from A. Metcalf, chairman, and P. S. van Niekerk, secretary, of the School Board for the town and district of Cradock, praying that the House might authorise the transfer of the free grazing rights over a certain portion of the farm “Driefontein,” to the Educational Trustees of the Cape Province, for purposes connected with the proposed establishment of an Agricultural Training School in Cradock, or for other relief.

from S. Sampson, formerly a ticket printer, who entered the Cape Railway Department in 1888, and was retired in 1912, praying that the House may consider the circumstances of his case and grant him relief.

brought up the third report of the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements, Refreshment Rooms, and the management and superintendence of the Parliamentary buildings and grounds, as follows:

Your Committee, having considered the Draft Rules relating to the appointment, office and duties of the Joint Parliamentary Draftsman referred to it, and having conferred with a Committee of the Senate thereon, recommends the adoption by the House of the following rules, viz.: 1. There shall be a Parliamentary draftsman who shall be a joint officer of Parliament, and under the control of Mr. President and Mr. Speaker 2. He shall have an office in the Houses of Parliament building in a convenient position for members of either House. 3. He shall be conversant with both the English and Dutch languages, and his services shall be at the disposal of the President of the Senate, Speaker of the House of Assembly, and private members of either House, for drafting Public Bills, resolutions and amendments affecting legislation. 4. It shall be the duty of this officer to see that all Bills are properly drawn and side-noted, correct in cross-reference, and that their provisions contain proper legal hearing on existing legislation, which such Bills purport to amend, alter, or repeal. 5. It shall be competent for the President of the Senate, or the Speaker of the House of Assembly, to transmit any public Bill which may be introduced into either House of Parliament to this officer for revision. He shall also assist them with legal advice on any matter pertaining to the business of either House. 6. Whenever a Select Committee of either House of Parliament shall recommend material alterations in any Bills referred to such Committee for report, the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Assembly, as the ease may be, may at the request of such Select Committee refer such Bill or Bills with the proposed amendments to the Parliamentary draftsman for revision, before such Select Committee reports thereon to the House. 7. The Parliamentary draftsman shall, during the session of Parliament, revise from time to time during their progress through Parliament, all public Bills, and suggest any alteration which, from amendments in such Bills or otherwise, he may consider necessary or expedient: he shall also scrutinise all private Bills [tending before Parliament. 8. The Parliamentary draftsman shall, both during session and when Parliament is not in session, prepare all Bills of a public nature, amendments, and resolutions which he may be required to prepare by any of the parties mentioned in Rule 3 hereof. 9. The Parliamentary draftsman shall be at liberty to practise his profession, but shall be liable at all times, even during the recess, to render such services as he may be required to do in terms of Rule 3. 10. The Parliamentary draftsman may be removed from his office on the joint recommendation of Mr. President and Mr. Speaker, subject to the approval of the Internal Arrangements Committees of both Houses sitting together. 11. That from and after the determination of the present appointment of Parliamentary draftsman, in case of a vacancy arising at any time in the office of Parliamentary draftsman, appointment to the same shall vest in Mr. President and Mr. Speaker, subject to the approval of the Internal Arrangements Committees of both Houses sitting together.

as Chairman, brought up the First Report of the Select Committee on the management and Superintendence of the Parliamentary Library, as follows:

Your committee, having considered the draft rules relating to the appointment, office and duties of the Joint Parliamentary Librarian referred to it, and having conferred with a Committee of the Senate thereon, recommends the adoption by the House of certain rules submitted.

stated that unless notice of objection to these rules was given on or before Wednesday, the 28th instant, the rules would be considered as adopted.

brought up the report of the Select Committee on the Field of Employment of European Labour.

The report was set down for consideration on Wednesday, June 4.

Papers relating to grants and leases of land (Nos. 61 to 64).

laid on the Table Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the year ending March 31, 1914. He moved as an unopposed motion that they be referred to the Committee of Supply on the Estimates.

The motion was agreed to.

laid on the Table the Amended Loan Vote B.— Public Works. He moved as an unopposed motion that the vote be referred to the Committee of Supply on the Estimates.

The motion was agreed to.

moved after “born” to insert “of parents then domiciled.”

moved to insert, after “born,” “or naturalised.” He said he hoped the Minister would give more consideration to amendments coming from that side of the House than he was inclined to do yesterday. An important principle was involved in this amendment, and one which affected many thousand of persons now resident in the Union. They had always recognised that when they admitted a person to naturalisation they must do so with the greatest care and in view of the very serious difficulties placed in the way of obtaining naturalisation, they should see that once these people were admitted their rights were protected. The Minister had moved an amendment which curtailed the rights of persons who were natural born. It was only going to protect the rights of persons who were born in the Union if their parents were domiciled in the Union. If a person were born in the Union, surely he was entitled to come back to the Union. What had the domicile of his parents got to do with it? Now the Minister was proposing to take away from all South African-born children the right to come to this country if their parents left South Africa.

said he objected to the statement that he had not given consideration to amendments moved from the other side of the House. He hardly thought that was fair. (Hear, hear.) As to the other point, the people mentioned by his hon. friend were covered by the following section, which read: “ any person domiciled in any Province.” They had to avoid the possibility of giving more rights to naturalised persons than to British-born people.

said that they were now going to give rights to South African-born persons without mentioning naturalised persons. The Minister put in a paragraph dealing with South African-born persons, and refusing to give any consideration to naturalised persons. It was clear to him that they had taken away the rights of thousands of people by leaving them out of sub-section (e).

supported Mr. Alexander’s amendment.

said he thought that the rights of naturalised persons were being restricted under this clause.

said he would like to ask the Minister whether, if he were prepared to withdraw his amendment, he would accept an amendment on a later sub-section, dealing with persons naturalised within the Union? He would withdraw his present amendment, and move it at a later stage.

said that the clause was intended to deal with the case of people who might be passing through at the time the child was born. If the parents were domiciled here, the child would be domiciled here.

The amendment moved by the Minister of the Interior was agreed to.

Sub-section (e), as amended, was agreed to.

New sub-section (f),

moved a new sub-section to the following effect: “Any person naturalised in any part of South Africa included in the Union.”

said he was opposed to the amendment, because he wished to prevent differentiation. He thought these people were sufficiently protected under the law.

said that a man going out of the Union had not necessarily the right to come in unless it was stated so.

appealed to the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, to withdraw the amendment.

Why?

Why differentiate between the Indian in Natal and the naturalised alien? You put the alien in a privileged position.

said that this matter had excited the apprehension of thousands of people, who believed they might be prejudiced. This was one of the things that the Jewish Board of Deputies impressed upon the Minister. He was only asking the House to curry out the law of 1910. The Minister told them that these people had rights, but he would not give them their rights.

strongly supported the amendment. It would be unjust and unfair, he said, to stop a naturalised citizen from coming back.

said that while he could see that some injustice might be done, he could quite see the difficulty that the Minister had to face. What proportion of the people naturalised, for whom the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, claimed these rights, were domiciled here? If there was only a small number not domiciled, then obviously no great hardship would be done. Perhaps the hon. member would be able to tell the committee the proportion.

said that thousands of people thought they were affected. They might be wrong, and the Minister right, but the fact remained that these people thought they were prejudiced. There was nothing to prevent one of these persons being stopped. A naturalisation certificate was only valid while the person was in the Union: a naturalised person was in the same position as an alien once he got beyond the three mile limit. He thought the Minister might let the clause stand over. Thousands looked upon this as a very vital matter indeed.

said he could quite understand, after what the hon. member had said, why there were thousands who thought they would be affected. To tell him that when a man was naturalised as a British subject, and went out and came back, and that then he was not a British subject, was simply talking arrant nonsense. A man who was naturalised, and went away for a visit and came back again, was still a British subject. That, however, did not affect the question; the point was that the people concerned were amply protected by the law.

said he would like to ask the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, for an explanation upon the point. The position, as he understood it, was this, if a man was naturalised in the Union and he went away to England, as soon as he went outside the three-mile limit, he ceased to be a British subject. When the man returned within the three-mile limit, he was just as much a British subject as ever.

pointed out that the fact was that naturalisation in the Colony only had effect within the borders of the Colony. Naturalisation only held as long as the man was within the borders of the Union. He pointed out that directly a man not naturalised went away, he lost his rights. Proceeding, the hon. member said he was very sorry that he should have to press this amendment, because he knew it was very vital.

said that, speaking from a common-sense point of view, if the Minister had agreed that these people were protected under other legislation, what objection could there be in inserting this amendment and making assurance doubly sure: If the Minister did not want to have the power of differentiation, why should he refuse to put this in?

hoped the Minister would accept the amendment, because there were thousands of people who thought that their rights were being imperilled.

said he understood from the Minister that a naturalised subject was protected, but he would like to know where he was protected.

stated that a naturalised subject was protected just in the same way as a British-born subject.

put the question that the new paragraph be agreed to, and declared that the “Noes” had it.

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

Ayes—19.

Alexander, Morris

Baxter, William Duncan

Berry, William Bisset

Boydell, Thomas

Haggar, Charles Henry

Harris, David

Hunter, David

King, John Gavin

Long, Basil Kellett

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Nathan, Emile

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Quinn, John William

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

W. Rockey and J. Hewat, tellers.

Noes—65.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosnian, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Brain, Thomas Phillip

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Currey, Henry Latham

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

Duncan, Patrick

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fawcus, Alfred

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Fischer, Abraham

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Henderson, James

Jagger, John William

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Runciman, William

Sauer, Jacobus Wilhelmus

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrick Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watt, Thomas

Whitaker, George

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

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

The new sub-section was accordingly negatived.

On sub-section (f), Any person domiciled in any Province,

moved, as an amendment, in subsection (f), line 47, after “person” to insert “whether an alien or a British subject”; and to add the following proviso at the end of sub - section (f): “Provided that for the purposes of this sub - section any person who has been lawfully resident in the Union for a period of three years not under temporary permit shall be deemed to be domiciled in the Union.” The mover said that the Minister seemed to treat with absolute con tempt any amendments that he himself had not put on the paper. The amendment was to meet the case of people who had lived in South Africa all their lives, and who had not become British subjects, and who left South Africa for a period. Under the temporary domicile clause, an alien who left the Union for a temporary purpose had no right to come back again. There was nothing so prolific of lawsuits as the question of domicile, but if his amendment were accepted there would be very few lawsuits on this point. In the Canadian Act of 1910 domicile was described as three years’ residence. The Natal period was also three years under circumstances there set forth.

said surely people who bought land and property and paid rates and taxes in South Africa should be protected, after the State had taken their money. If these people left South Africa on a visit they should not be prevented from returning.

said the Canadian Act did not prescribe simple residence, but said “three years’ domicile within the terms of the Act,” meaning that the alien had lawfully come into the country—“after having landed therein within the meaning of the Act.” He would be prepared to insert a definition clause, dealing with domicile, on the lines of the Canadian Act.

suggested that the Minister should allow the sub-section to stand over.

That is not required. Domicile will come in under the definition clause latter on.

said that in the 1906 (Cape) Act there was a similar clause to the one they were now considering in reference to exemptions in respect of domicile. Domicile was there distinctly limited to persons of European birth domiciled in South Africa, who did not come under sub-sections (c) and (e) of the preceding section, i.e., who were not criminals or undesirables. He noticed that in the present Bill this was left out, and it seemed to him that they were opening the doors to criminals, and people of immoral habits. It was very important to keep out people, even if they were domiciled in South Africa, if they were criminals or undesirables. He was told that that part of the Cape Act had been most beneficial in this respect, and he therefore moved to add at the end of sub-section (f) “who does not come under paragraphs (e) or (f) of the sub-section (1) of the preceding section.”

said that he could not very well accept the amendment. It was a two-edged sword. In a country, for instance, where they had an Immigration Act, and they found a criminal of South African domicile, they deported him to his land of origin. In the same way in this country, they exercised the right to send back a criminal to the domicile to which he belonged.

said that the Minister, it seemed to him, was rather a supposititious difficulty, and he would put it to him whether it had not been proved in the past that this was one of the best weapons in the hands of the immigration officers to keep out undesirables ?

said that in clause 22 they provided for the removal on conviction of persons who were not born in any part of South Africa, which had been included in the Union. The exception they had made was in the case of persons who were born in South Africa, not domiciled..

said he was in hearty concurrence with the hon. member for Gardens, but he would suggest to him that he should temporarily withdraw his amendment.

said he thought the better course would be to let the paragraph stand over, because, if it were once passed, they would not have the same opportunity of discussing it on the third reading. He accordingly moved that the further consideration of sub-section (f) stand over.

said that he understood from the Minister that he would be prepared to move in the Canadian definition of domicile, and he would therefore withdraw the second portion of his amendment.

It was agreed that the further consideration of sub-section (f) should stand over.

On sub-section (g), Any person who is proved to the satisfaction of an immigration officer to be the wife, or the child under the age of 16 years, of any person described in paragraph (f) of this section, provided that the wife or the child (as the case may be) is not such a person as is described in sub-section (1) (d), (e), (f), (g), or (h) of the last preceding section,

said that the Minister had already accepted an amendment dealing with the point as to the satisfaction of the Immigration Officer, and had allowed the substitution of “to the satisfaction of the Board” in case of an appeal. Would the Minister accept an amendment to insert after “officer,” “or in case of an appeal, to the satisfaction of the Board” ? The other amendment he had to move was as follows: To add the following proviso at the end: “Provided that if a person of the Mahommedan faith has celebrated a lawful marriage, which is duly registered at the place where such marriage was celebrated, the wife or child of such marriage shall be protected under this sub-section.” This amendment raised a very important matter. They were aware of the great unrest which had arisen in consequence of the decision recently given by the Supreme Court of the Cape of Good Hope. He did not wish to question the legality of that decision. He thought that the decision in law was perfectly correct, because at present there was no provision under which such a marriage under the law of the Cape could be recognised. The matter was very serious, because it attacked the religious sentiment and customs of a class of people. The Minister had said that they could not allow a lot of these Indian women to come into this country, on the strength of their marriage according to Mahommedan rights. He quite agreed that this should be limited to lawful marriages. The Minister must recognise that these marriages were lawful in India. He thought that the right of admission should be limited to a marriage lawfully contracted, and to one person who came as the wife—not a number of persons. He referred to the decision of the Cape of Good Hope Provincial Court in the recent case of Esop v. Minister of the Interior. Continuing, he said that the decision had caused a great deal of unrest, and the difficulty could be met by the amendment that he had tabled. If, however, the Minister could furnish a better proviso, he would be willing to fall in with his views, so long as some proviso were added.

said that the committee had gone to great lengths to secure that any man, about whom there was any doubt, should not be admitted to this country. If a man could be kept out, why should not his wife be kept out? There was no provision to keep out a woman who might be a degenerate. If they were particular about the class of man that they allowed into this country, they should be ten times as particular about the class of women that was allowed to enter. He did not think that the committee should be swayed by sentiment in a matter of this kind. Let a man bring his wife to this country by all means, but let them take care to see that that wife was a fit and proper person. Dealing with the “abominable system under which indentured Indians were allowed to enter Natal,” he said that in many cases it had been found that the women who came out were not the wives of these men at all, but the sweepings of the streets of Calcutta or Madras. Under this a man would be able to send for his real wife and cast adrift the person with whom he had been consorting. He did not refer to Indians alone; his remarks applied to the people of any nationality. He referred to the action taken by California in regard to the exclusion of Japanese women “who were infinitely more desirable immigrants than the wives of these wretched creatures we call British subjects, but who I am inclined to call British objects.” He would rather allow ten men to enter the country than one degenerate woman. He would like to refer to a family by the name of Jukes, who were admitted into America, the descendants of whom had produced 80 prostitutes, besides several murderers, and therefore with these facts before them they should be very careful what they did.

said they were all agreed that they should take all the necessary steps to see that people coming into the country were pure in body and in mind, but the hon. member for Umlazi deliberately cast a slur upon the Indian people in his statement that they were marrying the riff-raff of Calcutta. The Indian people thought that this Act should do something to recognise the Indian wives.

referring to the statement made by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, said that the man in question had a wife in this country, and the woman who had sought to enter the country was at least No. 2, if not No. 3. The whole matter, in his opinion, had been greatly exaggerated. So long as a woman was recognised as a wife there was no trouble at all.

said the whole of the hon. member for Umlazi’s speech was met by the last section. He wanted to say that there had not been a single case of not allowing a woman, who was recognised by a man as his wife, to come in. They must, as a community, lay down certain broad principles, and one of these principles was that a man should only have one wife, and no more. They were not now going to decide what was or was not legal marriage. Now, he asked them, were they prepared to alter the marriage laws. For his part he was not prepared to do anything of the sort.

said he very much regretted the remarks of the hon. member for Umlazi, and as a member for Natal, and perhaps for many years one of the largest employers of Indians in Natal, he must really enter a protest against remarks reflecting upon the Indian population. In many respects the Indian people were very fine people indeed, and he hoped that nothing would be said to cast a slur upon them. The only question, as he understood it, was that the real wife of an Indian should be prevented from coming into this country. This did not affect the marriage law at all. The only point was whether a woman married according to the Hindoo and Mahommedan law should be allowed to join her husband in this country.

said he was very glad indeed to have given the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg an opportunity for rehabilitating himself at his (Mr. Fawcus’) expense. He would like the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg and Durban to remember that there were two classes of Indians in South Africa; the Indians he (Mr. Fawcus) had referred to were the indentured immigrants.

said the amendment would not do as it stood. He did not see why it should be limited to persons of Mohammedan faith, and precautions would have to be taken to see that only one wife was introduced by one person, and then only provided that he had not already a wife in South Africa. (Hear, hear.)

said that surely if a man came here with his wife and children it was the duty of the immigration officer to admit them, provided they conformed to the regulations.

said he would remind the hon. member for Umlazi that there were just as moral men and women among the Indian population as among the Europeans, but he would not add to the castigation that the hon. member had received. It was understood that Government was going to allow a number of Indians of a certain standing to come into the Union to act as priests and teachers. The fact which had stirred the Indians to the very depths was the slight which had been cast on their marriages. It was the duty of the Europeans to consider this feeling, and if possible to allay it. Some conditions, however, must be laid down governing the admission of a woman who had been married in India to an Indian now living in the Union. At the same time everything possible should be done to discourage polygamy.

remarked that there was a good deal in what the hon. member for Umlazi had said, and the point he raised could easily be met by inserting “fa) and (c) of the preceding section.” He moved accordingly.

said he saw that it was extremely difficult for the Minister to meet the views of the objectors without giving way on the broad principle he had outlined, and with which the Opposition agreed. Some of the Indians apparently were labouring under the impression that any marriage celebrated in India, whether it was a Mohammedan marriage or not, would be objected to. That seemed to him to be an entirely unnecessary fear. He understood that in the Transvaal there was a case practically on the same lines. The majority of the Court there held that the law was in effect as Mr. Justice Searle had held it to be, but the minority took a different view. There was no doubt that in past times we had in South Africa contemplated one way or another recognising Mohammedan marriages. According to the Cape Act of 1860, the Governor was authorised to appoint marriage officers for the purpose of solemnising the marriages of persons professing the Jewish faith and marriage officers for persons professing the Mohammedan faith. In Natal the same principle had to some extent been admitted, because under Act 2 of 1907 provision was made for recognising marriages of this kind. He was quite aware that provision was made in connection with indentured immigrants, but still the whole thing went to show that there had been in one form or another some recognition of Mohammedan marriages in South Africa.

In view of the decision which had been given, the question was: what was to be done, and he agreed with the hon. member for Fordsburg that it was difficult to see what was to be done. It was impossible, of course, to recognise the principle of polygamous marriages; and it could not be held that the discrimination was directed merely against Asiatics. There were Mohammedans who were not Asiatics. The sub-section inferred to “any person who is proved to the satisfaction of an immigration officer to be the wife.” The whole question was: what was the “wife” ? That was the point Mr. Justice Searle had to decide. He decided that this woman was not a wife. He (Mr. Chaplin) did not know why something could not be done in the direction indicated by the hon. member behind him, to say that wives of this kind must be registered, or re-married, or legalised in some way, under the Act of 1860 or a similar Act, or whether it should be understood that one wife, who was duly certified in India as having been legally married according to Mohammedan or other rites, should be recognised and allowed to come in. He had no doubt that what the right hon. gentleman had said as to instructions having been given to immigration officers in these cases would afford very considerable relief.

said that when an Indian came here with his wife, his statement that she was his wife was accepted, but if he went away to India and married a second, third, or fourth wife, then, very properly, these other wives were not allowed to enter, because this country only recognised one wife. That was the point in the case referred to, because it was pointed out that the only wife recognised as far as this country was concerned was already in South Africa. He thought the Minister had met the case as far as he could. He allowed an appeal to the Board, and said clearly that a man could bring in his wife and children.

said that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Jagger) had not read the facts of the case, as reported. All they had was the printed report of the judgment which Mr. Justice Searle delivered. He did not base his judgment on the fact that the applicant in that case had a wife already in the country. The effect of the judgment was that, if applicant was married according to Mohammedan rites in India, this country could not recognise a Mohammedan marriage, and he could not bring in even one wife, although he had never had more than one, or contemplated having more than one, wife.

said that this question was causing considerable excitement amongst the Indians in this country. They felt that a slur had been placed on their wives. He had no doubt that the statement made by the Minister would relieve the position somewhat. The judgment in the case of Esop was based entirely on the fact that the marriage was according to Mohammedan rites. He would like to see something put into this Bill that would allow such a man to bring in his wife.

said that this paragraph would neutralise paragraphs (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h), because it came to this, that they would have to carry out those sections by regulation, and they did not know what interpretation the officers of the Immigration Department would put upon the regulations.

disagreed with the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, that the discussion was a waste of time, and he thought it was a slur to suggest that the Magistrates in India would issue marriage certificates for a rupee.

said if a man was marrying his third or fourth wife in India he could get his certificate easily, but it was different if he wanted to bring it into this country. What was such a certificate worth here?

said he accepted the explanation of the hon. member, but he had got a wrong impression when he talked about the third or fourth wife. He said he knew that the man referred to had more than one wife, but they had the finding of the Judge that there was only one wife, so what was the good of drawing a red herring across the trail by suggesting there were two. It should not be impossible to add to the amendment words to show that it referred only to monogamous marriages, and the Minister should see that it was a very serious matter. They wanted something to show that they had gone through the form of marriage which was monogamous, the only difference being that the ceremony was different from the Christian form. He hoped the Minister would allow the matter to stand over or come forward with some method of dealing satisfactorily with such a serious difficulty.

said that if there were something in such a certificate to show that it was a monogamous marriage in India that should be sufficient. They should certainly do something to remove the stigma that was put upon these people.

argued that some amendment should be put into the Bill to the effect that the wife of an Indian married according to Mohammedan rites might be recognised, provided the wife was the only wife of the man, and it should not be left to the immigration officer to decide. He should not be able to call upon these people to prove that a particular woman was the woman the Magistrate saw. Reading this indefinite clause these people had no rights at all. He did not think that this section cast a slur on the people who were in the country. He thought the simple provision might be inserted, which would settle the whole matter.

The first amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, was agreed to.

The amendment of the hon. member for Border was negatived.

The proviso of the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, was negatived.

Sub-section (g) as amended was agreed to.

On sub-section (h), persons of European descent who are agricultural or domestic servants, skilled artizans, mechanics, work men, or miners, and who have entered the Union under conditions which the Governor-General has approved on being satisfied that there is not sufficient supply available within the Union of such persons at adequate wages: Provided that every person shall produce, if required, a certificate of the person authorised in any country to issue such certificates, to the effect that the intending immigrant has been engaged to serve immediately on his arrival in the Union an employer of repute at adequate wages and for a period of time to be fixed in the said conditions, not being less than one year,

said he was pleased to see that this sub-section had been included in the Act Continuing, he said that recently the hon. member for Commissioner-street me.de a statement in regard to contract labour, to which he (Mr. Oliver) took exception. He asked the hon. member for the names of the firms. He (Mr. Sampson) said that certain soft goods firms in Johannesburg were in the habit of getting large numbers of assistants out under contract at lower wages than prevailed in the town. He (Mr. Oliver) asked for the names, and the hon. member gave him the names of two firms. He had written to those firms, and he read the replies to the House, though the hon. member for Commissioner-street was not in the House at the time. One firm replied that out of 200 assistants they had only four contract assistants at that particular time, and that the standard wage was paid. The other firm, which had been in business for eight years, had only engaged two assistants outside this country—two dressmakers—who were being paid at the rate of £20 per month. The latter firm stated that if the hon. member for Commissioner-street could prove that they had imported a large number of men and paid them less than the wage prevailing in Johannesburg they were prepared to pay the sum of £250 to the Johannesburg hospital. He gave one letter to the hon. member and extracts from the other. The name of the one firm which had made the challenge was John Orr and Co., of Johannesburg, and had instructed him to say that if they had done what the hon. member had said, they would be prepared to pay this contribution to the hospital. He had also been asked by the hon. member for Commissioner-street to appoint an arbitrator, but he was not prepared to do so. Mr. Oliver, proceeding, said he had received a letter from Johannesburg asking him why he did not write to a certain firm that dealt in boots and to other firms in Cape Town? He would reply that the allegation only applied to soft goods firms in Johannesburg, and not to anybody else.

moved that the words “able-bodied” should be inserted before the word “person,” and the deletion of all the words from the word “provided” to the end of the paragraph.

said he had asked for the name of the firm because the hon. gentleman had shown him the letter in confidence.

No.

I respected his confidence.

Oh, no!

Yes, sir.

You stated the names in the House yourself.

I did not state the names in the House. Continuing, he said that when he referred to this matter he was dealing generally with the question of the importation of contract labour all over the country, and not only in Johannesburg. He had certainly laid a charge at the door of Cape Town merchants generally, and had said that a Johannesburg firm was in the habit of importing contract hands for their Kimberley branch and sending them on to Johannesburg. It was the same thing in the end, but it might lead to the withdrawal of the challenge.

said he would like to move an amendment which was similar to that of the hon. member for Weenen. He moved that all the words in line 58 from the words “on being” down to “wages” should be deleted. He thought that the hon. member for Weenen went too far. They could not stand the Hood of people being brought in here, and then finding out that the conditions were entirely different to what they imagined. It was dreadful to hoar that they in that country who wanted what people brought in—a working class of men were engaged in passing an ingenious Bill to keep the Europeans out of this country. It was a pity. It did not look well This was the only section which appeared to him to hint that they wanted to get people into this country. Who was to say what were adequate wages? The Governor-General? He wanted these words struck out, and he hoped the Committee would accept the amendment. This was the only section that gave a scintilla of evidence that they were in favour of getting white people into this country. He had never read a more absurd provision.

said he wanted to support the amendment. According to the wording of this section, the Governor-General must be satisfied of certain things. Who was to say that the Governor-General was satisfied with certain things? He hoped the amendment would be accepted, because they certainly wanted all the white people they could get to come into the country. He held that they should not be frightened by this bogey of contract labour.

supported the amendment. It was to be hoped that many farmers would come to this country, as it was not right to require them to prove that they obtained a proper salary.

desired to know how it was possible that the Governor-General should define whether there was sufficient labour, or if the wages were adequate. He believed, however, that there was sufficient machinery in the country to find this out. A man who might not have much money, side by side with a man who had a contract, might not be admitted into the country. He thought that this was putting into the Cape law something to mislead people. He submit ted to the Minister that it was really laying the door open to fraud, because in this sense there was nothing in the Act that compelled a man who entered a country under an agreement to fulfil this agreement. It would be much easier for a man, if he wanted to come into the country, to sign an agreement upon the other side.

stated he would like to point out to the hon. member one thing, and that was that many excellent men, both as workers and as citizens) would never get into the country at all unless they had come under contract. He was not very sure whether those people who talked about contract labour had not come out themselves under contract. He wanted to remind the committee that if these men would not come out except under contract they could hardly expect the employers of labour to find these men’s passage money, and not to ask for repayment.

accepted the amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West, but he could not agree to that moved by the hon. member for Weenen.

did not think the Minister had gone far enough. The Minister wanted the immigrants to have a certificate stating that they were engaged to serve immediately on their arrival in the Union an employer of repute. But that would be an onerous condition. Continuing, Mr. Meyler observed that it was rather a treat to have a clause in the Bill dealing with Europeans. At last hon. members could talk freely and say what they meant without any hidden meaning. In 1912 268,000 people left the British Isles for places oversea, and 82 per cent. of that number went to British colonies. The hon. member for Victoria West had suggested that there was a danger of immigrants being left stranded here, but if they were able-bodied men he (Mr. Meyler) thought work could be found for them, and with our broad acres the Minister of the Interior was certainly the person to do that. Many immigrants did not want to be tied to an employer for one year; in fact some people in the Old Country thought they could make their fortunes in the colonies in six months.

said the speech of the hon. member for Troyeville might have been one in support of the Bill which the Labour Party introduced to regulate the importation of contract labour. While it was quite a legitimate thing under certain conditions that men should be assisted to come out here under contract, it was essential that the matter should be regulated so that they should not be imported by men who were trying to use their wealth to undercut the wages prevalent here.

Who is to fix the standard wages?

A Wages Board.

The right hon. gentleman is, unfortunately, in industrial matters very much in the position that people were 38 or 40 years ago. (Laughter.) When he holds old fashioned views he sticks to them. If he had not stopped there he would know that trade unions organisations—

What are they? (Loud laughter.)

I will not weary the committee by giving the right hon. gentleman a few lessons in elementary economics, but I would recommend him to peruse an admirable work by Mr, and Mrs. Percy Webb, and if he studies it his contributions to debates on these subjects will be much more valuable than they are at present. I do not suggest that book as a final course, but simply as an introduction for young beginners. (Laughter.) Continuing, Mr. Creswell explained that the standard wage was usually arrived at by agreement between the employers and the men, and it was therefore easy to find out what the accepted standard wage was. The amendment of the hon. member for Victoria West was a characteristic one. Employers should not be allowed regardless of the interests of the wage-earners in the country to charter ships to bring out men at absurdly low wages by imposing on them as to the low cost of living in this country. Let the House take the bull by the horns and say it was going to allow any able-bodied workmen to come in under this clause and let it deal with contract immigrants under another Bill.

said there would be no safeguard under the amendment of the hon. member for Weenen for the men who came into the country. There were hundreds of able-bodied men in South Africa wanting employment, and he did not think the amendment would benefit the working classes. There was room for agricultural labourers, but not for artisans, and he knew of a case of a skilled European stone cutter working for five shillings a day.

said that the majority of the contracts which were made included, so far as the employers were concerned, a safeguarding clause to this effect, “provided that the work is done satisfactorily.” Who were the final arbiters as to whether the work was done satisfactorily or otherwise? The employers. If the hon. gentleman would only look round Cape Town he would see numerous instances of how it worked out. Two years ago they had the Cape Town printers’ strike.

Why?

It doesn’t matter why. I could tell the hon. gentleman why, but I should be ruled out of order, and he knows it. Proceeding, he said that men were brought out here under contract. A great many of the men who went out on strike were under contract. The benevolent employer not only paid their passages, but advanced money to them to buy their homes. That was one of the iniquities of the system. Immediately they struck work the employer took out summonses against them for immediate repayment of the moneys advanced to them, knowing quite well that it was impossible for them to pay that money immediately. Where were the men who were brought out to replace those printers who went on strike? Under the safeguarding clause, most of those men were walking about the streets of Cape Town to-day, or at any rate a good many of them, and at a time, too, when the printing trade was at its busiest. It was true that one of the occupants of those benches came out to this country under contract, but it was a contract that stipulated for the standard rate of wages. They were prepared to approve of contracts of that kind.

said that the hon. member who had just sat down Would, he was sure, do a great deal more good to his own cause if he did not assume that everybody wanted to grind the soul out of the workers. He considered that a contract for a period of years was to the advantage of the man who came out to this country, inasmuch as it protected him from being thrown on the streets after he had been here a few weeks.

said these contracts did not secure men in their employment. In nine cases out of ten these men were imported at less than the current rate of pay. (Hear, hear.) If an employer were going to treat a man fairly, why should he want to make a contract for a term at all? He would be sure of having the man’s services as long as he treated him fairly. What they wanted to see was that the conditions of these contracts were fair to the people already here. As to the clause, he submitted that it was far better to leave the whole thing open, otherwise it would leave the workmen in the country under the impression that they had been safeguarded, whereas he submitted that they had not been safeguarded by it in the slightest.

said he wished he could have the same simple faith in human nature as the hon. member for Victoria West. Referring to the question of safeguards, he quoted the case of a professional nurse who was brought to this country under a contract for twelve months, and at the expiration of that term it was agreed that she should be sent back to England at the expense of the person who brought her out, but instead of that, at the end of the period she was left stranded. When she appealed she was told that the contract was made in England, and it was useless here. He could quote other cases where people had been exploited.

withdrew his first amendment, but said he thought the other was necessary. This country, to his mind, was not in a fit condition to be limited to contract labour. They were not suffering from a large influx of white people from oversea, the position was rather the reverse, and able-bodied workmen were leaving South Africa. They must get sufficient white people in this country to resist the pressure of the blacks. He had always advocated that the more whites they could bring in who were prepared to work, the better it would be for the country. They could always find work in South Africa for those who were able and willing to work. It had been suggested that agricultural labourers should not be admitted unless they came out under a twelve months’ contract, but such restriction would keep many away. He could not see that they were going to be at a loss in this country, even if they did get a large number. They were not so overrun with white people that they could not take all of that particular class referred to. He referred to other countries that had developed, and said they had not been built up by excluding those who were prepared to go there and work. Surely they had sufficient safeguards under clause 4.

moved a further amendment to insert “And is not such a person as is described in paragraphs d, e, f, g and h, of sub-section (1) of section 4 hereof.”

said that the hon. member for Weenen seemed to have endeavoured to minimise the amount of unemployment there was in this country, but opinions were no use when figures told them that numbers of people were unable to find employment at any rate of pay. The position in the Witwatersrand district proved that they were in for a period of depression. There were other indications which tended to show that if the country had had a boom, it was passing away. It was absurd to talk of remunerative work being found for tens of thousands. Such a state of affairs did not exist at present, and could not exist under present conditions.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

continuing, said that he thought the hon. Minister had accepted the amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West rather hastily, and, instead of making the clause better, it had made it worse. The hon. member referred to contract labour, and the dishonesty of employers who got out of the contracts made with employees.

said that he did not think that hon. members on the cross-benches were doing the people whom they wanted to represent any good by misrepresenting facts in the House. The hon. member (Mr. Andrews) had charged the employers with dishonesty, and had made a general charge of dishonesty against them. He thought those contracts were for the protection of the men, and gave an instance of a man under contract, who, when he came out, was found to be unable to perform the work, and the employer had given him some solatium and paid his passage back to England. His experience was that the ordinary contractor was an ordinary decent man of the world. Employers were not all scoundrels—(hear, hear)—they were ordinary, average men, and his experience was that where cases of that kind occurred, the employer acted fairly towards his men. Where an employer sought to get out of his contract, the man could appeal to the Court, and he knew’ cases where that had occurred. They did not get “any forrader ” by casting aspersions upon the employer in the manner which the hon. member had done. He himself did not see why an independent man, who had saved a little money, and was a tradesman of some sort, should not come to South Africa and try his luck. There were a good many men in that country who held good positions who had come here as working-men.

moved, as an amendment, in section 5, sub-section (b), line 61, to insert after the words “provided that,” the words, “except in the case of Natal.” He said that there seemed to be a wish in that assembly to draw a ring fence around Natal, which, he thought, was to be deprecated. They wished them to keep their Indians in that Province, and they were not to venture out of it. If they had all these Indians in Natal, let them have as many Europeans as possible there; because they could always find room for Europeans, although they were so crowded with natives and Indians. They in Natal had never produced that unfortunate problem which had been produced in other parts of South Africa—the poor white. Whatever the reason, the fact remained that they were not troubled with the poor-white problem in Natal, and they had room for as many European immigrants as they could get hold of.

This clause provided that no European workman and no agricultural servant could come into the country unless he had a guarantee of twelve months’ employment. Now there was no necessity for that. Surely it was an infringement of the individual’s rights to go to any country he could, especially under the British flag, and make the best terms he could. In addition to the other disabilities, this poor, wretched individual, who might smuggle himself into a country with an eleven months’ agreement, instead of twelve, was liable to be arrested without warrant. They would not treat a criminal worse than this, and yet this was the man whom they ought to be holding out both hands to.

said he thought the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, in stating that his hon. friend had declared that all employers were prepared to break their contract, had rather overstated the case. What his hon. friend (Mr. Andrews) had in mind was cases which had come within his own experience. He (Mr. Sampson) remembered a case in Port Elizabeth where a dispute occurred between an employer and his workmen. A man was got out, the men were defeated, and at the conclusion of the strike, the employer, instead of turning round to this man and thanking him for his assistance, told him that he had no further use for him.

said that, whilst sympathising with the hon. member for Umlazi in his efforts to exempt Natal from this section, he must take exception to the hon. member’s remarks that there were no poor whites in Natal. There might be very few poor whites in Umlazi or about his farm, but if he went to the towns of Natal he would find a good many more poor whites than he seemed to be aware of. The number would have been still greater had it not been for the fact that the men had left the country when it was no longer possible to get work. Since last Census, 4,000 white men had left Natal. In regard to the remarks made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, he did not think his hon. friend (Mr. Andrews) had said that all employers were prepared to break their contracts, but it was left open in the contract, so that if they chose they could break it at very little cost. He had in his hand a contract which provided that a man might be instantly dismissed from this particular company’s service for insobriety, incompetence, or bad conduct. He was surprised at the ingenuity displayed by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) in assuming that having a period in a contract was a benefit to a workman. What benefit was it to any man who came out here under contract and found that he was working at lower wages than other men employed on the same work? In a good number of cases the men had made complaints about their contracts, and that they had been got out under false pretences. They on those benches said that the people in the country claimed that they should have the first opportunity of getting any work that was going, and that, if men were got from overseas under contract, they should be brought out on terms of equality with the workmen already employed here. They said: “Bring them here under contract after you have satisfied yourself that that particular labour is not available in this country, but bring them in under the same conditions as those who are labouring in this country at the present time.” In Canada the law embodied similar principles to those they were now asking for in this country, and it had not stopped immigration. It was the same in Australia. He hoped hon. members would do what they could to protect the people in this country.

said that, as an old politician, he would have thought the hon. member for Port Elizabeth would have known what went on in other Provinces. He would ask him what it was that changed the Natal law. He would tell him what it was. A very large firm in Durban brought out a young man from England, where his contract was made. Shortly after his arrival the firm informed the young man he must accept lower pay or retire. He quoted his agreement, and was told that the contract had not been ratified in Natal, and therefore had no force. Then hon. members would remember the building of the Durban Town Hall. Many men were brought from England and Australia on contract. Shortly after they got to Natal they were told their contracts would be broken, and they had to agree or go on the streets. Such occurrences were very ugly, but they were common. When the hon. member for Umlazi said there were no poor whites in Natal, he used the term in a technical sense, he thought. There were a large number of unemployed men there. He hoped the whole clause would be cut out. It was not only useless, but was absolutely mischievous. It seemed to him that an artisan could not come to this country unless he had a special permit.

said it was very evident that if hon. members had paid any attention to the arguments put forward by his colleagues, they had also ignored them. They had given concrete cases. The hon. member for Weenen said there was room in South Africa for he did not know how many thousands. He agreed there was room in this country for ten million. But was the hon. member, aware that there had been eight thousand applications for work on the railways by white men. Out of that number only 400 had got employment, the balance were still kicking about this country looking for work. They had got to provide opportunities for men before they invited them to come here. It had been said that doctors knew nothing about this question. He would show that they did. Doctors came to this country as contract hands, and under very bad circumstances, too. He knew of a young doctor who was brought out from London by a doctor in Benoni under contract at £40 a month as an assistant, and not only did he have to contract to serve that doctor for that sum, but he was also caused to sign an agreement that at the termination of the contract he would not practise within a radius of five miles for a period of five years. At the end of his time the young doctor discovered that another young doctor had been brought out to fill his place at £55 a month. The majority of the contract hands came out here under a misapprehension. The hon. Minister was misdirecting his energy. It, only told against the men who signed the contract because the employer was always safeguarded and could always break the contract. It had been stated that an employee had recourse to the Courts, and theoretically he had, but how many workmen could afford to do that? They were beaten before they got there, and they knew that quite well. In conclusion, the hon. member appealed in the interests of the country to the committee not to flood the country with people for whom work could not, possibly be found under present conditions.

said he would not have spoken further but there had been so many references made to the attitude of the employers. He denied the implication of the hon. member for Roodepoort. The hon. member proceeded to quote from a sworn statement of an employee, which had been sent down from Pretoria, a man named Evans who was a printer by trade, and who had been discharged owing to slackness of work. According to the statement it appeared that after his discharge he had the chance of getting further employment. After waiting from July to September he and his family—he had seven children—became very much reduced in circumstances, and he was sold up.

It is a pack of lies!

said that his hon. friend would have his chance afterwards. They must bear in mind that he was quoting from a sworn statement. Proceeding, he said that the man had a chance of getting work at a non-Union place, but was prohibited from doing that although in a state of semi-starvation, but later on he did get work, and was hauled up before a committee of employees and cross-examined, and when he pointed out that he had eight to support and if he were not allowed to work there it meant starvation, the reply was that he must starve on principle. When he got employment at a Union shop he was refused a permit, after being kept waiting a considerable time. That was the story of a man who was out of work and his treatment by his fellow workmen.

said the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had misunderstood him.

said that originally he believed the individual mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had come out under contract, and was one of the type of people whom they were so anxious to protect. As chief official of the Union concerned in the matter, he would not give the real reason, because he did not want to injure the man. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had not taken the trouble to read the published answer to that indictment. If a man was a member of a Union he was supposed to conform to the rules of the Union. The conditions were very different from the conditions prevailing in other offices, and he submitted that the Union had the right to interfere in that matter in the interests of the majority of the printers in that country. Proceeding, the hon. member pointed out that he moved an amendment to insert certain words. He thought it was very necessary that those words should be inserted. If it was not the intention of the Minister to agree to the insertion of those words, would he kindly give a reason for leaving them out.

also wanted to know if the hon. Minister considered the amendment seriously. If he thought it was unnecessary he should tell them the reason.

said he saw the seriousness of their time being absolutely wasted.

said they were accustomed to receiving scant courtesy on those benches. Did the hon. Minister mean that all sorts of undesirables would be allowed to come into the country if they had a contract? He went on to say that if the hon. Minister thought he was going to save time over the Bill by taking up the attitude he was doing he would not get his Bill through very quickly.

said he hoped the amendment would be accepted, if his amendment was not accepted.

asked if the Minister did not think they on the cross-benches were worth a reply. Was he going to accept that amendment, and if not, would he tell them why? He would point out that they were members of the House Were they not worthy of a reply?

said he hoped he might appeal to the sense of the members who had really wasted an enormous amount of time. (Labour cries of “No,”) He said so deliberately. Do let them try to use a little common-sense.

said that if the proviso suggested by the hon. member for Commissioner-street were not inserted, any epileptic, robber of murderer might enter the Union, provided they came in under contract.

Nonsense.

I venture to say that if the right hon. member for Victoria West had pointed this out the amendment would have been accepted with alacrity. We cannot help it if the Minister takes up this hostile attitude. If the Bill is not in accordance with what we think is right surely to goodness we are within our rights in trying to make it right—otherwise what are we here for?

Mr. Merriman’s amendment was carried, but those of Mr. Meyler, Mr. Fawcus and Mr. Sampson were negatived.

Sub-section (h) as amended was agreed to.

On the proviso, Provided that nothing in this section contained shall be construed as entitling a person to whom the provisions of sub-section (1) (a) of the past preceding section apply, to enter and reside in a Province in which he has not previously been lawfully resident: Provided further that if any person, having been absent for a period of three years continuously from a Province in which he was previously lawfully resident, or for a longer period than the duration of a permit issued under the authority of any law hereby repealed, claims to enter, enters or is found in that Province, he shall not be deemed to fall within the exemptions contained in this section.

moved the following amendments: To insert the following new sub-sections, to follow sub-section (h): “ (i) Subject to the special leave of the Minister, any person going to a relative who is willing to support him, and who has means of reaching such relative; (j) subject to the special leave of the Minister, any person who proves that he is seeking admission to this Union solely to avoid persecution or punishment on religious or political grounds or for an offence of a political character or persecution involving danger of imprisonment, or danger to life or limb, on account of religious belief.” In line 73 to omit all words from “Provided” to “section,” in line 80. The mover said it very frequently happened that a brother living in South Africa wanted another brother to join him in business, or an uncle required a nephew, and they were prepared to provide for them, but such cases were not covered in the Bill. The Act of 1906 laid it down that persons fleeing from religious or political persecution should not be compelled to provide the same means as others.

said the amendments were provided for in another part of the Bill. He hoped the Union would always have Ministers who would be prepared to recognise that political refugees—provided they were the sort we could respect—should always be exempt. That was provided for in the general exemption, but he hoped the power would not be used in cases where politics and something worse were mixed up.

withdrew his first two amendments.

said that it was with a good deal of diffidence at this late stage of the session that he asked the House to consider a rather new subject. He moved the insertion of the following: “Provided, further, that nothing in this section contained shall be construed as entitling any native labourer domiciled in any territory beyond the borders of the Union to enter and reside within the Union after January 1, 1917.” The House had discussed this matter in a more or less general way, but he thought this was a very good opportunity to give a period to the labour contracts. It might be that the amendment was quite unnecessary, and that the Minister might have the necessary powers. Owing to the shocking mortality of tropical natives, the fact was entirely lost sight of that the mortality amongst East Coast natives was three times as great as that amongst the natives of Natal and the Cape Province. He would ask the Minister of the Interior to consult the Minister of Native Affairs. For 20 years the Minister of Native Affairs had been a convert to the doctrine put into the report. Only about 48 hours ago the Minister had told them with immense feeling that he would never do this, that or the other against his convictions, and here for twenty years he had been in the position under which he forgot his convictions.

was understood to say that it was reverting to section (d).

said that the proviso was to this effect, that nothing in that section would enable the putting into operation of section (d) after January 1, 1917. It was the usual practice to make a time limit, and had been done in other Bills.

was understood to say that if it was of such importance to put in a time limit, why not put it in at the proper place? So far as he could see, the amendment was quite unnecessary, and an afterthought, and therefore he was not prepared to accept it.

said that the clause might affect the salvation of South Africa, but because it was an “afterthought,” the Minister would not accept it. He had had that amendment on his desk ever since that sitting. He had already suggested that the further consideration of that clause should stand over.

asked whether the hon. member (Mr. Creswell) seriously proposed to prohibit a coloured gentleman from walking over the boundary, and going to any part of the Union he liked. The hon. member talked very glibly about the Minister of Native Affairs, but for the past 20 years Kimberley, or from the time when it began, 40 years ago, had, to his certain knowledge, been entirely worked by natives, who had come from beyond the Zambesi, and tramped down here. They were most undesirable, and until they had been fed up they could not work at all. They were like walking skeletons, and came down in skins —perfect wild savages. It was a most ridiculous proposition to his mind.

said that the right hon. gentleman was, as usual, delicious and charming. He was going to prevent them from recruiting in someone else’s territory. He was going to allow a number of these coloured gentlemen to come to the border. They could come with a recruiting agent within 100 yards of the border; then he could leave them, and they could come in as free and independent gentlemen. If they wanted to put a stop to recruiting then they would have to put a stop to it by such a step as this. When they said that they should set a period to it, give them 3½years to make their arrangements, then the Minister said, “Why put a time limit? Why look ahead like that?” What on earth then were they to do?

said that if the amendment moved by his hon. friend were an afterthought, then he and his friends on those benches were erring in excellent company. In the draft Bill nothing was said about stopping these natives from north of 22 degrees latitude south, but the amendment which had been moved by the Minister was an afterthought. The only way in which they could cope with this was to set a time limit. They could not stop recruiting in these particular territories, unless they put a stop to the whole of the recruiting outside the borders of the Union. They had no check whatever upon the recruiting outside their own borders.

The amendment was negatived.

The amendment moved by Mr. Alexander to omit the proviso was agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 7, Saving as to persons referred to in Chapter 33 of the Orange Free State Law Book,

asked whether the Indians of a certain character, who were to be allowed to come into the country, would have admission into the Free State?

They will have a right to come there, subject to all the conditions appertaining to Indians in the Free State.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 9, Arrest without warrant of suspected prohibited immigrants and search for same under warrant,

moved that the sub-sections be taken seriatim.

Agreed to.

On sub-section (1),

moved, in sub-section (1), after “may,” to insert, “if there is reason to believe that the delay occasioned by obtaining a warrant would enable such person to evade the provisions of this Act.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Sub-section (1), as amended, was agreed to.

On sub-section (2),

moved in sub-section 2, before the word “person,” to insert “named or described,” and to delete the words “such person” for “the person named or described in that warrant.” He said it would simply bring the clause back to the condition it was in last year. Last year if they wanted a search warrant they had to name or describe the person they were looking for. If they allowed a general warrant innocent people would be harassed simply because of the wide powers given by the warrant.

said he would like to meet his hon. friend; but the view of the department was that many of these cases arose from men who escaped from ships and there, was a difficulty in naming them.

said a general description would suffice.

said if that was the case he would accept it.

The amendment was agreed to.

The sub-section as amended was agreed to.

On clause 10, Prohibited immigrant not exempt from Act by reason that he was allowed to enter through oversight, etc.,

suggested the omission of the clause for the purpose of substituting: No prohibited immigrant shall be exempt from the provision of this Act or the regulations or be allowed to remain in the Union, if his residence therein is unlawful, merely by reason of his entry therein. Proof adduced within twelve months after any person has entered the Union that he is of any of the classes whose entry is prohibited shall be sufficient evidence that such person was a prohibited immigrant. He said it would put a time limit. Under the Bill as it stood they could harass a man all his life if they could prove that 20 years previously he had slipped into the Union. He wanted a limit fixed to the time a man would be liable for such an, evasion.

said this might lead to a lot of evasions. As a matter of fact, if they found a man who had behaved himself he was left alone. There was no danger of a decent man being turned out who had been here for some time.

thought the Minister should consent to some time limit.

said he rather sympathised with the amendment. If a man had been here for five years he should be allowed to stay.

On clause 11, Power to board ships and regulate the intercourse of ships with the shore.

moved that the sub-sections be taken seriatim.

Agreed to.

On sub-section (2),

moved, in sub-section (2), line 69, to omit “prohibit or”; on page 12, line 6, to omit “prohibition or,” and to add at the end of the sub-section the following: “Provided that reasonable facilities for such communication shall be given to the bona fide owner or owners and the agents and representatives of the ship, and provided further that reasonable facilities shall be afforded to any person or immigrant on board the ship to communicate with his friends or legal advisers ashore.” He said he wanted to leave the Minister the power to regulate communication with the shore, but he thought he should leave out the words “prohibition or.” If they prohibited all communications with friends a man could do nothing.

rose to support the suggested amendment, and agreed chat it was not right that the Immigration Officer should have the right to prohibit. If the Immigration Officer had power to prevent communication with the shore, he was afraid that the ordinary working of the ship would be interfered with.

contended that that power was in operation at the present time.

Not by law.

said that they could not very well do without it.

said his amendment said that under that Bill it would be possible to prevent communication with the shore, so that people might have to go straight on to Australia and never have an opportunity of communicating at all. What he wanted to do was to present the Immigration Officer having more power than he should have.

said that it was only during the time that the examination was going on, and that was a very brief period. To say that they should not prohibit was equivalent to saying that they should give opportunities to those who were anxious to get away with the assistance of those on shore.

suggested that they should accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle. As to the amendment on the paper he would move to add: “provided that in all cases where an immigrant has been refused admission into the Union or has been deported therefrom, the Immigration Officer shall within twenty-four hours thereof, transmit in writing to the Minister the reasons for the withholding of admission or for the deportation.” He thought that the information should be given to the hon. Minister, and he wanted to throw the obligation upon the Immigration Officer to do that within 24 hours, so that the Minister would be aware in reasonable time of any cases of deportation within that period, and the reasons why any person had been refused admission.

formally moved, if the amendment to sub-section (2) of Mr. Alexander was accepted: In, line 1, after “or,” to insert “prohibit or regulate.” The amendment only regulated communications, and did not prohibit them.

supported the amendments.

said he hoped the hon. Minister would accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, which would give the Immigration Officer all the power he needed.

said some hon. members spoke as if the immigration officers were criminals who were trying to do unlawful acts.

thought it was a great pity the Minister should be obdurate on this very simple point.

said he thought the proviso moved by the hon. member for Von Brandis was totally unnecessary.

was of opinion that it was necessary that a man prohibited from landing by the immigration officer should have an opportunity of communicating with his friends on shore.

said he would deal with that point by regulation.

The first part of the amendment proposed by Mr. Alexander and the amendment proposed by Mr. Nathan were negatived, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Meyler dropped.

The proviso proposed by Mr. Alexander was withdrawn.

Sub-section (2), as printed, was agreed to.

On sub-section (3), For the better carrying out of the objects and purposes of this Act any port captain or harbour master may, at the instance of an immigration officer, order the master of any ship to moor or anchor the ship in the harbour at such distance from the shore or landing place or in such position as the port captain or harbour master may direct,

asked what was the object of the clause.

supported the clause. The other day a ship with Japanese immigrants arrived in Table Bay bound for another part of the world. If that ship had been moored in the docks he would defy anyone to see that none of the passengers got ashore.

said a Union-Castle liner might be dealt with in the same way. Every steamer, and not merely a Japanese emigrant ship, could be ordered about by the immigration officer.

said that, unfortunately, they could not differentiate, and they must leave it to the common sense of the immigration officer.

said that he hoped the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, would accept the amendment. (Laughter.) If the amendment was not agreed to it would make the immigration officer more important than the harbour master. He thought it would be giving the immigration officer too much power.

Sub-section (3) was agreed to.

On clause 12, Duty of the master of the ship to furnish certain lists of returns to immigration officers on demand,

moved, as an amendment, in subsection (d), line 28, after the words “cases of,” to insert “infectious”; in line 29, to omit “whether infectious or otherwise.” He thought it would be sufficient for the medical officer to state all cases of disease on the ship.

asked whether that would be in keeping with the clause passed the previous evening.

Mr. Alexander’s amendment was negatived.

moved, as an amendment, in line 36, after the word “Union” to delete the words “the Minister may, subject to such rules as he may make for the guidance of the master, exempt,” and insert the words “shall be exempted.” He said that the idea of that amendment was that if a ship went to more than one port in the Union the owners should be exempted from the onerous burden of putting up the list of passengers at each port that was called at. Surely they did not want that bother at every port.

asked how the master of a ship was to know whether the Minister was going to exempt or not

said that the word “may” was put in, because in 99 cases out of 100 he would be exempt.

The amendment was negatived Clause 12 was agreed to.

On clause 13, Detention of suspected prohibited immigrants in the ship,

moved that the sub-sections be taken seriatim.

Agreed to.

On sub-section (1),

moved, as an amendment, in line 42, to omit all the words from “and” to “person” in line 44, and to substitute the words “to whom it has been personally notified by an immigration officer that he is, and who is declared by such officer to the master.”

The amendment was agreed to.

moved, as an amendment, sub-section (1), line 54, to omit all the words from “in” to “shore,” and to substitute “at an immigrant station.” The hon. member said it would then be the duty of the Government to establish immigrant stations where prohibited immigrants could be detained. He had been told some years ago that prohibited immigrants had been detained in a place where mules and donkeys were kept.

said that it was very desirable that the Government should provide places for the proper accommodation of immigrants.

The amendment was negatived.

On sub-section (2),

said that he had an amendment to move, which involved an important principle affecting shipping companies. The Minister was really asking them to pass an absurdity. Under this sub-section a man might be taken from the ship and placed in a detention depot at Green Point, and yet he was said to be in the custody of the master, although he might have left with his ship. They could not make the master responsible for the custody of a person if that person was no longer in his custody. He thought that once the Government removed a man from the ship to the shore they should take the full responsibility for the custody of that man. He therefore moved to omit the words “ or any such other place aforesaid.”

said it seemed to him that this was a fair amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

said this might lead to a man being kept on board a ship, and might be really to the detriment of the master.

The sub-section as amended was agreed to.

On sub-section (3),

said that very great powers were placed in the hands of the immigration officer, and although he had given notice of an amendment to omit this sub-section, he would content himself by voting against it.

moved to omit “£100” for the purpose of inserting “£20.” He said he thought that the sum stated in the sub-section was excessive.

said that both the Natal law and the Cape law said “not exceeding £100.” He moved after “or” to insert “pay the cost mentioned in sub-section.”

Mr. Henderson’s amendment was negatived.

The amendment of the Minister of the Interior was agreed to.

The sub-section, as amended, was agreed to.

On sub-section 5,

said that the clause stated that the owner should convey “the said person in another ship free of charge to the place outside the Union at which such person boarded the first mentioned ship.” Now he took it was meant that he should be conveyed free of charge to the Government. He moved to insert after “charge, to the Government.” He also moved that the words “at which such person boarded the first mentioned ship” should be omitted. He thought it was quite sufficient to state that the person should be removed to a place outside the Union. He moved to omit “the” before “place,” and substitute “a,”

The amendment was agreed to.

The sub-section, as amended, was agreed to.

New sub-section (7),

moved to insert the following new sub-section, to follow sub-section (6): “(7) The master or the owner of a ship shall have the right of appeal to a superior. Court.” He said that a master might be told that he had the right of appeal, but he had not the right of appeal from the Board. The Minister might fine him £100, and, if he did not pay, sell his ship.

The amendment was negatived.

On clause 14, “Responsibility of master and owner of ship for landing of prohibited immigrants,”

suggested the omission of this clause and to substitute: If after a ship has arrived at any port, any prohibited immigrant lands from the ship at any port owing to the negligence, connivance or knowledge of the master or owner, the latter shall forfeit a sum to be fixed by the Resident Magistrate of the port, but not exceeding £20 in respect of every such prohibited immigrant. He said the existing law only made the master liable if a prohibited immigrant landed owing to his negligence or connivance. The amendment was the existing law.

said that if the Minister could not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, he hoped he would accept the one he was about to move. The clause as it stood really went too far. He moved in lines 21 and 22 to omit “any prohibited immigrant lands” and to substitute “the immigration officer has notified the master or the owner that any person or persons on board such ship is a prohibited immigrant, and such person or persons lands or land.”

said he would accept the amendment of the hon. member for Weenen.

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 15, Responsibility of master for crew,

moved the deletion of the words “suspected of being.” He said he did not consider the master should have those responsibilities placed on him. If a master had to declare those of his crew who were suspected of being prohibited immigrants, he would declare the whole lot to save trouble. He thought that only those who were actually prohibited immigrants should be declared.

The amendment was negatived.

moved to insert a new sub-section (4), to read: “If the master or owner of, the ship has made proper provision for police protection he shall not be responsible for any contravention of the provisions of this section.” That sub-section dealt only with the crew of the ship. That provision had been found necessary in Natal. When a ship came into the port there and the immigration officer informed the master of the ship that certain members of his crew were prohibited or suspected to be prohibited persons, the master was willing to do all he could to prevent them leaving the ship, but he was freed from liability, and that was but reasonable. The authorities would find the necessary police to prevent those people from landing, and the cost was met by the master or owners. The new sub-section did not apply to passengers.

moved in line 35 to delete “£100” for the purpose of inserting “£5.” He wanted to prevent possibilities of great injustice.

The amendment was negatived.

said he could not accept the proposed new sub-section (4). He quoted one case where a large number of Asiatics had escaped, and experience had satisfied him that It was necessary to keep the clause as it was in the Bill.

The amendment of the hon. member for Durban, Berea, was negatived.

Clause 15, as amended, was then agreed to.

On clause 16, Until any sum which has been forfeited under sections 13 or 14 has been paid, or any sum which is to be deposited under section 15 has been lodged, no clearance papers shall be given to the master or owner. The ship may be declared executable by order of a superior court to satisfy any forfeiture incurred or deposit required under any of those sections,

moved the insertion of the following: “Provided that the Court shall have the power of reviewing, revising, or reversing the decision of the Minister or the Immigration Officer, as the case may be.”

I will accept that. (Laughter.)

No. (Renewed laughter.)

I understand that the junior counsel for the Crown has accepted that. (Laughter.)

The proviso was negatived, and the clause was agreed to.

On clause 17,

moved: To omit this clause, and to substitute the following: “The proper Officer of Customs at any harbour may refuse to give the master of any ship clearance papers to leave that harbour until such master has complied with the provisions of this Act, and produces a certificate of an immigration officer of such compliance.”

Agreed to.

suggested that progress be reported, and leave obtained to sit again.

agreed, and moved accordingly.

The motion was agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again to-morrow.