from S. Emslie, of Umtata, Chief Detective Officer and Inspector of Licences for the Transkeian Territories, who entered the Cape Civil Service in 1887, praying that his period of service in the Agricultural Department may be taken into consideration in the calculation of his pension, or for other relief.

from A. J. Baxter, a store assistant in Port St. John, who, having been severely wounded whilst serving as a Lieutenant in the Qumbu Native Reserves during the late war, was offered a pension which he has since been unable to obtain, praying for consideration of his case and for relief.

from M. Power, who entered the Cape Civil Service in 1885 and was retired in 1912, praying for an increase of pension, or for other relief.

from D. J. W. Wium, of Darling, a teacher under the Education Department, praying for the condonation of a break in his service, or for other relief.

brought up the report of the Select Committee on the Financial Relations Bill. The report was in the following terms: “Your committee, having considered the Financial Relations Bill, beg to report the same with certain amendments, which it recommends to the consideration of the House.”

The report was set down for consideration on Friday, the 28th inst.

brought up the first report of the Select Committee on Waste Lands as follows:

Your committee begs to report that it has had under consideration the papers and correspondence referred to it, and begs to recommend the grants, etc., of land as set forth in the accompanying schedule, viz.:

1. (1) Grant, for public school purposes, at Kwelegha.
2. (2) Grant, for slaughter-houses, of portion of Nieuwe Molen.
3. (3) Excission of portion of Phokwani forest reserve.
4. (4) Grant, to Rhenish Missionary Society, at Walfish Bay.
5. (5) Grant, for school purposes, at St. Mark’s Bridge Outspan.
6. (6) Grant, for school purposes, at Uitenhage.
7. (7) Grant, for burial purposes, at Cathcart Vale.
8. (8) Grant of erf No. 5, Kuruman, to Divisional Council.
9. (9) Exchange of land at Porterville-road.
10. (10) Lease of fishing station sites at Walfish Bay.
11. (11) Withdrawal from demarcated forest area at Oudtshoorn
12. (12) Reservation, at Bredasdorp, for fishing purposes.
13. (13) Grant, at Willowvale, for public library.
14. (14) Grant, for public hospital, at Kuruman.
15. (15) Grant, for library, at Lusikisiki.
16. (16) Issue of titles to natives in Tonyellas Location.
17. (17) Grant, at Uitenhage, for hospital purposes.
18. (18) Betting of vacant harbour lands, Cape Town.
19. (19) Grant, for church, in Tsengiwe’s Location.
20. (20) Grant, to J. F. Hattingh, at Siwundia’s Location.
21. (21) Grant, for burial ground, at Caledon.
22. (22) Cancellation of reservation, Market square, Ugie.
23. (23) Grant, to estate of late J. Lloyd, at Port St, John’s.
24. (24) Lease to Master and Co., of harbour buildings and land, at Port Elizabeth.
25. (25) Grant, for burial ground, at Tylden.
26. (26) Proposed sale to S. D. Snooke, at Mount Frere.
27. (27) Grant, for church, at Upper Lufuta.
28. (28) Grant of fishing station sites, at O’Obeek, Thorn, and Bakover Bays.
29. (29) Grant for crayfish canning factory at Hoedjes Bay.
30. (30) Grant for crayfish factory between Slangkop and Schoesters River Mouth.

Your committee is unable to recommend, the lease of Lot B, Stompneus Bay, in the division of Malmesbury.

The report was set down for consideration on Monday, the 31st inst.

brought up the report of the Select Committee on the Carnarvon Outer Commonage Settlement Bill.

The report was set down for consideration on Monday, the 31st inst.

said that before the notices of motion were proceeded with he would like to draw attention to the fact that the notice of motion which he had given of additional names of members of the Select Committee on European Employment and Labour Conditions had been set down for Tuesday, April 1. He thought a motion of this kind would have taken precedence on the following day. He wished the committee to get to work without delay. He understood that the Government would have no objection to his moving the motion now.

It is the rule that members must have notice of these names. No notice is before the House.

Yes; it is.

said the notice was for a later date, but there would be no objection in the circumstances to the right hon. gentleman proposing his motion if no objection were raised by the House.

I object. (Cries of “Oh.”)

Shortly afterwards the hon. member withdrew his objections.

then moved that Messrs. Watermeyer, Maasdorp, and the mover be members of the Select Committee on European Employment and Labour Conditions.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the House at its rising to-day adjourn until Thursday, the 27th instant, at 2 o’clock p.m.

Agreed to.

moved that the House go into committee on the Appropriation (Part) Bill.

who was heard with difficulty in the Press gallery, asked permission to bring a matter of some importance before the House. In January last, he presented a petition from a lady teacher in Natal, praying that the provisions of Act 31, 1910, should be applied in her case. The circumstances were that when the Act was passed she was absent from the Colony; and on her return she was not aware that the Act had been passed until after the period allowed for registering, and her claim had lapsed. Her case was then sent from this House to the Pensions, Grants, and Gratuities Committee, who recommended that the claim be allowed, and that recommendation was passed by both Houses of Parliament. Four days later, however, the Public Service Act was promulgated, and the Treasury maintain that the resolution previously passed must come under this Act. He considered that the House having ratified the action of the committee, the Treasury was not justified in taking up the position which it had, and hoped his hon. friend the Minister of Finance would consider the matter, and see that justice was done, not only in this case, but in many other cases in which the House had exercised its prerogative,

said the lady in question had been a teacher since 1882, but, through no fault of her own, she had failed to register her claim for those benefits within the prescribed time. Four days after Parliament had allowed her claim, the Public Service Act 24 of 1912 was promulgated. The Treasury had taken upon itself to say that this application should come under the provisions of section 74 of that Act. What course did the hon. Minister propose taking? Did he propose that a resolution of both Houses should be overridden by an Act promulgated four days afterwards? He would suggest that it might be better in future to consider each separate recommendation that came up, and then bring in a Bill at the end of the session embodying all the cases. He hoped the House would not permit its resolutions to be overridden in the manner just mentioned.

said he was glad his attention had been drawn to the matter. He had not been aware of the case in point, but would look into the matter and see what could be done.

remarked that the hon. Minister did not say whether the House was going to be bound by the Act. When a resolution was adopted by that House, did it require an Act of Parliament to make it legal? Because, if so, it was the duty of the House to appoint someone to bring up in Bill form what the House had passed by resolution. (Laughter.) It was no use having a Pensions Committee when there was uncertainty about any finality being reached. It was a serious matter, and there should be no delay of this sort.

said that on the third reading of this measure he would draw attention to the mortality that took place among tropical natives. Then he would also take the opportunity of asking what the Government intended to do about those Government areas— whether it was true that no tenders had been received, and whether the Government had published—or intended to publish —new terms.

Third reading?

said he hoped there would be no objection to the Bill being read a third time that afternoon, and pointed out to the hon. member for Jeppe that several other opportunities would be afforded him of raising the points which he had mentioned.

who objected, said he did not desire to allow the present opportunity to pass.

Third reading?

Thursday next.

Amendment to the Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Revenue and Loan Funds, year ending 31st March, 1913, viz.: On page 23, Loan Vote B, “ Public Works and Buildings”; to insert a new item: “Union Government Buildings—Pretoria, £33,000.”

moved the second reading of the Railways and Harbours Appropriation (Part) Bill. In the course of his remarks, which were, for the most part inaudible, the hon. Minister was understood to say that the amount had been estimated on a two months’ basis.

moved the deletion of all the words after “now” for the purpose of inserting “ when the report of the Grievances Commission has been published.” Hon. members, he said, might think that this was obstruction—(Ministerial “ Hear, hear’s ”)—but he submitted that he would be able, in the course of his explanatory remarks, to show ample justification for the course he had chosen to take. The hon. member proceeded to sketch the history of the Grievances Commission from its appointment on July 26, 1911, and the reports that had been submitted, and remarked upon the questions put to the Minister this session concerning the final report. The last they heard was that the Government had received a copy of the report, but that it had not been placed on the Table for the reason that the Dutch copy was not ready, and he contended that this was not a reasonable excuse. They didn’t care whether the Government supplied the Dutch or the English version so long as it contained the required information.

The fact of the matter was that both in connection with the Grievances Commission and the Select Committee the railwaymen were being fooled. Commissions and Select Committees were appointed, but they never really went into the matter. There was absolute justification for asking the Minister of Railways for an explanation as to what his intentions really were. Meantime the Government was extending as rapidly as possible the pernicious system of piecework. Then there was the question of monthly payment of wages instead of weekly payments as heretofore, a change which had meant great inconvenience to the men concerned. This meant that their cost of living was increased in consequence of the retailers having to give longer credits, and consequently there was a diminution in the spending power of the men. Again, the lower branches of the clerical staff had had no increase of wages for a couple of years past, they being told that they could not have increments until the regrading had been completed. This was a piece of financial trickery on the part of the Government. Again, Government, under the conspiracy of silence which existed, was adopting another policy for driving the railway workers lower and lower. This policy was that of the family coach, under which men were transferred from the higher paid to the lower paid centres, and then being dismissed because they earned more than the other men did. One man who had been in the service for ten years, and who was transferred at the request of the department, had his wages reduced by 1s. a day. He (Mr. Boydell) drew the attention of the General Manager to the matter, and Mr. Hoy saw that an injustice had been done, and rectified it. But many men were suffering under these disabilities who said nothing about them. The Labour Party was absolutely justified in asking the Minister of Railways for an explanation of what he intended doing to alleviate the large amount of distress which at present existed in the railway service. The South African railways had never been in such a state of prosperity as they were now, and the Government was carrying produce at a cheaper rate than any other State line in the Empire. They did not mind farmers getting these benefits, but they strongly objected to all the benefits going to one section of the population alone, when those who were responsible for the working of the railways were suffering because of Government pandering to the requirements of those who were in a position to force the Government to grant them favours. He could assure hon. members that all this delay and conspiracy of silence were not calculated to encourage the railway employees to think that their grievances were properly being considered. The Opposition was equally responsible with the Government, the former being afraid to ask the latter to do anything. The Labour Party might as well talk to the Pyramids of Egypt as to some hon. members, but although they could not move the House they could move the people in the country, and when the next Parliament met some hon. members would be surprised to find that they were among those who also ran. (Laughter.)

said that the amendment was not in order. It was not a superseding amendment, because it fixed an indefinite time. Rule 154 read: “Omitting the word ‘now’ and adding at the end of the motion ‘this day three months’ or ‘this day six months,’ or some other date,” but this amendment said “when the report of the Grievances Commission had been published.”

asked if any amendment to the second reading of a money Bill was out of order unless it fixed a definite time for that Bill to be read? The difficulty was that a money Bill was one of the few opportunities they had of testing the House on some questions which they thought of importance.

said that the proper course was to move that this Bill be read this day six months, or, if the hon. member did not wish to do that, to move to omit all the words after “that,” and substitute some reason against the second reading. There must be a definite time fixed for the second reading, or the motion must be entirely against the second reading. The hon. member could make what remarks he wished upon this motion before the House.

That does not enable us to ask hon. members to fulfil their responsibilities by expressing by their votes what their opinions on this matter are. Would the hon. member be in order in moving that this Bill be read a second time this day four months?

The hon. member has finished his speech, and cannot move anything at all.

said that the hon. member for Greyville had referred to the action of the Administration in shifting men from one centre to another under conditions which to these men were not either acceptable or fair. He had a case of a man who was formerly working at the Pretoria shops as a moulder at the rate recognised in the district, 19s. a day. He was asked about March, 1912, whether he would go to the Salt River Works. He accepted the offer, notwithstanding that he would have to accept a very much lower rate of wage. He accepted 13s. a day at Salt River. He broke up his home at Pretoria and left for Salt River, on the distinct understanding that he would have continuity of employment, but he found, after a few months, that his services were no longer required and he received a fortnight’s notice. The reason assigned by the authorities was that the man had been retrenched. The shops at Salt River were being extended, particularly the moulders’ shops. Notwithstanding, this man, along with others, had been retrenched. There was something behind all this. He was informed that a new foreman arrived at Salt River from Natal, and one of the first things he did was to invite the men in the shops to send a deputation to discuss in a friendly manner any little grievances they might have. Three of the men accepted his invitation, including the moulder in question A day or two after, the foreman roundly abused these men. As a matter of fact, this man’s life was made a burden to him from that time onwards. It seemed to him (Mr. Andrews) as if this man had been singled out because it was considered that, having been sent on a deputation by his shopmates, he was a dangerous character. To his mind, he was not a dangerous character, but a man of backbone. Quite recently the Minister stated that the drivers in the Cape Province were better off under the new regulations. He said that they received 15s. a day. He had information which led him to believe that not one single man at that date in the whole of the Cape Province was receiving this princely sum of 15s. There was another point, viz., the long hours that men had to work in many capacities on the railways.

Continuing, he said there had been cases where shed men had worked 90 hours per week, at the princely salary of 6s. per day, who beside being paid under the standard rate were a danger to the travelling public in consequence of being made to work such long hours. Then with regard to the particulars relating to the Bot River accident. He objected to the hon. Minister giving the House merely small details, and thought the fullest information should have been forthcoming in a matter which concerned the death of two railway servants. He would therefore move the deletion of all the words after “that,” for the purpose of substituting the following: “This House declines to consider the granting of further supplies to the Railway Administration until the report of the Grievances Commission has been published.

seconded.

asked if the report of the Railway Board was available? He thought it should be laid on the Table before they commenced the debate on the Railway Estimates. He would also like to ask if it was the intention of the hon. the Minister of Railways to bring in a Bill to deal with new railway construction?

in reply to the member for Georgetown, said it was not possible to say when the Grievances Commission report would be laid on the Table. As he had explained to hon. members, the report had been ready for quite a long time, but in deference to the principles of their constitution, it could not be published until it was possible for it to be published in both languages. It might be ready at any moment, but he did not intend to lay the English copy before them before the Dutch copy was ready. He, with others of the Ministry, had been charged with being concerned in a conspiracy of silence. All he could say was that he could not retort that on the hon. members on the cross benches. If the hon. member who moved his amendment in the interests of the railway workmen considers for a moment he would see that in the event of the report not being ready for publication and his amendment is carried, then he (the Minister) would be in the position of not being able to pay the men their wages. With regard to the Select Committee which had been appointed, he might say that no sooner was this done than he was approached by men from all over the country stating they would prefer the appointment of a Commission under the Act, and he might state if the necessary machinery were put into motion he would consider about adopting that course. As soon as he heard from the railway servants themselves, not from the Amalgamated Society of Engineers or from members on the cross benches, of any specific grievances, then he was ready to carry out the instructions of that House. As a matter of fact, he had not had a single grievance laid before him since the committee had been appointed. With regard to the piecework system, the objection to which had been considered by the Grievances Commission and reported against, the Commission had stated that it was entirely in agreement with piecework.

Continuing, he said that the Grievances Commission had done admirable work at a considerable cost to the country and 1m did not intend to appoint another Commission. He would lay the report of the Commission on the table as soon as he was able. So far as he was concerned there was nothing to hide, though he was afraid that parts of the report would not make pleasant reading for some hon. members, particularly hon. members on the cross benches. So far as piecework was concerned, he did not intend to appoint another Commission to go into that question. If they eliminated the matter of piecework they would find that not one single definite grievance had been presented with regard to the regulations that were recently published. The telegrams he had received from the Amalgamated Society of Engineers simply stated that they objected to everything, but no particular thing had been brought to his notice. All he asked from the men was that they should bring to his notice specific points of grievance. The question of monthly pay did not appear in the regulations. In regard to the case of a moulder which had been brought forward by the hon. member for Georgetown, that matter had been investigated, and it had been found that there was no moulding for the man to do. They could not be expected to keep on the best man in the world if there was no work for him to do. He thought that more good would be accomplished by the men going to their superiors or to the General Manager of Railways than all these platform speeches.

There are too many.

said that recently the running staff of the Western Province intended to hold a mass meeting to discuss their grievances. They decided, however, in response to a suggestion, to meet the General Manager of Railways. A deputation saw the General Manager of Railways and that official found that he was able to remedy ninety per cent. of the grievances of these men. They held their mass meeting, but it was in praise of the Administration, though, unfortunately, it prevented certain hon. members on the cross benches from making speeches.

Oh, that’s in Cape Town.

Much to the chagrin of those hon. members. (Laughter.) In conclusion, the Minister pointed out that specific instructions had been issued to the effect that the new regulations should not affect any man who was in the service of the railway on December 31 last. Several cases of hardship—these cases were bound to occur when they dealt with a matter of 56,000 men—had been brought to the notice of the responsible authorities, and in every case grievances had been set right.

said he would like to ask the Minister to explain the new regulations with regard to pay. Maximum and minimum rates were fixed, and he would particularly draw the attention of the Minister to the case of learners. The regulations in this particular regard were causing a great deal of unrest—(Labour hear, hears)—among the men, and he thought that the Minister might give his attention to the matter. They had been told that the maximum meant that they would not get increases in future years. At any rate, there seemed to be a great deal of unrest, and he thought that the Minister would be acting wisely if he cleared up the whole matter. The men could not understand it, and he (the speaker) could not give them any legal advice worth talking about. He could not make anything out of the regulations. He thought that the Minister might make some definite statement on the subject, though not necessarily that afternoon.

said he did not think that the Minister’s reply was very satisfactory except to those in the magic inner circle. The Minister had talked about the men going to the General Manager and the result of the meeting. Might he (the speaker) suggest that it was because of members on the cross-benches bringing these matters forward that was responsible for the General Manager giving way in this particular instance. He thought that the right hon. the member for Victoria West, though he did not sympathise with the cross-benches, would support him when he said that the Minister could not set aside are solution passed by that House? Was the Minister all the prophets rolled into one?

A couple of sessions ago the late Minister of Finance confessed that he had a great penchant for the methods of Oriental despotism, but that weakness did not appear to be confined to one member of the Cabinet. The Minister of Railways said: “What the Railway Committee is to do, I shall decide. I shall refuse to call the committee together.” Was the House going calmly to submit to that? The supporters of the Government were permitting the establishment of a very dangerous precedent by allowing a Minister to snap his fingers at the House in that way. Then the Minister had stated that he was not going to listen to any resolutions adopted by a railway men’s society. But the Minister would find that this obstinate refusal to recognise the existence of the railway men’s Union was a very dangerous course to pursue, as the Minister would find one of these days to his cost. He hoped the Minister would deign to profit by the experience of other countries in these matters, and to recognise that the men had found that the only successful way of making representations was through the officials of their organisation, representations which should receive the most serious consideration of the Minister (Hear, hear.) The Labour Party was asking hon. members to record whether they approved of the way in which the Minister was evading his responsibility, for hon. members not being in possession of the report of the Railway Grievances Commission. Under one pretext or another, the Minister was constantly delaying a publication of that report. They protested against that. This delay was inexcusable. There was nothing in the Act of Union to prevent the Minister putting the report on the Table of the House in the language in which the report was written. The Dutch-speaking members of the railway service would infinitely prefer that that course should be adopted rather than that there should be any further delay. The excuse for the delay was that there was a difficulty in having the report translated. But, if the official translators were so busy, were there so very few people in this country who had a good knowledge of both the official languages that their services could not be enlisted for the purpose? If the Government took the view that the report should not be placed on the Table until it could be done in both languages, surely there were plenty of men who could have been employed to carry out the work of translating. Suppose it had been a matter affecting, say, the wine farmers, did the House think that the question of a little extra expense in employing additional translators would have been allowed to cause any delay? Yet the Minister came week after week with plausible excuses. The whole fact of the matter was simply this, that Government was only too delighted at any delay which would enable the Minister, while having the original report in his possession, to read out those sentences which supported the Minister’s views. The Government’s action was on all fours with that of the Minister’s in regard to the Select Committee. Government was trying to spin out the time, so that Parliament would have separated before hon. members had the report of the Grievances Commission in their hands. Continuing, Mr. Creswell referred to the complaint of a labourer engaged in railway construction on the Zeerust-Bushman Drift line, where Government was carrying on a policy of petty cheese-paring—a low-pedalling policy. He would not presume to suggest that his bringing these matters before the House would affect the Minister’s peaceful sleep, but these matters received very much closer attention when brought up before the House than they did when they were brought under the notice of the department in the usual way, for in the latter case one simply had a formal reply that the subject was engaging the attention of the department.

There was another matter brought to his notice by the secretary of the Navvies’ Association. A gang of twelve men went down to Piet Relief. They got their stores and signed on, and were debited £39 11s. 8d. They had to go to work ten or twelve miles away, and were debited £6 for the carriage of these Government tools. On the work being completed, they netted altogether £14 14s. 6d. per man for a matter of one or two months’ work, and after paying for the Government tools and tents, and a further £3 for taking the Government tools back to the Government place. That was mere extortion from poor men, and he asked the Minister not to be content with the mere statement of the General Manager. He wanted the Minister to look into these things and assert himself. He wanted to give the Minister what he seriously lacked, and that was a little bit of backbone. (Hear, hear.) He would ask hon. members opposite not to be slavishly led into the party lobbies in these matters.

said he thought the hon. member should give the Minister credit for telling the truth. The Minister said that the reason why he had not brought these things before the Select Committee was that he had received representations from the men from all quarters of the Union saying that they preferred a Commission. He thought, however, that the Minister might have told them whether he was going to grant the Commission or not. The hon. member (Mr. Creswell) had got up and told the House that he would not give a fig for what the General Manager would do for the men, unless the General Manager were, paralysed by fear of the Labour Party in this House. (Labour cheers.) He had told the House in all seriousness that the reason why the General Manager received a deputation from the running staff was that he sat in his office trembling with fear of what might be said about him in that House. They knew that hon. members on the cross-benches put themselves and their abilities at a pretty high valuation, but he thought when they got up and solemnly told that House that the General Manager would do nothing to carry out the duties of his office unless it were for fear of the Labour Party, they were going a good deal further than they were warranted in going. His experience of the General Manager had been rather different. He had brought several cases before him, and in each case he had found that the General Manager was most scrupulous—(hear, hear) —that he considered the cases, and in 90 per cent. of them he had been able to redress those grievances. (Hear, hear.) Then there was the point in regard to the Grievances Commission, and he must confess that it seemed to him an extraordinary thing that the Minister should refuse to put this report on the Table until the Dutch copy had been made. Hon. members on the cross-benches seemed to have a most pathetic faith in this Grievances Commission report. He knew two cases where their recommendations in the committee’s report of last year with regard to the men had not been carried out.

The hon. member for Georgetown had brought up the case of the accident at Bot River. He (Mr. Long) had information to support what the hon. member said. The hon. member had distinctly stated in that House—and he must realise the gravity of making such an allegation— that the driver of this particular train was aware of the fact that the engine was not in a fit condition to run, and in a dangerous condition when it left Cape Town, that in spite of this this man obeyed orders and took out this train, and that the accident occurred, and both he and his fireman lost their lives. The hon. member was not satisfied with the answer given by the Minister to the Question addressed to him the other day. He thought the Minister could do little else than deal seriously with these allegations, and put the whole report which he had received on the Table.

I have not received the report.

I think this good has been done, that it has been made quite clear that the Minister has not yet received the report. I would ask him if he would put the full report on the Table when it comes into his hands?

I have said so. I may explain that what I said, in reply to the question of the hon. member for Georgetown, was that I had information that in the report it was stated that the accident was due neither to the condition of the road nor to the condition of the engine. I said as soon as I had the report I would lay it, with the evidence, on the Table of the House.

I am glad to hear that from the Minister. I heard him answer1 the question, but I must confess I did not hear it answered in such definite terms. Proceeding, he said there was another matter which the Minister had not dealt with, namely the question of weekly as opposed to monthly pay. That was a great grievance. He thought if the Minister made that point clear it would go a long way towards removing a great deal of the dissatisfaction. Mr. Long added that he was not going to vote for this amendment, because it was perfectly obvious that the thing was absolutely useless. Hon. members must know that, if it were carried to its utmost limit, it would hang up supply. Hon. members must see that this was merely a kite which was being flown with the idea of ventilating grievances.

said that they had had a splendid example of Satan rebuking sin. Only yesterday he heard the hon. member say “ It is an absolute lie,” and now to-day he was pleading that they should believe that the Minister spoke the truth. He (Mr. Haggar), wanted to come to the help of the Minister. He had told them that, under these new regulations, no man should suffer. Before these regulations were brought in force, the men at Durban were entitled to receive 14s. a day, and now instead of 14s. their maximum pay would be 13s. He was of opinion that, as long as the Administration was composed as it was, there was just one position from which no departure could be made, and that position was that in the terms and conditions of their labour the men should have no voice. In this respect the Administration was an autocracy, an absolute despotism.

called attention to the absence of a quorum.

A quorum having been formed,

resumed the reading of copious extracts from the Railways and Harbours Gazette, when,

rose to a point of order. Was the hon. member in order in reading from a newspaper to that House?

The hon. member is entitled to read from a newspaper if he does not read too long. (Laughter.)

continuing, said the hon. Minister had already said in the House that he had had interviews with the very gentleman who wrote those words. The hon. Minister was not in a position to know. The replies which were given to that House to the various questions were not always correct, when it came to the railways right throughout the Union the Minister was kept in the dark, and he (Mr. Haggar) hoped that some investigation would be made so that these grievances could be remedied. He was not so fortunate as some hon. members who had brought forward grievances which they said had been remedied. He had brought forward grievances but the men concerned had been allowed to suffer, and the promises made had been broken. He trusted that the cloud which was hanging over their heads would be driven away.

said he had a grievance to bring to the notice of the hon. Minister before the House passed that amount. His grievance was not in respect of the working men but of the capitalist class, about whom they heard so much from the hon. members on the cross benches. He would like to know what action was taken in connection with the report of the Select Committee on Railway Land Expropriation. The Commission which reported in the session before last made certain recommendations, some of which have already been accepted and put into law. He thought the hon. Minister of Railways would find other recommendations equally well worthy of his notice in that report if the Government should go into the matter. One of the recommendations of the Select Committee provided for expropriation to a width of 100 feet for the construction of railways. In the Cathcart district land had been expropriated to the width of 100 yards, and since those early days the land had increased in value. He would be glad if the Minister in his reply could give some indication of what the action of the Government in that connection was likely to be. In reference to the land expropriated for railway purposes in outlying districts, they had been taking four or five times as much as was needed.

was about to put the question to the House, when

said that before the question was put he would like to hear what the hon. Minister said in reply.

The hon. Minister replied some time ago.

then put the question, that all the words after “ that,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion, and declared the “ Ayes” had it.

moved that the amendment to the Estimates of Additional Expenditure, page 23— Loan Vote B, “Public Works and Buildings,” presented to the House to-day, be referred to the Committee on Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue and Loan Funds during the year ending 31st March, 1913.

Agreed to.

communicated the following message from the Senate:

The Senate transmits herewith to the House of Assembly the following resolution passed by the Senate: (i) That in consequence of the information placed before this House by the Select Committee appointed on Monday, the 17th instant, to inspect the journals of the House of Assembly, this House regrets to find that the messages sent down to the House of Assembly relative to the appointment of a Joint Committee to consider and recommend to Parliament rules relating to the appointment, office and duties of Joint Parliamentary Librarian and Draftsman, on the 3rd June, 1912, and again on the 13th February last, still remain unconsidered. (ii) That this House is of opinion that “ House ” matters such as the one in question should receive prompt consideration in order to preserve the good relationship and harmonious co-operation which this House is of opinion should exist between the two Houses of Parliament. (iii) That this resolution be transmitted to the honourable the House of Assembly by the Clerk of the House.

The Senate, 20th March, 1913.

moved that the amount of £54,321 for losses on Cape wineries be deleted. He proceeded to quote from the evidence taken by the Select Committee, and detailed many cases where a great deal of the capital had not been paid up. He thought it was perfectly improper that the Government should allow such a state of things to exist. It was an immoral principle to allow people to borrow money from the Government without seeing that these people paid up their fair share of the amount. He pointed out that the report with which he dealt touched the state of affairs 15 months ago, and as no report had been submitted up to the end of 1912, they were not aware of whether these people were in a position to fulfil their obligations. Altogether it was a very bad business, and he thought that hon. members on the other side would be the first to protest if hon. members on his side allowed anything of the sort. He thought that at any rate the Government should ascertain how much these people would be able to refund.

said he hoped the Minister of Finance would agree to the proposal, although not on the grounds stated by the hon. member who had just spoken. It was an entirely wrong principle to put this sum in the Estimates and vote it as it was proposed to do now. Was Government going to take over all the losses that were made on such enterprises? That would be quite wrong. Who was the money to be paid to? Part of it, he took it, would be paid to the revenue. That would be £15,000, and it would go to swell the balance as it would be paid this year. It was proposed to write off a part of the sum on the vote. He thought that the Public Accounts Committee would be the right body to report on the subject. But before the matter had been enquired into and before the members had an opportunity to read the report, the House was asked to vote a large sum. The deletion of the vote was not desired to tie the hands of the Government, and it would not embarrass the Government and would not be refusing any money; he would think twice before assenting to a vote of that kind. Continuing, Mr. Merriman said he pitied the Minister of Finance from the bottom of his soul, because he (Mr. Merriman) once was in a similar position, but through no fault of his own. That position was created in a moment of sanguine anticipation. There was a gentleman from the Sister Island who came out here and he went round the country in the name of the Cape Government with practically a bag of money and he said to the farmers: “Don’t be fools, here’s Government money, take it.” He got people who knew little about co-operation, or the management of co-operative concerns, to put their money into these enterprises. That was not the only thing they had to write off from that gentleman’s transactions.

They had the same position with the creameries, which would have been excellent if they had started with capitals of hundreds instead of thousands of pounds. Instead they were started on the most lavish scale, and some of them were wound up before the machinery which had been ordered for them had been unpacked. (Laughter.) They were a signal and a dismal failure. They were started on a most faulty basis, and in many cases men of straw took shares in them. But it would be a pity to close these things down. Some people had made great sacrifices to continue these concerns, and they might possibly with smaller capitals be able to extricate themselves. The money, however, would not be thrown away if it were a warning to the House against entering into similar enterprises in moments of enthusiasm. The Transvaal co-operative societies were on a different basis, because their members were liable jointly and severally. That was real co-operation. In conclusion, Mr. Merriman said he favoured dealing with the people concerned in the co-operative wineries in the most reasonable way after the matter had been enquired into by the Public Accounts Committee. (Hear, hear.) That step would not embarrass the Government at all, and he would strongly advise the Minister to withdraw the vote for the time being.

said the amount of money invested by the shareholders in co-operative wineries was very small indeed compared with the amount invested by Government. One reason why the wineries did not pay was because the shareholders paid themselves a high price for the grapes they sent to the wineries. In one case £5 2s. 6d. a ton was paid for grapes. The hon. member proceeded to quote extensively from the report of the Commission, and went on to say that several years ago wine was low, but for several years it had been going up in price. It was about three times the price that it was when these co-operative wineries were started. Was it possible to conceive that with good management it would not have been possible to have a profit on the working of these concerns if the people had only been willing to put their hands into their pockets and increase the working capital? In some cases not one-tenth of the capital had been called up, and the shareholders had simply been using up the taxpayers’ money, without contributing their share. He considered that it was the duty of this House to reject this vote so far as the capital was concerned, though he would be prepared to vote for the remission of the arrear interest.

said that, in answer to the hon. member for Langlaagte, he would point out that it was in compliance with a report of a Select Committee, that the Minister had come forward with these proposals. The committee brought up an instruction to the Government that they should enter into negotiations with the various cooperative wineries with a view of ascertaining from them the most favourable terms upon which they would be prepared to take over the several properties. The hon. member for Langlaagte had also found fault with the Minister because he had not brought up the accounts to the 31st December last. As a matter of fact, the Minister had submitted the accounts to the end of December last, and he would like to know what more he could have done? The position in regard to these wineries was that the Government advanced £85,000 to the wineries, and after years and years of struggle, it was quite clear to everybody that they could not pay the interest on this £85,000, and the question was how could they be kept going and at the same time pay some interest? The last Commission appointed reported that to put an end to the business they should write off £38,000 of the capital account, and that £15,000 arrear interest should also be wiped out. Continuing, he said he felt it was a dangerous precedent to take this money out of revenue. It had never been done before, and was never likely to be done again, except in times when there was a large surplus. It was absurd to put up a precedent of this sort knowing that it would never be followed again.

said he was surprised at what he had heard from the hon. member for George. He (Mr. Jagger) thought the only good feature was the proposal to take this amount out of revenue, seeing that they had a surplus with which to do it. If the wineries had been in a sound financial position, they would have paid back their loans with interest to the loan fund, but as they could not pay their indebtedness, the Minister was adopting the same principle in accounting for the deficiency. He thought something should be done in the matter of these wineries, or the loss in the course of time would become larger, and before a settlement was come to a Commission should be appointed to consider the whole position. Personally, he thought they had let these wineries off a little too easy. Continuing, Mr. Jagger then cited the case of one winery which showed a surplus of £357, yet they were writing off the same proportion in the case of this concern. He could not think that those gentlemen who took shares in these wineries were unaware that they were likely to be called upon for a further contribution, and yet it was proposed to let these shareholders off free. While the Government were reducing their claims upon the wineries, they were not taking any measures to increase their security. He thought something should have been insisted upon in this direction. He was of opinion that the Government would have done better if they had called for tenders for the buildings. They would have found that the loss would have been very much reduced. In conclusion, he said he thought before they wrote off £54,000, they should have some further security, and for that reason he would support the amendment of the hon. member for Langlaagte.

said he was not quite sure that these wineries had not been of great benefit to the country, and he thought there were advantages in connection with the transaction which did not show themselves at the present time. It was not consistent to penalise success, and, on the other hand, to allow failure to escape. He hoped the hon. Minister would see his way to have an inquiry of a different character than was shown in the report—an inquiry in regard to the present-day conditions of the concern, with a view of getting better returns than now appeared possible. That might very well be feasible. It was not advisable in his opinion, for the House to pass such a large amount with such little information as they had before them, and instead of obstinately trying to force the vote through the House in the face of strong opposition, which was not raised for a political purpose, but really in the interests of the country, the hon. Minister should agree to the matter being referred to either the Public Accounts Committee or a Special Committee, in order that they may probe the matter further than it had been done so far. With regard to repayment, the money ought to be paid back out of revenue, if they had it to spare. Certainly it ought to be wiped out as soon as possible, and he hoped, if there was money to be paid back, they would always be able to pay it out of the revenue of the country. He hoped the hon. Minister would allow the matter to be referred to a committee, so that it could be gone into, and no harm would be done to the whole question of co-operation in South Africa.

agreed with other hon. members that the members of the Commission were not business men, and suggested that the House should not be satisfied until the accounts had been thoroughly audited by a competent auditor.

said he was not surprised at the remarks of the last two speakers, because they came into the question fresh after Union, and wanted to have the matter dealt with on a purely business footing. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had not the same excuse as the two other hon. members. He knew, or he ought to know, that it was not a simple business transaction from the commencement.

I always criticised it.

said that the hon. member ought to know also that there were members of the old Cape Parliament, now sitting with the Opposition, who were in the Government when the money was given; the hon. member for Fort Beaufort was sitting on the Treasury Bench. It was not a business transaction at all The wine farmers had suffered very severely indeed, and two measures were introduced to give them some relief. Both were wrong, and they were still hanging round their necks; they had got these wineries, and the only thing to do was to try and place them on a business basis. That was the proposition that the Government was putting before the House, and instead of having these so-called co-operative wineries continually coming to the Government for relief, they would be placed on their own responsibility. The sooner they did that the better, but if they did not come to a settlement, these institutions would remain unsound. They would come year after year to the Government, saying they were over-capitalised, and were forced into the heavy expenditure. He believed that these wineries would serve a good purpose, as the hon. member for Yeoville had anticipated, provided they made them fully responsible.

said that these institutions started originally with a father; the father died, and a stepfather came in and had the handling of the enterprise. They had a large number of wine farmers; Cape wine got a thoroughly bad name, and nobody would drink if. The intention was to found wineries where the wine would be scientifically treated, so as to give it a better reputation. That had actually occurred as soon as the enterprise was started. And now Cape wine was consumed all over South Africa, whereas ten years ago it was generally condemned. From that point of view, the enterprise had been fully successful, and the position of the wine industry was extremely hopeful. There was a good demand for this wine from all over the country. Although the vote did not commit the House to carry out the intentions of the Commission, it virtually did so, and he was in favour of the matter being submitted to a Committee of the House.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said that he thought the Minister should give them some information.

said that there was a good deal in the contention of his hon. friend (Sir E. H. Walton), and his hon. friend on the right (Mr. J. X. Merriman), but that report of the Departmental Committee might be submitted to the Public Accounts Committee, and there was no doubt from the financial point of view that that money should be devoted to loan. That was in the agreement of the society, and before the agreement with the society had been made it was laid down that the amount might be scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee.

said that when they went to loan they Went for a specific purpose. That vote had been voted for co-operative works, not only wineries, and if they put it back, what were they going to put it back to—creameries or co-operative societies. They had voted the sum for a specific purpose, and not in a lump sum.

said that it went to loan account.

There is no loan account. When you vote money for a railway you must specify what railway you vote it for. Are you going to allocate this amount to a co-operative society? (Hon. members: No.) Then you are going to make a new departure; and are you going to vote it to the general loan account?

said that he was profoundly disappointed with the Minister of Finance. Listening to the discussion, he would like to know what real control they would have, once that money had been voted. As far as the taxpayers were concerned, there appeared to him little difference whether they paid £41,000 out of revenue and paid that off, or where they had £41,000 unproductive debt, and voted £41,000. Dealing with co-operation he said that when it was co-operation of wine farmers it was a good thing, but what about co-operation of the workers? The one was just as much in need of it as the other.

said he did not think that this vote committed the House to the proposals put forward by the Departmental Committee. He did not know whether Parliament was going to be asked to discuss these proposals, and he thought it would be better if that debate took place when the committee’s proposals were before the House. There was no particular hurry about the vote, and this amount was only being taken out of revenue for the purposes of swelling the loan balances of the Government. He thought it would be far better to comply with the provisions of the Public Debt Commissioners Act. Money out of revenue was available for expenditure; if the Government complied with the Public Debt Commissioners Act the money would not be available for expenditure. He thought the best course for the Minister to pursue was to withdraw the vote and wait until Parliament had approved of the scheme.

said if the House voted the money the rest of the business would be a foregone conclusion. To any common-sense man like himself this was not a mere writing off of the amount, but devoting a surplus belonging to the general taxpayer to cover the losses caused shareholders who had failed in doing their duty. He was entirely opposed to the vote. However, as the Departmental Commissions and the Select Committee recommended that arrear interest and interest up to 1913 should be remitted he would agree to that, but not to writing off capital; he therefore moved that the vote be reduced by the sum of £38,844 6s. 8d.—i.e., the capital proposed to be written off.

said that it was only right to point out that the long debate was entirely due to the action of the Minister of Finance. The Minister had not considered it worth while to give a full explanation to the House as to what he intended to do with this money. If this money was voted it would simply go to swell the loan balances of the Government. He had already three millions in hand, and he wanted to swell the total by £38,000. Many a time they had seen the Minister of Finance, with his usual cleverness, pulling a colleague out of a hole, but that afternoon they beheld the somewhat unusual spectacle of the Minister of Education trying to explain away the awkward position of the Minister of Finance. (Laughter.) With this money the Government wanted to reduce the obligations of the co-operative societies, and also took the £15,000 of interest due on the amount of money lent to these institutions by the Government. He thought it only fair that the Minister should fully explain the position to the House. He understood his hon. friend intended to refer the matter to the Public Accounts Committee. If that had been done a few days ago that discussion would have been unnecessary. He thought that they should have a full statement before they allowed the vote to pass. He did not adopt a hostile attitude towards these societies; he wished to do all he could to help them. Until the Minister had supplied the House with a full statement as to the position of these societies he had no right to come to the House. He hoped the Minister would withdraw the vote.

said that he would like to make the position clear to himself, if not to the House. (Laughter.) He gathered that the Minister proposed to send the report to the Public Accounts Committee, but he was asking this House to consent to the handing over of this money. If the matter were pressed to a division, he should be compelled to vote for the deletion of this vote.

said that the Minister, in his usual way, was asking them to do the thing first and talk about it afterwards. He (Mr. Creswell) did not want this vote to be passed until the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Mines had given the House full information as to what they proposed to do in regard to the Natal coal combine. The position was that by the Post Office Act the contractors were expressly debarred from being a party to any combination in restraint of trade—he forgot the exact language—but here they found that this same company had practically cornered the whole of the Natal coal. Out of a monthly output of some 200,000 tons, this company and the companies in agreement with them commanded an output of about 170,000 tons.

said that the Natal coal was spread over an immense area, and there was only an infinitesimal portion of it being worked yet. As far as he knew, the Union-Castle Company did try to break up the small ring that there was in Natal coal. They had not been able to entirely dispose of the small ring that there was. They had a very natural combination in order to get their coal properly carried to the port and properly distributed. There was not the least danger, as far as one could see, of the combination interfering with the trade of the country.

said that the hon. member for Greyville told the House the other evening that the total output of the collieries controlled by the association was 163,417 tons last month, as compared with 8,676 tons outside the ring, of which 5,444 tons was produced by one colliery. He did not know where the hon. member got his figures, because the returns for that month were not out yet. There was a departmental notice issued for January. Of the 23 Natal collieries, there were only ten in the so-called combination. The total output for these ten collieries was for that month 163,417 tons, out of a total output of 262,376 tons. These were the exact figures, and he thought it was only right that the House should be put in possession of correct information.

said that he did not dispute the hon. member’s figures, but he wanted to point out to the House that a corner of something like 60 per cent. of the whole coal trade was going it pretty fast.

The hon. member for Greyville said all but 8,000 tons.

said that the hon. member’s figures had no effect whatever upon their main argument that the Union-Castle Company was engaged in cornering coal.

said he wished to be quite clear on this point and that repeatedly he had asked the Minister of Mines to make inquiries. All the accusations he had been making in the House had been on figures which had been supplied to him and other members also, and what he had done had merely been to ask the Minister of Mines to make a Government inquiry. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Berea said that there was an output of 98.959 tons that was not controlled by the association. From that they had to deduct 30.833 tons which came from two collieries. Durban Navigation and Hattingh Spruit, neither of which was a partner in the ring. Why? Because the Union-Castle Company had acquired a controlling interest in those collieries. The two large collieries not in the combine are prevented from joining the association by virtue of an agreement with the Natal Government, and part of that agreement was that they should not at anytime (and here the Natal Government had a little more foresight than the Union Government) join an association. But in order to show that their sympathies were with the association, although they were not allowed to join it, the Utrecht Colliery will not sell coal to Cape Town. The other colliery, however, has agreed to send coal here, but only at higher prices than those of the combine. They had some substantial evidence to go on in stating that there was a combine that had secured the whole of the shipping and export trade. He asked again in the interests of the consumer, and he was here to look after the consumer’s interests, that the Government should not accept his figures and statements, but cause an inquiry to be held as to whether those figures and statements were right or whether they were wrong.

said the position was that the Union-Castle Co. had largely got control of the bunkering trade at the ports. The only other colliery to compete with them was that belonging to De Beers, which company had its own boat running to Natal. In view of the combine which had taken place they at the ports were naturally jealous of the bunkering trade. Some time ago a deputation went to the Minister of Railways to get him to give a cheap rate down from the Transvaal collieries. The rate asked for was 1,2s. 6d. per ton, which was the rate charged on mealies and fruit for export. That would give an opportunity for those collieries outside the combine to send their coal down here. Not only that, the coal would be worth more, because there would be less breakage, and, as he had said before, the Transvaal collieries would have an opportunity of competing for the shipping trade. At the present time the collieries on the Rand had only the port of Delagoa Bay which they could use, therefore if a low rate was given them—and with these he coupled the Natal collieries—all would be put on an equality. This was the suggestion they had to make to the Minister, and he hoped it would be acted upon.

said that the collieries for some years past had been making very little money. One of the most successful had been paying ¾per cent., and he would like to know if any member present would be content with this return on his capital. These collieries were in the position that they were bound to do something or they would go to the wall. What had the association done, he asked? (A MEMBER: Put up the price of coal.) Yes, continued Mr. Henwood, a nominal 2s. per ton.

That is 10 per cent.

said he could assure hon. members they need not fear a further advance. As far as the combine was concerned, it was out of the question that it could do any damage. He thought members on the cross-benches had the least reason to find fault with any association. We have our Chambers of Commerce, insurance rings, and various other associations, and why should not the colliery owners be permitted to form an association? He could assure the House that as far as the Natal collieries were concerned, it had nothing to be alarmed at. If a Commission of inquiry was wanted they could have one. He hoped the matter would now drop. (Laughter.)

said he only rose to keep his friend the hon. member for Cape Town in position. He (Mr. Jagger) had always been opposed to combines, but was now himself suggesting another combine in order to defeat the ends of another association. The hon. member had got what he wanted by the Post Office Act, a most iniquitious Act. He (Mr. Merriman) opposed the Post Office Act, and he was in favour of the suggestion made by the hon. member.

said that the humorous part of the whole thing was that it was the action of the Government which had resulted in the formation of this combine, if there was a combine. Hon. members seemed to be getting a long way from the question before the House, which was a vote for services rendered. It was a vote in order to carry on the Mail Contract.

At this stage the hon. member was called to order by the Chairman.

I am as much in order as the hon. members on the cross benches who raised a red herring and started a hare. (Laughter.) They were asked to vote a sum of money to carry on the Mail Contract, and it had ended in a long discussion about coal. It did not seem to him advisable to go into that question at that time.

said that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had spoken of getting a special rate of 12s. 6d. for the carriage of coal from Natal and the Transvaal, and he suggested that if the Government were going to consider such a question they would take into consideration which was the most important port and that in his opinion was Port Elizabeth. (Laughter.)

referred to the suggestion of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, that the Government should try to get coal carried at a low rate from Transvaal and Natal. That was to bolster up the trade of Cape Town. He never heard a more flagrant case of provincialism; the whole country was to pay the carriage of coal for the benefit of Cape Town. He (Mr. Henderson) hinted that if steamers could not get their coal at Cape Town they would always find it at Durban.

explained to the House why he was in order. The Union-Castle Company would not supply coal to agents in Cape Town without the coal being conveyed at Union-Castle prices. The connection between the discussion was that they were asked to pay the Union-Castle a certain subsidy for work which had been done, and as they were interested parties in connection with the combine he submitted therefore that he was quite in order.

referring to the remarks of the hon. member for Victoria County, who said that the members on the cross benches were advocates of trades unions and should not criticise any combines, said there was, however, very little similarity between a trades union and a combine. The latter was formed to fleece the public, and the other to prevent the public being fleeced. There was as much difference as between a burglar and a policeman.

said he was largely interested in coal some years ago, but he found there were no dividends. At present he had no interest in coal, and he was still of opinion that the hon. member for Greyville had been drawing a red herring across the track.

I only asked the Government to pursue an enquiry.

asked if the Government was not going to tell them something about the matter, or were the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Town more significant than they appeared. If that House was not the place to call attention to the fact of a violation of the Post Office Act then where was the place? What a great change had come over hon. members with regard to combines, he remembered the hon. member for Yeoville, the Minister without Portfolio, and other members, strongly denouncing combines. To-day that was all gone now that the Union-Castle Company had got a stronger position than before, and had now gone into this combine. He regretted that the Government declined to say a single word on the subject.

put the amendment moved by Mr. Boydell, and declared the reduction negatived.

challenged a division.

As fewer than ten members (viz., Messrs. Andrews, Boydell, Creswell, Haggar, and H. W. Sampson) voted in favour of the amendment,

declared the amendment negatived.

then put the amendment proposed by Mr. Rockey, which was negatived.

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

asked whether Mr. Chairman was not going to put his amendment?

asked whether the hon. member had moved the amendment?

said that he had moved it.

was understood to say that the hon. member had not moved it at the proper time.

said that the House having divided, was it not competent to move a reduction by a less amount? Not that he desired to do so, but he inquired as a matter of procedure.

was understood to reply in the negative.

said that a misunderstanding had arisen with regard to Mr. Schreiner’s motion.

Cannot we discuss—.

No, the hon. member cannot.

The vote was agreed to.

asked for some information; but the details were inaudible.

said that the £20,800 figuring on the Estimates was a loss, pre Union, on land settlement schemes in the Transvaal. Continuing, he said that the greater portion represented losses on stock sustained by the Government prior to distribution.

The vote was agreed to.

On vote 38, Public Works, £15,200,

asked for an explanation of the item, “ Salaries, wages, and allowances, £5,000.”

said that it had been found necessary to increase the staff in order to carry out the work in hand.

wanted to know whether there was any truth in the report that the stone used for the Union Buildings was rotting away. (Laughter.)

The vote was agreed to.

On vote 39, Buildings and bridges, £38,679.

wanted an explanation from the Minister with regard to the furniture and fittings for the National Museum at Bloemfontein. He said that the Government had supplied furniture for three rooms, but five remained to be furnished. He considered that the Government should furnish the whole building, in order to prevent the destruction of specimens.

asked the Minister to explain the amount of £8,500 set down for the adjustment of the Civil Service House Loan scheme.

said he also wanted some information on the subject. He said he was astounded at the attitude adopted by members of the Government towards hon. members on the cross-benches. The Government refused to open its mouth on any subject. (Hear, hear.) The only way hon. members on the cross-benches could make them speak was to make themselves as objectionable as they possibly could. He drew the attention of the House to the unparalleled rudeness and contempt exhibited by the Ministry.

called the hon. member to order.

Well, sir—

I must call the hon. member to order. (Cries of “Order.”)

said he would bow to the ruling of the Chairman, but he was only attempting to express in a humble way what he thought about the matter.

pointed out that in the Transvaal and the Free State loans were made to Civil Servants to enable them to build their own houses. When many of these Civil Servants were retrenched, the Government took over the houses, and this money was necessary for the purpose of adjusting these loans.

said that the amount for furnishing the three rooms of the National Museum had appeared on the Estimates for the last three years. But the amount set down would only furnish three rooms.

The vote was agreed to.

On vote 40. Post, telegraphs, and telephones, £27,427,

drew the attention of the Minister to the conditions under which telephone operators were working at the Cape Town Exchange.

said that the operators had undoubtedly spent the most trying time during the hot weather, but that the department was doing its best to improve the conditions; all that could be done was being done.

said he wished to add the additional item, “Union Buildings, Pretoria, £33,000.” An amount of £300,000 was voted last year, but, as a matter of fact, an additional sum of £33,000 would be required. With reference to the question put by the hon. member for Weenen, he said that there was no truth in the statement that the stone of the Union Buildings in Pretoria was decaying, and that the building was collapsing. The truth of the matter was, he thought, that the building was quite secure.

The new item was agreed to.

The vote as increased was agreed to.

said that he would like some information in regard to the item of £25,000, Construction of dipping tanks?

said that the Land Bank Act came into operation too late to enable them to make these advances for the construction of certain dipping tanks, and consequently this expenditure of £25,000 had been necessary.

said he would like some information with regard to the item of £2,500, Loans to creameries and other agricultural products. He would like to know when the Government was going to cease bolstering up creameries and things of that kind.

moved a reduction of £1 on item No. 1, Loans to creameries and other agricultural projects.” He wished, he said, to express his dissatisfaction at the way in which this expenditure had been brought up. The way in which these votes had been taken was, he declared, a disgrace. He thought it would have been much better if the matter had been sent in the first instance to the Public Accounts Committee, so that they could have had a report showing how the money was to be spent.

The amendment was withdrawn.

said he would like to know how long this system of giving the money of the taxpayers towards supporting industries which were able to look after themselves was going to be continued?

said that the money was not thrown away, hut was advanced to the taxpayers of the Union in Parijs, Winburg, and Springfontein.

The vote was agreed to.

reported that the Estimates had been agreed to, with one amendment.

The amendment was considered forthwith by the House, and adopted.

appointed the Minister of Finance and Mr. Van Heerden a committee to draft and bring up the Additional Appropriation (1912-’13) Bill in accordance with the Estimates of Additional Expenditure, as adopted by the House.

brought up a Bill embodying the Estimates.

The Bill was read a first time, and set down for second reading on Thursday next.

moved that the House go into committee on the Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Railways and Harbours Revenue and Railways and Harbours Capital and Betterment Works Funds, respectively, during the year ending the 31st March, 1913.

The motion was agreed to.

drew attention to the large additions made during the past year in main services. He noticed that the additional amount was required in consequence of the employment of a larger staff to cope with the increase in passenger and goods traffic. Attention had been called by the Minister to the percentage of men per 100 miles employed on the South African Railways as compared with that of the railways in Australia. In the latter Colony there were 110 employed per 100 miles, while in the Union it ran as high as 537 per 100 miles—coloured labour being reckoned on the basis that two coloured men equalled one white man.

hoped the House would take note that Australia employed only white labour.

said they had been able to reduce the percentage of men per mile employed, and that reduction was now going on, but it could not be possibly effected at once.

The vote was agreed to.

Vote No. 9, Miscellaneous expenditure, £218,000.

thought a word of explanation might be offered with regard to the payment made to the C.F.L.M. administration in connection with the division of traffic receipts under the arrangement recently entered into.

said that a difficulty arose in connection with the reduction of rates of the South African Railways because it would have the effect of deflecting a large amount of traffic from the Portuguese lines, to whom they had given a guarantee of fifty-five per cent. They had to get the Portuguese authorities to agree upon a cause, as being a sufficient and proper cause for the reduction on their lines. If they once got their agreement to this being a fair cause, they could in future deal with the matter on a different basis. If they would not agree to the cause, then, under the clause, it appeared that the Union Administration would have to settle upon an alteration. It was argued that it was not necessary to deal with the question as one line, but he did not think it was possible to deal with it otherwise. If they had lost their share of the traffic, they would have to be given a share, and it was not possible to do so. They could not do so unless the rates were put up. The Convention did not intend to treat the line as a now section. There would have to be a kind of re-hooking, and that would have amounted to a breach of the spirit of the Convention. With regard to the future, it was argued that they should be given a sum of money. They would not be so bound, because under this arrangement they had agreed to a reduction of rates as being a good cause.

Is that clear? Do they accept that?

They admit that is a cause. Therefore, in future, it was merely a question of rates. They would in future not have this preliminary obstacle of having to get their consent. He thought they had got off very nicely.

said he inferred that the sum of £20,000 had to be paid per annum. It was intended, he said, to regard the railway as one from Mozambique to Johannesburg. It had been the policy of the Portuguese Government right through to increase their demands as time went on—that was very unsatisfactory; it was the Transvaal that had kept the port alive, and they could, he thought, carry on the traffic cheaper from Durban than through Delagoa Bay.

said that the original agreement had been badly and carelessly drafted. Perhaps his hon. friend might tell the House who was responsible? He (Sir T. W. Smartt) thought his hon. friend the Prime Minister, who represented a colony which entered into an agreement with the Portuguese Government, and through the laxity of that agreement the Union had to pay £20,000 a year. In drawing up agreements of that sort, the interests of the State should be considered by the Government. That had not been done in that particular case. It was the hon. the Minister of Railways who had to bear the blame, which should rightly Test upon the shoulders of the right hon. the Prime Minister.

All the members of the National Convention.

They had such trust in the legal ability of my hon. friend that they allowed him to enter into this agreement, and the State had to pay £20,000 a year for it.

spoke, but could not be followed.

asked if the Minister could not reply to a question he had asked that afternoon in reference to what action the Government was taking in connection with a report of the Select Committee on Railway Lands Appropriation?

replied that the matter was undoubtedly one of very great importance, and had been considered by his predecessor, but he saw no prospect of legislation being passed during the present session with regard to the matter.

said that the Union of South Africa now had to pay the sum of £20,000 annually in order that the mines and the Rand might have a supply of cheap labour, and he protested against that.

said that he would like to know what the additional payments were for the harbours of Port Elizabeth and East London. There might have been a reason for it at one time, but what reason was there for it now, when they were all under one administration?

asked if all the labour was white, and, if not, what proportion of it was white?

replied that they were not all white, but he was afraid he could not give the exact percentage at present. As to the subject to which the hon. member for Fordsburg had referred to, it was an arrangement which had existed before Union, but the new arrangement would do away with it.

The vote was agreed to.

Vote No. 13, Harbours, £48,000,

asked whether bunkering was paying in Cape Town at the rate the Government was charging, or whether there was a Joss?

replied that the hon. member’s question was one which involved a good many considerations. If they took the whole thing he did not think there was a loss, but he was bound to say that he could not speak definitely now with regard to the separate items. The hon. member would have abundant opportunity on the main Estimates. (Hear, hear.)

asked what was the reason for charging the railway line in Durban Harbour to the harbour account, and not to the railway account?

replied that in Durban there was a line which under the circumstances they had felt they were bound to treat differently.

The vote was agreed to.

in reply to the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), said that the view of the Administration was that it would be a perfectly reasonable amount to pay. They did not think it wise to allow that railway to be abandoned, for despite bad management in the past it had done good service in developing the country. (Hear, hear.) They had thought it wise to acquire the line, unless they had to pay too big a figure. Continuing, he said that on the 31st December, 1911, the company valued the fine at £165,000, but the Engineer-in-Chief put the valuation at £81,240, and it was calculated that to put it in thorough working order another £18,000 would be required. He did not think that it was an exorbitant sum to pay for the undertaking, and the General Manager was hopeful of making the line pay.

said that when buying a line the department always made the initial blunder of spending too much. He hoped that the Minister would keep a tight hand on the amount spent in improvements.

said that the Government in paying what it was doing appeared to be rather niggardly. He was sorry the Government could not have seen its way clear to paying the £55,000 that was asked.

asked whether the Minister was in order in getting this vote passed seeing that there was a motion on the paper dealing with the same matter. Was he not anticipating a debate?

said that the purchase was subject to the consent of Parliament. As well as obtaining the sanction of the House, he must get the money.

said he thought that the Minister was putting the cart before the horse.

thought that the agreement should be considered first.

hoped that the Minister would publish a return giving information with regard to road motor services.

moved that the Kowie Railway vote should stand over until the House had considered the agreement.

The amendment of the hon. member for Tembuland was put, and declared negatived.

The vote was agreed to.

On head No. 5, Working capital, £18,466,

asked whether Parliament was to have any say as to the routes on which the road motors were to be placed?

said that they were not introducing a road motor Bill just yet. They were only trying one service so far, but it might develop later on.

The vote was agreed to.

brought up the report of the committee.

The report was adopted.

appointed the Minister of Railways and Harbours and Mr. Van Heerden a committee to draft and bring up the necessary Bills in accordance with the Estimates of Additional Expenditure, as adopted by the House.

brought up the report of the committee appointed to draft and bring up the necessary Bills, submitting two Bills.