been appointed to deal with the matter. It was a technical matter, and a matter in which great knowledge was required, and he doubted whether they had in this country the experience that was required in a matter of this sort. He recognised the self-devotion of those who had contributed to the fund. It was very public-spirited of them, but he would point out that after they had appealed in vain last year for funds for those who were suffering from miners’ phthisis the Government could not afford to contribute to that fund. That was one illustration to show how this country could not afford money to alleviate distress.

We did.

We did find the money, but it was out of a special fund. We could not get the money out of the revenue of this country. Continuing, he said he would give the House another illustration. Surely it was better to provide for the future of the country than the relics of the past? The Government had refused to give support to a movement that was training youths for future service in this country and giving them chances of improving themselves. This money would keep the movement with 250 boys going for some years. However valuable the past might be, the future was more valuable, and if they could not afford the money for ensuring the future of the country they ought not to be able to spend money for relics of the past.

said he thought it was quite clear that the Government had put down this money without having very much information before it. Where was this to stop? There was a large amount of furniture of this kind in South Africa. They would find at practically any sale in any old house in the country furniture of this kind for sale. It was generally bought by collectors, who sent it to the various centres and disposed of it. Whether it was to be a settled thing for the Government of this country to consider itself at liberty to give sums for acquiring furniture, he did not know. He did not grudge this money, but he agreed with the hon. member for Umlazi that the principle was wrong. The Government of the country was not an institution that should go about the country buying old furniture.

said that, as a member of the Finance Committee of the City Council, he was present when that body voted the sum of £1,000 to the fund. All he could say was that the City Council was supposed to be composed of hard-headed business men, and they decided it was worth contributing £1,000 towards. One of the most gratifying things about this was that from some of the smallest towns in South Africa sums of money were being sent to the fund. The people of the country recognised this was the purchase of a national collection. Small municipalities in the Free State and in the heart of the Cape were sending money to buy a collection which they knew was going to remain in Cape Town. (Cheers.) A careful selection of the articles that were for sale had been made and a great many of the articles passed by. The things that were going to be picked out were the things typical of old South African history. They wanted to prevent these antiques from being sent out of the country. He did hope that they would all work together and get one of the finest national collections in the country—typical of South Africa. It would be one more step towards unity.

Yes, that is all very well; but because a great deal of sentiment has been roused in the country, it’s no argument for a great deal of the taxpayers’ money being spent. Continuing, he said that the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Long) had pointed out, with a great deal of justice, that there were a great many matters of the utmost importance, and when discussed in the House the Government would say that there was not sufficient money for these undertakings. It was not the case, as the Minister had said, that the Government had spent £100,000 on miners’ phthisis, but that sum had really been contributed to the relief of the mineowners. (Laughter.) How much of that money had gone into the pockets of the miners suffering from phthisis? What benefit was the country going to get, when they realised that they had thousands of unemployed people in that country? Hon. members did not recognise the responsibility of the country towards these people. It was something of the utmost importance, and they had no right, as a House, to pass items like those light-heartedly for the purpose of collecting antiques which would not benefit the country at all but simply satisfy a sentimental feeling when they had these unemployed. They did not want that collection—under the circumstances. If the Union finances were in such a state that, after the unemployed had been provided for, they had a surplus, by all means let them make a collection like that. There were, it was said, hard-headed men in the Council who had subscribed a thousand pounds—of the ratepayers’ money.

And their own money, too.

added that he believed that those who were going to spend the money would make a good bargain, but the country had something besides that to do, and to waste money like that was a crime.

The motion to delete the item was negatived.

The vote was agreed to.

On vote 13, Defence, £250,000,

said that as the House was going to sit to-morrow night he would suggest that progress be reported and leave obtained to sit again.

said the Estimates were very urgent. He, however, accepted the motion.

The motion was agreed to, and leave obtained to sit again to-morrow.