from T. E. Welsh, formerly district locomotive foreman, South African Railways, at Queen’s Town, who, with the exception of a break in his service in 1883, has served in the Railway Department continuously since 1881, and has contributed to the Pension Fund since 1884, praying that his services during the period he did not contribute to the Pension Fund may be taken into consideration in the calculation of his pension, or for other relief.

with leave, asked the Minister of Mines: (1) What special measures, if any, have been taken to ensure that no breach of the regulations has taken place underground at the New Kleinfontein during the last week, when no certificated white miners have been going underground; and (2) whether he is aware that clause 41 of the Mining Regulations was contravened on Friday and Saturday last by white mechanics working underground pulling out machinery while there was no certified engine driver in charge?

replied: (1) Since the strike on the New Kleinfontein commenced, the Government Mining Engineer has had inspectors on the mine daily. (2) It has been reported to me that clause 41, paragraph 1, of the Mining Regulations was contravened at the Apex Mine on the date mentioned. I have called for a report from the Government Mining Engineer. When that report is received the question of further action will be considered.

said he did not think there was much to be said in regard to this line. It was included in last year’s measures.

said he thought it would have been a better paying line if it had been made from the North.

said that the reason why it was proposed to be constructed as stated was that it would serve for the carriage of coal, produce, etc.

The item was agreed to.

said that this was the first section of the Aliwal North-Wepener line. It had been urged that the connection should start from the north, from the Wepener end, instead of at Aliwal North. That matter had been carefully gone into, and his advisers were strongly of opinion that the beginning should be from the south. There was a difference in regard to the route suggested last year, and that was that the route now proposed would serve not merely the agricultural necessities of Aliwal North, but would also serve the townships of Rouxville and Zastron. It involved a deviation rather more to the eastward than the previous route. He was told, however, that that made very little difference.

said he thought the Minister might give the House some information as to the estimated cost of this line, £5,000 a mile for a light developing line.

said that the amount of money which would be involved included the possibility of a large bridge over the Orange River. He had an idea that it might be possible, by strengthening the present bridge, to avoid the necessity of erecting another bridge.

said that, if there were a saving, he hoped it would not be expended upon an extension of the line, as they had seen it proposed in another case.

said that the hon. member could rest assured that there would be no question of spending any possible saving upon any extension without his having a voice.

The item was agreed to.

said that this was the only heavy line proposed to be built in the Free State. He would like to know why a heavy line had been proposed?

said it was anticipated that fairly heavy traffic would go over the line.

said it was perfectly obvious that this was a line that was not to develop the Free State.

Certainly not.

said that if the line were built, the object was to divert the traffic from one set of ports to another set of ports.

Which ports?

My hon. friend ought to know.

And you ought to know.

That is an unnecessary question. Proceeding, he said that his point was that, with the limited capital they had at their disposal, they should build railways, not for the purpose of diverting traffic, which was satisfactorily carried from one set of ports to another, for the benefit of a few forwarding agents in Natal. What he wanted to put to the Committee was: what advantage was the country going to get by building a heavy line purely to divert traffic?

said he was not surprised to hear the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, speak as he had done. Of course, he was entirely provincial. This line was in order to divert the traffic in that district to its nearest port —a perfectly useful and justifiable line.

said he hoped his hon. friend (Sir E. H. Walton) would not oppose this line. Personally, he looked upon it as one of the most useful lines in the schedule. It gave the Western Transvaal another market for their products. He thought it was very wise to make it a heavy line.

said it was quite evident that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, did not know the country between Kroonstad and Vierfontein, and that he spoke from the depths of his ignorance. Perhaps he did not know of the valuable coal deposits in the vicinity of the Rhenoster River and right down to the Vaal River, which this railway would do a great deal to open up. He noticed that the Minister took power to construct this line from a point in the neighbourhood of Kroonstad. He would urge that this point should be America Siding, and that the line should pass on the north side of Rhenoster Kop, instead of on the south. He trusted that the Minister would not be tied down to the details of the Board’s report.

congratulated the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, on taking a broad view of the matter. The remainder of the hon. member’s remarks were inaudible in the Press Gallery.

was understood to congratulate the Minister on bringing forward what had been a long deferred line.

said that if the hon. member for Port Elizabeth had made a closer investigation of the line, he would have found that it would serve a large number of people on the western side of the Transvaal, and many people in the Free State. The route lay in the natural direction through which their goods should go to reach the most natural port.

said that all had admitted that the object of the line was to damage one port in favour of another. (Cries of “No.”) He hoped that they would be disappointed. He thought that the loss would be greater than the estimate, and the position, from the railway point of view, would be very much worse than was imagined. He protested because the port which he represented would be injured by this line. It was a dangerous principle and a waste of public money, and when applied to the disadvantage of Natal there would certainly be a big outcry.

The item was agreed to.

said that this showed a complete change of front on the part of the Railway Board. The line had been agreed to on the casting vote of the Minister, and he would point out that nobody was more than thirty miles from the existing lines of railway at the present. Places like Douglas, Ladismith, Fraserburg, and Kenhardt were much more in need of a railway than this place Why has Boshof been left out? Last year the Board would not recommend the line, and no reason had been advanced why Bothaville should be favoured on this occasion.

supported the proposal, and said that the last speaker was wholly unacquainted with the West of the Free State. Bothaville would come within 40 or 50 miles of the Kroonstad line. The Vaal River made it impossible for them to use the Fourteen Streams line. Between the Vet River and the Vals river they found the best country in the Free State, but the roads were so bad that transport was almost impossible by wagon. Transport by wagon to Kimberley cost from 9s. per bag of mealies, and the farmers found such a price was impossible. The country through which the line would run was amongst the best dry land in the Free State, the inhabitants at present being unable to do anything with their products, owing to the fact that they could not reach the markets. The hon. member regretted the provincial attitude taken up by Mr. Jagger, and urged that the position of the agricultural community and of the mines should be taken into consideration. The proposed line, he held, would open up a rich coal-bearing country. About eight hours on horseback from Bothaville they found the coal beds at Zandspruit, which could be worked in the same way as those at Koffiefontoin and Jagersfontein.

wished to know whether it was the intention in the near future to extend the Vierfontein-Bothaville line in the direction indicated in last year’s railway report. The speaker had never pleaded for Boshof as a town, but as a district. He had taken broad views on the subject, and would be glad to know what were the plans of the Government in that respect.

pointed out that with the extension of the railway it had been found that there was considerable development of agriculture in the Bothaville district. The building of this line was an acknowledgment on the part of the Government of the claims of the Western Free State, and if he, the Minister, was allowed to remain in office sufficiently long, it was his intention to have that line extended. (Hear, hear.)

regretted that he was not able to follow the Minister of Railways and Harbours. He understood from last year that the line was to start from Vierfontein, and join the main line at or near Kroonstad. If there was one thing that he would like to call the Minister’s attention to, it was the singular lack of information they had with reference to these lines. He did not know whether it was possible to collect this information, but he thought an effort should be made to put it in the reports. In this case, however, he had no doubt that this was a district that ought to be developed.

thought his hon. friend (the Minister of Railways and Harbours) ought to give the House more information. From the report in his possession, he found that the Board recommended that the line be extended to Bothaville, and that hereafter, when an opportunity offered, it would be extended along the Valsch River to the neighbourhood of Kroonstad.

You are reading from the recommendation last year. (Laughter.)

Well, we will want a good deal more information to explain why the Board changed their minds. Proceeding, the hon. member said that, when they looked at the map of the Union, and saw the thousands and thousands of square miles of country yet undeveloped, were they justified in constructing two lines of railway running practically through the same area? The Minister had given no information to justify Parliament in departing from the policy laid down last year. The political situation might have made it necessary to depart from that policy, but the House was not justified in voting the money.

said it was a pity the hon. member was not present during the earlier part of the discussion, because, if he had been, he would have heard that the junction proposed to-day had been substituted by the Railway Board for the proposal it made last year, which was to make the junction on the south. Now the Board had advised that it was better to keep up along the top, where they had excellent agricultural country and good coal country. It was not necessary to have a double loop. This part of the Free State had no roads, and it was entitled to agricultural development by means of railway construction. The Bothaville line was not connected with the Kroonstad line.

quoted the following extract from the report of the Railway Board on the Vierfontein-Bothaville line: “The Board, with every desire of promoting the development of the district by the provision of rail transport for the carriage of its produce to the large consuming centres, would have felt considerable difficulty in recommending the construction of this line, but for its expectation that, as soon as opportunity offers after the extension has reached Bothaville, its construction will be continued along the valley of the Valsch River, to form a junction with the Free State main line at or near Kroonstad. The agricultural development that would result and the additional traffic created thereby will fully justify the expenditure involved.” If the English language meant anything, that report meant that the Government was not justified in building the line unless it was intended to continue it. When hon. members opposite went back to their constituents, who were crying out for railways, they would have to reconcile the two statements, and would have to say whether Government had acted fairly to the whole interests of the Union, instead of building lines to meet certain party difficulties.

said, if personal interests were to be looked after, he would be one of the first to vote in favour of a line from Bothaville to Kroonstad, as such a line would benefit him personally to a large extent. Such a line, however, would be totally unsuited for the developing of large irrigation works, whereas the now proposed line would have the effect of developing one of the best parts of the dry land which the country could wish for. The Vals River, near Bothaville, could not be used for irrigation purposes. He (Mr. Serfontein) would never dare tell the hon. member for Fort Beaufort what was best for his constituency, but the hon. member must also allow him (Mr. Serfontein) to know what was best for his own constituency. (Hear, hear.)

said he now understood from the Minister of Railways and the hon. member for Kroonstad that if at any future time a proposal should be made for the extension of Bothaville line in the direction of Kroonstad, they would oppose it, because it was absolutely unnecessary?

said, looking at the lay of the land itself, hon. members should agree to the necessity of the line. The land was full of potentialities, especially for dry land farming, but nothing could ‘be done without a railway. For every farm on the river there were ten farms off the river, farms exceedingly suited to dry land cultivation, and which were equally entitled to be developed. Large mealie crops could be produced there, but railways were wanted. If the ground was properly worked, they would not need to have water in order to produce mealies. He for one thoroughly agreed with the Board’s 1913 report before the House, which aimed at a practical development of the country. From Kroonstad to the Vaal River they could plough the land for miles, the best lands being found in the higher areas. The line from Vierfontein to Kroonstad would run between the Rhenoster and Vals rivers. He hoped that in the near future the line would be extended to Boshof, because that was a part of the country deserving of consideration, and there were no proper roads there. For transport purposes they were obliged to use oxen and wagons. He had personally inspected the district and knew that it was susceptible to great development. It was no use telling these people there to take off their coats, because they could do nothing with the products.

said it had been suggested that if they built a line from Kroonstad to Vierfontein they would have practically a main line that practically covered the same class of country that they were going to cover between Vierfontein and Bothaville. Instead of doing that, let them develop the line in the direction of Bothaville, and thus bring Bothaville within almost ten miles of a direct line. This line to Bothaville seemed to him to be going to nowhere. Surely, it was not the intention of the Government to carry on this Bothaville line until it reached Boshof.

pointed out that the intention was not to have a railway line for the dorp Bothaville nor for Boshof, but for the district, for the whole of the middleveld. The land beyond Bothaville was the best seed land in the Free State. The Prime Minister had put the matter so plainly that it was not necessary for the speaker to add anything to what had been said. Of course, it was difficult to convince anybody who did not wish to be convinced.

said he thought it was a very much better, idea to have one line going through the whole of the western part.

said it appeared to him that it would have been very much better to have made the line from Kroonstad along the valley of the Valsch River to Bothaville. Here they had got to go right round.

It seemed very unsatisfactory that here the Board came with one story one year and an entirely different story another year. He could only come to the conclusion that the Board made its inspections by motor-car along the main road. They, on that side, did not dispute the richness of the area, but their point was that here they were serving a district which was in close proximity to the railway, while there were other districts in the Union which were 50 or 60 miles from the railway.

said he would ask whether hon. members could not see that the Vierfontein-Bothaville line proposed here was only part of a scheme? It had all along been felt that anyone who went about the country would see how necessary it was to give railway facilities to the north-western districts of the Free State. This line must ultimately connect with the line from Fauresmith to Koffyfontein. The important point in connection with this scheme was that when ultimately the line from the north was completed and connected up at a point on the Bloemfontein-Kimberley line, they would have one of the finest schemes of railways in the whole country.

said that, if he had had any doubts before, those doubts had been effectually removed. He did not object to this line, because he disagreed that this district was capable of great development, but, as they knew, it was not the only district in the Union that was capable of great development. Were there not districts in the Union capable of great development which were miles and miles from the railway? It did seem strange that the hon. member for Fauresmith, having got his line from Koffyfontein, should now appear in a new role. He had not latterly appeared as a champion of the Government, neither had the party of which he was such a distinguished member taken much interest in the proceedings in that House lately, but they found the hon. member departing to his old position as a supporter of the Government right or wrong—(hear, hear)—and under these circumstances they began to think that he was perhaps more correct in his assumption that there were certain political considerations which necessitated the moving appeal of the Prime Minister than would appear from the report of the Railway Board. From Vierfontein they had taken the line to Kroonstad Surely the rest of the country must wait while other portions of the country got some consideration. He would like to know what explanation his representative in the House was going to make. His (Sir T. W. Smartt’s) position was that on the Statute books of this country there was legislative sanction for the construction of a line from Belmont to Douglas, but the money had not been voted. Would it not be more justifiable, having built the line from Vierfontein to Kroonstad, to devote that money which the Government were determined to spend, to lines which had been authorised by the Legislature, but for which there was no money available at the present moment? He would like to know what explanations the hon. members for George, Riversdale, Oudtshoorn and Victoria West would be able to make to their constituents. Did his right hon. friend know of a place called Kuruman, where there was good country worthy of development and where transport was difficult and sometimes impossible? His right hon. friend should not only think of one part of the country and not of others.

said his hon. friend, holding the position which he did, had laid down a dangerous principle when he said that a member should not vote for a line because he did not get one through his constituency. His hon. friend might find that chickens came home to roost sometimes.

said he was afraid that his right hon. friend must have been dosing. (Laughter.) He resented the statement of his right hon. friend that he had laid down any such principle as suggested. What he did say was that no member should vote for a railway which was not strongly justified by the Railway Board and the Minister.

said if the proposed line was given up and the line to Kuruman built, they would have to listen to exactly the same arguments again. It was not right for the hon. member to impute political objects when the Government held different views to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. The latter had been in office for many years, why, in all these years, had he not built a line to Kuruman? (Hear, hear.) He could then have borrowed as much money as he wanted. It would be a deplorable thing if they were to build political railways. The western parts of the Free State had suffered severely, and farming there demanded large sacrifices, and a railway was, therefore, most necessary. The line from Bothaville would be extended in a southern direction, and possibly to the harbour of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. The line deserved the Committee’s very careful attention.

thought it was a wrong thing for the hon. member for Fort Beaufort to regard the proposed line as a political line. The hon. member should be somewhat less provincial, and should examine history, when he would see that it was not a political line. The Minister of Lands would be able to tell the hon. member that as far back as 1894 and 1896 a resolution had been taken to construct the line. Before the war a resolution had been taken to build a line from Bloemfontein via Bultfontein to Hoopstad, with a branch line to Boshof and Kimberley, but the outbreak of the war prevented the carrying of that decision into effect. The hon. member would therefore be wise to make a closer examination into the history of that part of the country. Those districts were rich in coal and diamonds, and the soil was a most fertile one. The people there had every right to expect these things to be exploited and developed by means of a railway. The diamond mines were most promising, but owing to the lack of transport their development was handicapped. Owing to the looseness of the soil, the question of transport was a very difficult one. The speaker had once been obliged to sell grain at 3s. 6d. per bag. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, would not have done that, but circumstances compelled the speaker to do it. The districts in question had every possible right to railway communication, and the proposed line was in no sense a political one.

said he would like to know what steps were being taken to carry out the recommendations of the Railway Board. The recommendations made last year were that local authorities should make good roads leading to the sidings; surely it was only right that people that were going to receive all this benefit should do something to construct and maintain these roads.

said he was quite aware of the recommendation of the Board, but he did not see how it was possible to interfere in these matters. He did not see how he could insist upon the recommendations being carried out.

said that this was a recommendation signed by the Chairman of the Board, whom he took to be the Minister. The Minister now told them that Parliament could not do anything, and it was a matter for the Provincial Council.

Item 9 was agreed to.

thought that these lines in Natal were most unsatisfactory. The Government seemed to go on the principle of allocating a certain amount of money to be spent in Natal. He noticed that most of these lines were given to districts that returned ardent supporters of the Government. Proceeding, the hon. member pointed out that East Griqualand, which had an area of 8,000 square miles and a white population of 8,000, had only 33 miles of railway, as against 1,000 in Natal. Would the Prime Minister deny that East Griqualand was not as good as any part of the Union? Here they were proposing to construct 130 miles of railway in Natal, and nothing for East Griqualand. Hon. members talked about development and here they were leaving one of the best parts of the country undeveloped. These lines in Natal were political lines, because, if the Minister had been thinking of the development of the country, he would not construct the lines along the routes laid down. There was not the slightest doubt that this particular line was not going to pay. What they ought to do was to put the money into extending the line from Franklin. It would be much better instead of putting their money into a small tin-pot line to have put it into extending the line from Franklin to Kokstad.

said it was refreshing to hear the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, refer to the needs of Griqualand East in respect of railways. He pointed out that in 1901 it was the intention to carry the line through to Kokstad, but it was the fault of the Cape that it was not built. Natal had built its portion of the Cape-Natal line and had even carried it some 20 miles into the Cape Province, but the Cape had failed to do its share. Now the hon. member proposed to take the money intended for Natal railways to make up for the delinquencies of the Cape Government. Proceeding, the hon. member denied that the lines were going to be built simply because they ran through the constituencies of supporters of the Government. There were eight Natal members on the opposite side of the House. Six of them lived in Durban, and the other two had each a main line and two branch lines in their constituencies. The rural districts requiring railways were therefore those on the Government side of the House. There was not a single Province that would have gone into Union if it thought railway development was to be stopped. There was no truth in the statement that these railways were being constructed for political reasons. This line had always been in the forefront as one of those that would have to be built—(hear, hear)—and it was proposed long before Union was thought of, in 1903.

said the trade of Griqualand East flowed into Natal. With regard to the recriminations that had taken place as to who should have built the line, if the hon. member for Zululand would inquire from the right hon. member for Victoria West, he could probably give him more information as to the agreement with Natal than could the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. (Hear, hear.) The net loss per annum on this line was put down at £7,040, the total annual earnings being only £3,030. Unless there was very good reason for building this line, there were other places in Natal which better deserved the expenditure. There were other equally good districts waiting for railway development. The line was not a development line.

Yes, it is.

said the line might be of use, however, for strategic purposes, in the event of trouble in Basutoland. Instead of constructing this line, however, the money could be better employed in making first-class roads, over which they could run a first-class motor service. The General Manager was in favour of some such scheme.

said he was glad to see that this railway had been restored to pride of place in the Bill, as it headed the list of Natal lines. If there was one district in which agricultural possibilities had every prospect of success, it was this one.

Where is your farm?

said that, as a branch-developing line for an agricultural district, it was going to cost too much. The £4,000 set down for station buildings should be reduced to £1,500, while £100 per mile for fencing was unnecessary, seeing that it was probable that there would be only one train per day each way. He suggested that 45-lb. rails should be used, instead of 35-lb. rails; that would be much better than spending the money on unnecessary fences. In conclusion, Mr. Fawcus congratulated the Minister of Railways on the inclusion of the line in his programme.

The line was agreed to.

said he had given notice of a motion to delete the words “2-ft. gauge.”

ruled the motion out of order, on the ground that if it were carried, it would involve an increase of expenditure.

suggested that the line should be the 3 ft. 6 in gauge, as experience of the 2-ft. gauge in Natal was not satisfactory. The difference in the cost would not be very great.

agreed that it would be advisable to have the standard gauge, more especially as the line would not be a branch one, but part of the main line from Durban to Cape Town. He was sorry that the Minister had found it advisable to construct this railway line to Harding, instead of keeping on the ridge, which was originally surveyed for the 3 ft. 6 in gauge.

said that on the second reading debate he congratulated the Minister upon the return to saneness in regard to railway construction. Seeing that the Government had entered into a policy of absolute adherence to the standard gauge, it was very much to be regretted that 50 miles should be added to the existing 2-ft. gauge of 18 miles. He thought it would be almost desirable, in the interests of the future advancement and better working, if the whole subject could be reconsidered.

said he shared very largely the views of the hon. member opposite in regard to the undesirability of extending unnecessarily the 2-ft. gauge line in South Africa. There was no doubt that there were places where they served a useful purpose; but, in the main, one did not care about breaking the gauge unnecessarily. The hon. member would see that in the case of two of these lines where they had constructed the 2 ft. line they had changed that to the ordinary standard gauge. In the case of the present line there was considerable difficulty about changing the gauge. Owing to the nature of the line and the traffic, etc., it would be better to have this line on the 2 ft. gauge.

The item was agreed to.

said that there had been a great deal of discussion and a great deal of criticism in the House on the second reading in regard to this line, and a great deal of excitement and trouble in the neighbourhood where the line was proposed to be taken. In the first place, some criticism had been devoted by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, on the ground that it was to please their political supporters. He thought the hon. member was a little bit unfortunate in this respect. He thought he had been a little too free in regard to the Government’s motives in connection with the construction of these lines. He could not conceive a more impure motive than that the Government should build a line purely for the purpose of pleasing political supporters. A Government that followed a policy of that kind deserved the severest criticism. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member should not fling accusations of this nature unless he were able to substantiate his charges. This line and the following one dealt with the district which was represented by the hon. member for Umvoti, so that the accusation was brought against the Government and involved his hon. friend as well. The territory which would be opened up by these proposed lines beyond Greytown, he thought everyone who knew Natal would tell them, was one of the best cultivated parts in the whole of South Africa. It had been developed for some years past by an active, energetic and enterprising set of persons, not merely English, but Germans, Swedes, Norwegians and so forth. These people had helped themselves. They had heard a great deal in that House, especially from hon. members opposite, about the justification of the Government lending aid to people who had shown that they were prepared to help themselves. These people had actually built a portion of railway there. They undertook a guarantee for the purpose of building a line in that direction. One syndicate engaged there had built five miles of railway at their own expense for an area of 5,500 acres. The figures given were that the area under cultivation was 41,000 acres. The initiation of this project was duo to representations made by the hon. member for Umvoti in 1910, when he was a private member of that House. He made representations on behalf of his constituents in regard to the development of that part of the country, by means of railways, to the then Minister of Railways, and, as a result, a surveyor was sent to make a survey, and certain proposals were submitted. When the proposals came up, and it was seen that it was proposed to carry the railway to One House Farm, so strongly did the hon. member feel that there should be no shadow of suspicion in connection with his position, as a member of the Government, that he intimated his intention of resigning. It was finally decided to send the third member of the Board to go and investigate along with an expert adviser, and as a result, instead of one line, they now had the proposal for two. The recommendation had nothing to do with the fact that Colonel Leuchars was interested in that part of the country, nor with the fact that two of the members of the Railway Board, Colonel Greene and Mr. McEwen, had had interests there.

said again that it was difficult to account for those lines except on the basis he had referred to. They had a section of the country tolerably well served at present, and they had other sections of the country, quite as good, left without a single line. Did his hon. friend mean to assure him that if Griqualand East had returned a supporter of the Government, that would not now have had an extension of that line. There was another change; the Board were always changing their minds on those matters. The hon. member went on to read opinions of those who were on the spot, to show that the proposals meant a needless waste of public money. There, he proceeded, they were going to make a line to support the wattle industry which was overdone.

Overdone ?

Yes. He went on to urge that the firewood industry had also been overdone, and maintained that they could never find a market for the 60,000 tons they talked about. There was no justification for the line in any way. It served people who were already in reasonable distance of a line. It was said to be developing the wattle industry, but that was overdone. As the evidence of the Trades Commission in London showed, the market was falling. In his opinion, the line was a perfect waste of public money.

was understood to say he was surprised to see those railways down. He supposed there was no Province in the whole of the Union that had done so much in the way of private enterprise in laying down railways as Natal. The hon. member gave one or two instances He pointed, in addition, to a seventy-mile railway on the Mount Edgcombe Estate, which was built by the owners of the estate. But then they built small lines of this description with the money of the State; then he was sure that they could not escape the charge of favouritism that was levelled. If they were building lines of this description he could name far richer districts than those which would be covered by these lines, which needed lines. Proceeding, he said that the Public Accounts. Committee had looked into these matters, but he supposed when the recommendation came up the Minister would say that it was ultra vires. They were so struck by the question that they thought it in the interests of public accounts to try and make some suggestion in regard to the question of extending sidings by Government support. Why should not the principle applied to irrigation be applied to these small railways. If the people made themselves liable-for the interest it would be a guarantee-that the line was worth building. Once they started building these small lines with State money they would never get people to build small railways on the borrowing principle. Now they had started it was difficult to know where it was going to stop. He thought that the construction of these spur railways in small favoured spots was wrong policy.

said that there was a danger of mixing up these two lines. He was opposed to the Schroeders line, but not to the Dalton line, which ran through a good district that was capable of a lot of development. The Minister had referred to the growing of mealies, but he would point out that the greater part of these mealies were purchased on the farms by the natives. Dealing with the wattle industry, he pointed out that if it were found possible to make wattle extract there would be an enormous increase in the trade. He thought that the Railway Board was very optimistic with regard to its views on what the railway would make out of the wattle industry. He also pointed out that firewood from wattle wood was becoming a drug on the market. Dealing with the position of two members of the Railway Board (Col. Greene and Mr. McEwen) who were interested in the Dalton. Wattle Company, he observed that these two gentlemen, on April 26, 1912, signed a report favouring the construction of a tortuous line which had its terminus on the boundary of the farm Glenside, which belonged to the company in which they held shares. The Minister admitted that it was not until 11th May, 1912, that they declined to deal with the line in question, and it was over twelve months before Parliament was informed of this. He did not suggest that they were influenced because of the fact that they were interested in the company, but it was rather unfortunate, and men holding such important public posts should be extremely careful not to create a wrong impression in the public mind. He thought the hon. member for Umvoti would agree with him that the roads to Schroeders and Dalton were good, and that once the farmer had loaded his wagons he found no difficulty in getting to the existing line. He thought that the Schroeders line was unnecessary, because it would only serve three or four farmers at the most. Schroeders had been developed to the utmost, and that had been accomplished without the aid of a railway. He thought that the line to Dalton should be built, because the district was a fine one and capable of a lot of development.

said that the hon. member for Capo Town, Central, had been talking of things about which he knew nothing. He simply relied on statements that had been made by other people; it was certain the hon. member knew nothing about the wattle industry in Natal. He (the speaker) thought that that industry had best be left to the people who understood the business. He had made statements on insufficient evidence. The right hon. the member for Victoria West had followed suit, and his right hon. friend had damned with faint praise. It was always the same. If they did not hear the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, they heard the right hon. the member for Victoria West. The member for Weenen stated also that members of the Railway Board were interested in this locality. What did he ask the House to believe? Simply that the Railway Board had given their sanction to this because some of them were interested in the district. A meaner attack it was not possible to make upon people who were not able to defend themselves. (Hear, hear.)

could not understand why his hon. friend got so excited. (Laughter.) He (Mr. Jagger) had no money in the wattle industry, nor did he intend putting money in it; but when they sought to construct a line of railway of this nature, then he thought it was high time to interfere. Proceeding, the hon. member said that there were only 1,776 white people in the district —in fact, it was not so well populated as any district in East Griqualand, and they had already got a main line running it.

He looked upon this recommendation of the Board as a scandal. How could they wonder that reflections were made when lines of this nature were brought forward. They had areas in the country, 60, 70, and even over 100 miles from the line, which were not served by a railway at all—districts quite as good, and in some cases much better, than the one referred to. He agreed with his right hon. friend the member for Victoria West that this line should be made by private enterprise. There was no market for all these products. Take the consumption of mealies, for instance. Mealies were bought by Kafirs upon the line. He intended to divide the House upon this.

said the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had stated that this was a political line, but he said the same thing about all the other lines. (Hear, hear.) He refused to discuss this line upon its merits. If he looked at the report, he would find that this was one of the best districts in the whole of South Africa. If they turned to the report at the beginning of the Blue-book, the hon. member would find that the estimated loss upon this line was £910, and, according to the figures, the line was estimated to pay better than any other line. The line was to be worked at a loss of only 1¾ per cent. Other lines were to be worked at a loss of 3 per cent, and 5½ per cent. The bulk of the ground held in this district was held by small settlers. If they took this line upon its merits, he was quite certain that they would pass it without hesitation.

said he was going to criticise this line from a different point of view. An examination of the country had been made for the purpose of constructing a coal line, and he believed that a coal line would eventually be built. The Railway Board in their recommendation wilfully ignored an auxiliary coal line. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had criticised this railway very severely because some part of it was only six or seven miles from a railway. He noticed in the Peninsula a railway only a mile and a half from another, which did not pay sufficient for the grease it used on its wheels. If they looked at the map they would find that the whole of the district through which it was proposed to construct this railway was cut up into 100 acre blocks. There were some details in this line, however, that he failed to understand. For instance, ho could not understand why a more direct line was not adopted. Supposing they got a report from the engineer stating that an auxiliary line would be a good thing, would it not be wiser to strike a line through that country which would work in as part of the line? The Railway Board’s report last year suggested certain railways and they reported very strongly upon them. If that construction had taken place they would have heard nothing of these two lines at all. Perhaps if they delayed this for another 12 months the Railway Board might come to another decision. He thought they ought to wait until they had the report of that very able engineer who had been sent up to Natal. He could not reasonably support this railway until the results of his examination had been made known. As a wattle growing and general farming country, the district would be hard to beat.

said the hon. member, who had addressed them in a spirit of well-feigned indignation, seemed to direct attention to the fact that he alone of all the Natal members stood up for Natal’s interests. (Laughter.) That had been repeated several times. (Opposition cheers.) It was very well known, however, that on the Opposition side of the House were the true friends of Natal. (Laughter.) Continuing, Sir David said that the district under discussion was well populated with people who had done a great deal of development work. He could well understand that if a place had become an entrepot for a district, and it was left out of a railway scheme, there was sure to be an outcry, but that was no reason for withholding the extension. He did not know of any part of Natal which was so well deserving of railway extension as the district under discussion. There was, however, a singular want of definite information in the report of the Railway Board, and a repetition of mere platitude about a district being a good one and one likely to develop was all very well in its way, but something more definite was required. (Hear, hear.)

said he felt inclined to treat the remarks of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, North, with the contempt they deserved, because the hon. member had put words in his mouth which he had never used. The hon. member had said that he (Mr. Meyler) had not the pluck to say what he meant, but he had never been accused of that remark. He differed from the hon. member (Mr. Orr) in this respect, that he called a spade a spade, while the hon. member wanted him to call it a shovel with an adjective. (Laughter.)

The line was agreed to.

said he thought the line was a highly necessary one, but the Minister should fallow himself a certain amount of latitude as to the terminal point. Really the line terminated, according to the plan, on the farm Honey Grove, nearly a mile from One House Farm. If the Minister, instead of laying out the line in a roundabout way, had gone down through the kloof to Honey Grove farm, he would have had a line about five miles shorter, besides getting a considerably better line. He could not help thinking the Railway Board was a most dismal failure when it did not see a thing like that. As it was, the terminal station would be perched on the top of a ridge, but if his suggestion were adopted it would be in a valley, and besides that the cost would be reduced by £15,000, a matter which was well worth considering. He knew the country very much better than all three members of the Railway Board put together, because he had owned a farm in the locality.

The line was agreed to.

said this was about the most glaring case of unfair treatment. It was a proposal to make another line into Zululand. Let them contrast the state of Zululand with that of East Griqualand, which was just as much a part of Natal for all practical purposes as Zululand, for East Griqualand depended upon Natal for its communications, markets, supplies and so forth. East Griqualand with 8,000 white people had only 33 miles of railway, but Zululand, with only 2,000 whites, had 98 miles of railway, the working of which showed an annual loss of £28,000. Now it was proposed to give Zululand another line, the annual loss on which was estimated at £2,250. East Griqualand was just as good a country as Zululand.

What reason could they suggest why this particular place should be favoured, and a place like Griqualand East left out in the cold? He supposed it was the old story—they were going to improve the wattle industry. He ventured to think that this particular line would not have been proposed had it not been for the fact that the hon. member from that district was a supporter of the Government. If his hon. friend the member for Griqualand (Mr. King) had sat on the other side of the House, the needs of East Griqualand would, no doubt, have been met.

said that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, did not seem to be able to get away from Griqualand East. He did not know since when the hon. member had shown such a tremendous interest in Griqualand East. He had stated that this line would not have been proposed had it not been for the fact that the hon. member for Zululand was a supporter of the Government. His hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) would persist in speaking from time to time without his book. The Natal Parliament authorised this line in 1910.

There were a good many others in Acts of Parliament.

said that, quite apart from that fact, the people in that part of the country had pressed their claims for an extension of the railway to Eshowe for a long time. This construction was not adopted earlier, because of the condition of the money market. A road was built for motor transport, but that was not to be taken as shelving the railway. If hon. members looked at the report of the Railway Board as to the working of the line, they would see that this offered one of the most favourable probabilities in the working that they had.

said he did not know that there were the probabilities in regard to working that the Minister had spoken of. They were spending nearly £6,000 a mile for the construction of an agricultural line, so that he should think the gradients were rather difficult. This was one of the cases in which he thought they should have some delay, for the purpose of fuller consideration. In their Bill last year the Government’s proposal was that they should build a line on the 2-ft. gauge. In that delay was necessary and useful. The amount necessary to complete lines already authorised by Parliament was in the neighbourhood of £2,150,000, and the Government now asked for some £1,500,000, which was to go on with lines already authorised and start new lines, and when they knew that they were in a position, from the financial condition of the country, which made a beginning with these lines more than doubtful, surely the Committee had some reason for saying that they should not be rushed in this matter. He would like to ask his hon. friend the Minister: had the Railway Board any opportunity, when they were told that this £108,000 was available for the construction of this 19 miles of light railway, of making a suggestion to the Minister that, in the interests of the railways, and in the interests of the development of Natal, the £108,000 could have been used to greater advantage? The reason why there was so much difficulty in consenting to these lines was because, rightly or wrongly, in the minds of the majority of the members of that Committee was implanted the idea that the Railway Board had not got a free hand to make suggestions to the Minister. These short lines of railway that were proposed were within reasonable communication of existing lines of railway, and they formed no part of an extension which was to go through the territory. The House desired fuller information than the Government had given in regard to these lines. Furthermore, this £108,000 made no provision for rolling-stock, which would mean another £500 a mile. They were adding 800 miles to the railways of the country, without one single penny for the provision of rolling-stock. He believed that they had embarked on a wrong course—a course which was not the intention of the Act of Union, and that they were using political majorities in that House to spend three millions of money without the House having the opportunity of knowing whether the money could be spent, irrespective of provincial considerations, to the advantage of the Union.

said that the hon. member who had just spoken, in his railway scheme in 1906, did not give much better information, he thought even worse, to the House. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, would keep on harping on Griqualand East, as if they in Natal did not desire to see the extension of railways to that part as much as he did. Kokstad was to-day suffering from lack of railway communications, not because of Natal’s inaction, but because of the Cape Government’s inaction. All the same, he did not say that he was prepared to give up his line. (Opposition laughter.) In 1903 this particular line was passed in the Natal Assembly. It was a 2 ft. line, and it was one of the lines rejected by the Upper House purely on a question of policy in regard to gauge. That line, he contended, was not a spur, but the first 17 miles of a line. Last year the Board recommended that it should be extended further, and because they were moderate, and only asked for 19 miles, they were met with the contention that it was a spur, and owing to its being within 17 miles of a line, it was not necessary. But it was to serve a district not of 17 miles, but of 80 to 100 miles, and it would bring those districts 17 miles nearer the main line. Referring to a line in Zululand, mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, he said the traffic was increasing every day, and if it was not paying at the present time it soon would be, but the interior was not being opened up by the line which ran along the sea shore. If hon. members would take a map of Natal, showing the railway system, they would find that Zululand, so far as railways was concerned, was a blank, except as regards the line running along the sea shore. The proposed line would be a most useful line for strategic purposes in the matter of defence.

said the hon. member had spoken with great candour, and had let the cat out of the bag. He had got his reward for services rendered, and was not prepared to give it up. The hon. member was not to blame, but the Minister. Natal had passed those lines as a sort of draft on the Union. Naturally, when they had not to pay. He could put lines all over the country which would develop the country without the slightest doubt, and they would not know South Africa in a few years. That was what Natal had done. The hon. member’s ignorance was refreshing, he went on; tire line in Zululand referred to was not a paying proposition; it did not pay working expenses, and there was a total loss on it of £28,000. In Griqualand East they had a country like Natal. Why should they treat it differently? It was part of the Union now, just as Natal was, and should be treated in the same manner.

asked a question regarding the policy of the Government in respect to rolling stock. He urged that there was a shortage of rolling stock at present, and wanted to know if the hon. Minister was going to make arrangements for further rolling stock to be provided for out of profits.

also referred to the question of rolling stock, and claimed that there had been a departure from policy by the Railway Board in this connection. There would be no escape from ordering the rolling stock, he said, because they were far short of rolling stock already. Who was going to pay for it? (A Ministerialist hon. member: The taxpayer.) He (Sir Percy) feared it would not be the general taxpayer, but the railway ratepayer. It was going to be taken from the users of the railway. If that charge was going to be put on railway earnings, and there would be no other place for it, it was a deliberate departure, and they might as well take as many hundreds of thousands from surplus revenue; and that would be a deliberate breach of the Act of Union. On the question of these Natal lines, they, the members of the Convention were surprised by the glittering array of lines that were passed by that expiring Government. It was a subject of much laughter throughout South Africa. He believed there were seventeen lines. (A Ministerialist hon. member: “No, eight.) Well, eight. There were as many as there was room for, and the funny thing was that there was not a “bob” to pay for them. If he remembered correctly, the five gentlemen who were responsible for the proposal, after undertaking that all the public lands should go into Union, proceeded to bestow an enormous area of land in Natal for a national park. It was humorous, but it did not carry much weight. No one was opposed to development in Natal, the hon. member proceeded, but the point they wanted to get at was, “What development was most required and most justified?” If they put it to the Railway Board, the latter would tell them that the interests of Natal would be most served not by spending money on these little lines, but to carry on the trunk line through East Griqualand. It was he (Sir Percy) who made this suggestion first, and speaking as a Transvaaler, although the line was in the Cape Province, he had said that he would rather see that trunk line through the district mentioned.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said that shortly before the committee adjourned the hon. member for Zululand said that this line was not exactly connected with the proposition before the House. He had the report of the Board, and they had the statement of the Minister that this was a light agricultural line 19 miles long which would cost £108,000. Unfortunately, the hon. Minister of Railways and Harbours did not provide gags for all his supporters, and in the course of a long explanation the hon. member for Zululand, who, by the way, referred to it as “My line of railway,” said that the line was not going to stop at 19 miles, but would be extended—90 or 100 miles. In the face of those statements he did not know whether the committee was justified in voting for it, because it was going to be a longer line than they had been led to expect. The committee would like to know the direction the extension would take. They had received no intimation from the Minister, and he thought some statement should be forthcoming.

said that what he said was that this was not a spur line. He had also said that they were moderate in their demands, because they did not look upon this 19 miles as being a complete line in itself. He did not say that the Government was committed to any extension. If his hon. friend had worked for the project as long as he (the speaker) had been, his hon. friend might have referred to it as his railway just as he (Mr. Clayton) had done.

referred to the difficulties with which the question was beset. This was a territory which had cost the country large amounts of money. More wars had probably taken place in those parts than anywhere else, and large numbers of natives lived in that part of the country, as well as a good many Europeans. At Eshowe farms had been given out to white persons, and also at Mel moth, and the country was occupied from there to Babanango, Dundee and Vryheid. The land possessed great potentialities, and although for the present the line might not pay, he thought it would eventually pay well, and it was essential to do something for the assistance of the people dwelling there. They had East Coast fever badly in Zululand. By building from Idutywa, they were already building in the direction of Kokstad, but whatever they did they should not take the hand of protection away from the white people living in Zululand; these people were already faced with considerable difficulties and were deserving of every consideration. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, spoke very strongly in favour of Griqualand East, but did he know that the line from Maritzburg in the direction of Kokstad caused great loss of time? The line from Umtata ran in the direction of Griqualand East. The line to Kokstad would be built. If they did not build the line, they would have to make roads and construct bridges, which would probably cost more.

asked what were the further plans of the Minister of Railways and Harbours. His right hon. friend had referred to Zululand as a territory of great possibilities. The Prime Minister had agreed with the hon. member for Zululand that this was an instalment, and the hon. member for Zululand, bound up as he was with the Government, would probably get another instalment next year. The Prime Minister agreed that this was only a section. That was not the attitude of the Minister of Railways and Harbours. The Railway Board dealt with it as the whole of the line. Where was it going to end? The House had not sufficient information, but all it could do was to protest against the way it was being treated.

said that the line went through a very narrow strip of land bounded by native reserves, where no large development could be expected. It was monstrous to ask the House to vote for the proposal without adequate information. After what the hon. member for Zululand had said, he was inclined to vote against the railway altogether. The line was not a developing one, it was the most expensive in the whole of the programme, and the House had no information as to where it was to be extended.

said it was quite impossible to extend the line in the direction indicated by the Prime Minister, who was either misleading the House or had not looked into the matter at all. The hon. member for Zululand was like little Jack Horner—he not only pulled out the plums but told people what a good little boy he was (Laughter.)

Is the Minister not going to give us any information at all.

He has none.

Go away.

said the line went through good country and was one of the best propositions of the Bill. The estimated receipts were £7,500 and the working costs £5,000 per annum. The House must look to the development of the country beyond Eshowe.

Native reserves.

said the Minister of Railways and Harbours did not agree with the hon. member for Zululand, who spoke in this case with a little more authority than the Minister, for the hon. member had means of seeing that his ideas should be carried out. He did not think he was putting at all an unkind interpretation on the statement of the Minister when he (Sir Thomas) said that the Minister had just chucked this line in to suit his hon. friend.

On the question being put,

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

Ayes—52.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Brain, Thomas Phillip

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Waal, Hendrik

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Sauer, Jacobus Wilhelmus

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrick Schalk

Theron, Petrus Johannes George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Wiltshire, Henry

C. Joel Krige and H. Mentz, tellers.

Noes—28.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Fitzpatrick, James Percy

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

Long, Basil Kellett

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Merriman, John Xavier

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Nathan, Emile

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Phillips, Lionel

Quinn, John William

Rockey, Willie

Sampson, Henry William

Smartt, Thomas William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Walton, Edgar Harris

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

Item No. 14 was accordingly agreed to.

On the second schedule,

moved: On page 10, in the third condition, in line 11 thereof, before “ traffic ”, to omit “ in ”, and to substitute “ to

Agreed to.

The second schedule, as amended, was agreed to.

said he would like to put a question to the Minister of Finance. The total amount of loan expenditure was about 6½ millions, and he believed the Minister would find that he had not borrowing powers to that extent, but would be about two millions short.

said he would ask for further borrowing powers.

When? This session or the next?

Before the end of the present session.

said that there was no prospect of their borrowing money to construct these lines at 3½ per cent. It was well to say that the railway capital should pay interest at a certain fixed rate. It was no use their incurring the liability with the idea that they were going to do it at 3½ per cent.

Quite so.

said that that was a question that ought to be answered. The Railway Department only paid 3½ per cent. on the money invested. This money could not be borrowed at 3½ per cent. Were they going to charge 4 per cent. ?

The question has been thought over, although we have not come to any final conclusion. My hon. friend knows that the arrangement we are making with them is that recommended by the Public Accounts Committee, which was in favour of a payment of 3½ per cent. taking place over the whole amount of the capital of the railways as interest. If the stringency of the money market continues, it may be necessary for us to revise this scheme, so far, at any rate, as new capital is concerned.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 4, Powers incidental to construction and equipment of railways authorised,

moved the deletion of sub-section (2), and in subsection (3) (a), the deletion of “making full,” before “compensation,” for the purpose of inserting “without.” He said his idea was that there should be no differentiation between the Cape and Natal. The principle was surely the same in the question of the compensation of owners and occupiers of land. If a man was likely to get a railway over his land, he would welcome the surveyor’s level, but it seemed that if a surveyor came on to his land, and simply bored or probed, the people of the Union had got to pay full compensation to the occupier of lands in the Cape Province, but not in other Provinces.

said that, in connection with the expropriation of railway land, he wished to move, after “obligations imposed by such law,” at the end of sub-section (1): “ provided that the width of land taken shall not exceed 50 ft. for the construction of the line, together with such additional land as may be required for the slopes, drainage, station, approach roads, and other works, measures, and things which may be necessary for the purposes of the line.” He also moved in sub-section 3, paragraph (i), in place of the word “extent to substitute the word “ width,” and further to substitute 50 for 70 feet. His reasons for proposing these amendments were that a Select Committee was appointed, and went into the matter pretty fully. He was guided largely by the conclusions they arrived at. The hon. member proceeded to read parts of the report of the Select Committee in support of his argument, and said that he thought the hon. Minister would find that those proposals of the committee in reference to the width to be expropriated were valuable. Under that Bill for some strange reason the land which they were allowed to expropriate in the Cape Colony was given as 70 feet, and in the Transvaal, O.F.S, and Natal, 100 feet. Why more was required in the other Provinces than the Cape Colony it was difficult to understand. Seventy feet was the width required by the Select Committee, but that included 10 feet clear on either side. There was no reason, however, to take that 10 feet. In his opinion, 50 feet was wide enough, and all the evidence brought by the Select Committee showed that 50 feet was ample width. That idea of expropriating 100 feet was merely a rule of thumb. That width was in the first instance originated because 100 feet was taken for a road, and land was of no great value. It was possible to buy as much as they liked for 1s. 6d. an acre. The Natal Government decided to take 100 feet for the purpose of a road, and with the land so cheap there was no objection, and when it became necessary for the Natal Government to pass a Bill to construct railways, considered a railway as a main road, and took a width of 100 feet, but now that land was valuable it was a scandal to take that width for branch lines. Why should they take land that was not absolutely needed; if it were really required, it would be another matter? That matter of expropriation was far more important than claims for compensation. Things had so far advanced in South Africa now that they could not afford to take land and leave it fenced on either side of the line. One would think that the Government would try and moderate their demands instead of taking the full pound of flesh to which they were entitled. The previous Minister of Railways and Harbours was on the Select Committee, and was somewhat in favour of those proposals. Hon. members who came from parts of the country where land was not valuable should get away from the idea that other parts of South Africa were not valuable land. He appealed to the hon. Minister to adopt the reasonable suggestions made in the report of the Select Committee, and so far as possible confine himself to taking only what was absolutely necessary, and not fence in what they could make no possible use of. He felt very strongly about the matter. That Bill dealt with 800 miles of railway, and the difference of taking widths of 70 and 100 feet instead of taking only what was absolutely required would amount to a very large quantity of land which might be put to better use than lying idle between the railway fences.

moved as an amendment in sub-section 3, prov. (1) after the words 70 feet to insert the words “in width.” With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Weenen and the hon. member for Umlazi, there was no doubt that a great deal could be said for the harmonising of the law in the Union with regard to the width of line to be taken for railway purposes, and when they introduced, as they hoped to do next year, a Bill dealing with the whole expropriation law with the whole of the Union, which would include the expropriation of land for railway purposes, that would be the time to raise the question of uniformity. It was a question which might lead to long discussion, and the only safe line to take was that which was being taken, and the line which they took in 1911, pending the introduction of the old expropriatory law. The Bill before the House proposed to take for the purposes of expropriation only the width of land which is at present being taken under each of the existing provincial laws. The matter of width was not the whole question, and whereas the Provinces, other than the Cape had got special laws, the Cape had no special expropriatory law, and never had. It would be a very difficult thing to carry out a uniform system. The hon. member had suggested that no compensation should be paid in the Cape. That had been the Cape system for many years, and they were preserving it for the purpose of that Bill—he hoped it would not go beyond that Bill. So far as Natal was concerned he had simply repeated the clause that had been in every Natal Railway Construction Bill for the last ten or fifteen years, and he did hope that the House would not embark upon what would prove a long and difficult discussion.

expressed regret that the Minister could not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Umlazi, and said the hundred feet now to be taken in the Transvaal under the proposed line would not be diminished even if an expropriation law was introduced next year. The report of railway experts said that a hundred feet was excessive, but that had not been taken any notice of. He thought it would mean a great hardship on people who had only a limited amount of ground to have a hundred feet taken away, especially when the ground was valuable. Although the Minister was entitled to take a hundred feet there was nothing preventing him from taking less, and in the circumstances he hoped the Minister would consider very seriously whether he could not take less.

said he did not wish to state that they would take the full width. He had no intention at all of taking more than seventy feet. (Hear, hear.) At the same time they must not alter the existing laws.

said he was satisfied with the explanation.

said he did not think that the Minister’s statement was satisfactory. He had said that to lay down a uniform policy would be to embark upon a long and difficult discussion. Here they were asked to sanction 2¾ millions for railway construction, and in not one of the three Railway Bills had that been brought before the Union Parliament, had an attempt been made to deal with this question. He suggested—and he would move to that effect—that the Transvaal system should be followed all over the Union. No compensation was paid in respect of unimproved land except stands or erven. When compensation was paid under that clause the Government would take into consideration the benefit the landowner would derive through the line passing over his land. That seemed to him to be a most important principle, and if some steps were not taken to deal with the matter now he did not know when any action would be taken. It was no good rushing the Bill because they had already pointed out that the proposals could not be carried out. He moved a new sub-section, which, he said, was practically taking over the clause in the Transvaal Act as follows:

To add at the end of the clause the following new sub-section, viz.: “ (4) No compensation shall be payable in respect of (a) unimproved land except stands or erven) occupied by the railway line of a uniform width of seventy feet or such greater width as may be judged necessary for raising embankments or making cuttings, but in no case shall the amount of unimproved land so taken without compensation exceed one-twentieth of the extent of land held under one title; (b) indirect damage or loss of profits; (c) anything done with the object of obtaining compensation therefor; and in fixing the amount of compensation to be paid the benefit which the person claiming compensation may derive in consequence of the construction of the railway may be taken into consideration.”

said that no one could deny that the Government must have the right in certain cases to expropriate ground on behalf of the general interest. Yet he thought that to expropriate 100 feet of ground went too far. In the Free State such ground was frequently very valuable, and it was therefore unreasonable to expropriate so much of it. He was glad that the hon. member for Umlazi had proposed a width of 50 feet, and in some case 70 feet, and was also glad that the Minister had admitted the reasonableness of the proposal, and further trusted, that with regard to the 800 miles of railway which were to be built the Minister would act in the spirit of the amendment. Fifty feet was really more than sufficient.

said experience had taught him that an unduly large amount of land was taken by the Cape Administration for railway purposes. He thought a total of 50 feet was quite sufficient, and he saw no reason why they should take an unnecessarily large amount of land for the 800 miles they were now going to build. There was no necessity to leave this matter over till next year, because if once this ground was taken, the officials would continue to take 70 feet. If it was required to run water or pipes under the railway, the farmers were required to pay an annual amount for it.

who was hardly audible, said that 70 feet was really too much, and that 50 feet was quite sufficient. In the case of many valuable farms, 100 feet had been taken, and the fenced in ground became useless. The Minister should give serious attention to the matter, and make the width uniform throughout the whole country.

said he was astounded by the somewhat extraordinary speech made by the hon. member for Umlazi. Farmers needed no advocate on the Opposition side of the House, for they had sufficient on the other. He would move as an amendment to add, at the end of the clause, the following new sub-section, viz.: “ (5) The extent of land to be expropriated along the routes of the proposed railways without compensation shall be equal to ten per cent. of the area of each farm traversed by such railway.” (Loud Ministerial laughter.) The House had many fine speeches on the poor white question, a solution of which would be assisted by farmers giving up a portion of their land to these poor people. (A Ministerial member: “ What about the towns?”) If the hon. members wished to translate their words into deeds, they would say, “We will give you so much of our land if you put a railway through our farm.” Parliament owed a real duty to the people who had no land, and they could not be put in a desert. South Africa should follow the example of Canada, where railway building and land development went hand in hand

said that while not agreeing with the amendment of the hon. member for Umlazi, he could not say he was particularly enamoured with the proposal of the hon. member for Langlaagte The Labour Party had been accused of wishing to steal the land, but he did not think it had ever made such a proposal as that. Was it fair to take 10 per cent. of the land of a man whose land adjoined a railway, and allow a man whose farm was 300 or 400 yards away from the railway to go «cot free? He did not think the proposal would meet with the approval of those terrible people the Socialists, who preferred to deal with the matter on a more scientific basis. Why did not the hon. member support a tax on the unimproved value of land? The House could not do better at this stage than support the proposal of the hon. member for Fordsburg, which was not a revolutionary one. For the past three or four days hon. members who owned land in the vicinity of any of the proposed railways had been exceedingly anxious that those lines should be built. Hon. members had been using all the arts they were capable of in order to have railways run either through or as near as possible to their property, because it would develop the district concerned, and in each case it was said that the country through which the proposed line was to run was the most fertile in South Africa. (Hear, hear.) These people should pay something towards the cost of building these railways. On the principle of betterment alone, the railways should be paid for by the landlords through whose property they went. (Ministerial laughter.) That was not an unknown principle at all. In South Africa estate companies had paid the whole cost of building tramways to their property.

said he favoured a width of sixty feet. Expropriating a man’s land sometimes led to most unfortunate results. It divided a small farm into two parts, and in some cases the line had been carried over the back premises of the homestead itself, so that the owner had had to go away.

withdrew his amendment amid laughter and cheers.

said he had taken pains to ascertain the opinion of his technical advisers in the railways, and they said specifically that it was not satisfactory and that they could not undertake to build a satisfactory line unless they had 70 feet. (Hear, hear.) Hon. members might assure him that 50 feet would be quite enough from their point of view, but he was bound to take the technical advice of the engineers. He was prepared to make this 70 feet in the Bill all round. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Fordsburg knew quite well that his amendment would disorganise the whole of section 4. He might say that, whereas in Natal and the Cape compensation was paid for freehold land, whether it was improved or unimproved, no such compensation was paid for quit-rent land.

said it would surely not take the draftsman long to bring section 4 into line with the amendment.

said that he was glad that his hon. friend was not going to withdraw his amendment. The Minister was wrong in saying that freehold land was paid for in Natal. As the amendment he had moved to sub-section (3a) was not covered by the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg, he should have to press this. It was really absurd that a man should get compensation simply because the surveyor went on to his land.

said that the committee went very carefully into this matter, and some of the very expert and technical advisers whom the Minister had consulted were examined before the committee. He could not find in the few moments at his disposal the replies of all these gentlemen, but Mr. A. D. Tudhope said that where they made provision for fire paths they must have 70 feet, but for earthworks 50 feet would be sufficient The committee took the view that 50 feet would be sufficient, but that 10 feet should be added for fire paths. He maintained that if all the points brought before the committee had been submitted to the Government for consideration they would have come to the same conclusion as the committee came to, that the proper width for expropriation was 50 feet.

said he hoped the hon. member for Fordsburg would press his amendment. As the hon. member had pointed out, it was merely a matter of drafting the clause to bring it into line.

said he understood that the Minister would accept his amendment, with the substitution of 70 feet for 50 feet.

said that was so.

said he would amend his proviso accordingly.

The proviso as amended was agreed to.

amendments were negatived.

amendment to substitute “ in width” was agreed to.

The remaining amendments proposed by Mr. Fawcus, were, with leave of the Committee, withdrawn.

The new sub-section proposed by Mr. Duncan, was put.

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

Ayes—30.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Brown, Daniel Maclaren,

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

Fitzpatrick, James Percy

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

King, John Gavin

Long, Basil Kellett

Macaulay, Donald

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Nathan, Emile

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Phillips, Lionel

Quinn, John William

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Rockey, Willie

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Silburn, Percy Arthur

Smartt, Thomas William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Whitaker, George

A. Fawcus and H. A. Wyndham, tellers

Noes—52.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Brain, Thomas Phillip

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederick Reinhardt

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Waal, Hendrik

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Sauer, Jacobus Wilhelmus

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrick Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Wiltshire, Henry

C. Joel Krige and H. Mentz, tellers.

The new sub-section was accordingly negatived.

Clause 4, as amended, was then agreed to.

On clause 8.

said he did not wish to press clause 8, and would move to omit that.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was reported, with amendments, and the amendments were set down for consideration to-morrow.

asked whether the Minister would not delay proceeding with the measure, in order to allow hon. members to go through the amendments that had been placed on the paper? He moved that the debate be adjourned.

in the course of a statement, the greater part of which was inaudible in the Press Gallery, was understood to say that, in regard to the suggestions that were made by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, he had decided to meet hon. members and take the measure in two parts. He would move the adjournment, and when consideration of the Bill was taken up again, he hoped that hon. members would go right through with the measure.

To what date?

Wednesday next.

Agreed to.

said that, before the Speaker left the chair, there was a notice of motion that he would like to move. The motion was: “That the Committee have leave to consider an amendment to increase further the Customs duty on spirits manufactured from the products or by-products of the sugar-cane in any one of the Provinces, on importation into any of the other Provinces, from 10s. per Imperial proof gallon to £1 1s. per Imperial proof gallon, where any Customs duty on such spirits has not already been proposed to be increased to £1 1s. per Imperial proof gallon.” The matter arose, he said, out of certain criticisms that were made when the proposals were last before the House. It was pointed out in the course of the debate that the new proposals might have the effect of allowing Natal rum into the Transvaal for illicit purposes and, perhaps, also into the other Provinces. At present Natal rum paid an Excise of about 9s. in Natal, and on importation into the other Provinces it paid an Excise of 19s. in the Transvaal, 9s. in the Free State, and 10s. in the Cape. It was pointed out that the fixing of general Excise at 10s. would make the duty what the duty was before in the Transvaal, and that the illicit consumption of rum in the Transvaal might be very considerably increased. It was further pointed out that the raising of the Excise in the Cape on dop and grape spirits from 6s. to 10s. without the simultaneous raising of the duty on Natal rum might have the effect of the rum getting into the Cape Province, and it was said that some steps were necessary to confine rum to Natal, as was the case at present. The position to-day was that Natal rum was consumed in Natal only and exported from Natal abroad, but not exported to the other Provinces. That was the position at present, and they wished to devise means of keeping it out of the other Provinces.

Why?

Because it is a vile spirit, and only used for methylated spirits. (Hear, hear.) Continuing, he said he did not think many people would be found in this House who would agree to force Natal spirit on the other Provinces. They did not want to have Natal spirits forced into the other Provinces, but at the same time, they did not want to kill it in Natal. (Hear, hear.) They did not want to fix the Excise so high that it would be killed in Natal as well. They could fix one Excise in Natal and another in the other Provinces. The provision now laid down in the proposal before the House was not what he would call a neat solution, but it would have the effect of achieving the object they had in view. It would allow the continuation of the manufacture of rum in Natal for so much consumption as was required there, and also for export, while at the same time it would keep it out of the other Provinces. The provisions were not really so very drastic as they might appear at first sight. When in 1906 the duty on Natal rum was fixed at 19s. no protests were raised, and he thought no protests should be made now at the proposed additional duty. In the circumstances he hoped the House would give its consent to this new proposal now before them. (Hear, hear.)

seconded the motion.

said that he must protest against the motion which had been moved by the Minister. They were told before Union that the outstanding advantage of Union would be that there would be Free Trade in the Union. Now the Minister wanted to legislate against a sound article at a low price. He must record his protest against the course which the Minister proposed to adopt. He considered that the Minister’s solution flew directly in the face of the Act of Union on a most important point—that of free trade. He hoped this would not be the thin end of the wedge. Natal rum was of equal value to the best Jamaica rum. He protested in the strongest terms against the proposal.

said he also wished to lodge his protest. The Act of Union laid it down very strongly that there should be free trade. It seemed very absurd that whilst Great Britain was willing to take Natal rum, that it should not be usable in the three adjoining Provinces. They were evading the Act of Union almost every day in that House. Why should Cape wine brandy have a reduced Excise and Natal rum an increased Excise? Was that fair, and was it showing a good Union spirit? (Laughter.) It was only fair to Natal that there should be free trade throughout the four provinces.

said the last two or three speakers seemed to have missed the point. It was not a question at all of the quality of Natal rum, but of preventing these cheap spirits being made easily obtainable by the natives in the Transvaal. (Cheers.) He was not prepared to say that Natal rum was not good of its kind, but the point was that in the Transvaal the natives were being debauched because cheap spirits of various kinds were easily obtainable by them, and there were number of white men who made money quickly by selling these spirits to natives. If it were proposed to put 21s. or 51s. on any kind of cheap spirits, he would support it, for it should be made difficult for cheap spirits to be imported in the Transvaal. He was thankful that the Minister had taken up the stand he had. It was not a question of free trade, but of the duty of Parliament towards the natives in the Transvaal. (Hear, hear.)

The mining industry.

The mining industry is a nightmare to the gentleman over there. Continuing, Mr. Quinn said that Natal had been very well treated. (Hear, hear.) Natal was represented by any members who were prepared to take sixpence at any time at a cost of 15s. (Laughter.) What about our duty to the natives? If anyone suggested that the same duty should be put on dop he would support it.

said he no more wanted cheap rum in the Transvaal than did the hon. member for Troyeville, but he must confess that there seemed to be more in the objection raised by the hon. member for Umlazi and the hon. member for Victoria County than the hon. member for Troyeville. It was all very well to legislate for special reasons, but to legislate for special cases was always a danger. If they were going to ride through clause 136 of the Act of Union in this way, simply because a special case for it came up, where were they going to stop? He said that what was contemplated under that clause was that, as soon as Parliament had time, they should have universal Customs duties and Excise duties throughout the Union—(hear, hear)—that there should be no differentiation whatever, and that any Customs and Excise duties that they levied should be levied throughout the Union. A most important principle was at stake in the matter. He would suggest to the Minister that another way out of the difficulty was to put on his 21s. Excise on Natal rum in Natal, as well as outside.

said he was not one who was in favour of doing anything to cheapen Natal rum, or any other class of cheap spirits for use amongst the natives. What they protested against was the infringement of clause 136 of the Act of Union. He was sure that the Minister of Finance would not do this sort of thing in connection with his Customs duties. He (Mr. Henderson) said, let them keep Natal rum from the natives in the Transvaal by all means, but let them also keep dop brandy and wine brandy from them at the same time. He would ask the Minister what he proposed to do in connection with the Excise duty on Natal rum used for manufacturing purposes?

said he would like to ask the Minister whether this 10 per cent. only of Excise would be put on rum that was sent to Basutoland?

It is prohibited.

said he took it that this rum could be exported with 10 per cent. only of Excise into Rhodesia or Portuguese territory. If that were the case, this solicitude for the native was mere bunkum, hypocrisy, and cant. There were natives in Natal, but it was not intended to protect the natives in Natal. This was another scheme to make the native worker on the Witwatersrand more desirable. The solicitude of the hon. member for Troyeville was that the native on the Witwatersrand should be made sober, industrious, and docile. He prated of “duty to the native.” What was the native doing there? What did they bring the native to the Witwatersrand for? To make money out of him, exploit him, kill him with miner’s phthisis. The whole thing was cant.

said he could not understand the last gentleman who had just spoken. Did he desire that this rum and spirits generally should go to the Rand and be consumed by the natives there, regardless of their health? He agreed largely with the hon. member for Troyeville. Where he did not agree was in this differentiation, and he thought the time had arrived when they should observe the Act of Union. Why should not the Minister propose to put a tax on that brandy ? He did not know whether it was dop brandy, wine brandy or spirit brandy, but there should be no differentiation, and the same rate should be put upon that as upon the rum. He hoped in committee it would be possible to move some amendments in regard to that. He was considering the good of the country and not any particular interest. It was unjust to put that extra duty upon rum while brandy found its way into the Transvaal and did as much mischief.

The hon. member went on to say that he understood that brandy was being manufactured in the Transvaal from raisins and that it was a very good spirit. Did the hon. Minister intend that a 10s. tax should be paid on brandy made from raisins, or would he allow raisin brandy, which was as good as the best brandy, to come under the 5s.

The motion, was agreed to.

The motion to go into committee was then put, and

declared the Ayes had it.

called for a division, but subsequently withdrew it, and the House went into committee.

moved This Committee recommends:

1. 1. That the rate of excise duty be increased—(a) In the Province of the Cape of Good Hope—(i) on wine brandy, from three shillings per Imperial proof gallon to five shillings per Imperial proof gallon: (ii) on spirits other than wine brandy, from six shillings per Imperial proof gallon to ten shillings per Imperial proof gallon. (b) In every other Province, on spirits other than wine brandy, from nine shillings per Imperial proof gallon to ten shillings per Imperial proof gallon.
2. 2. That the rate of excise duty be increased in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope on extracts or essences of vinegar and acetic and pyroligneous acids, of a strength not exceeding the strength of proof, from sevenpence per Imperial gallon or fraction thereof to one shilling per Imperial gallon or fraction thereof, such increase being in addition to any other excise duty payable under any law in respect of those articles.
3. 3. That an excise duty be imposed in the Provinces of Natal, the Transvaal and the Orange Free State on extracts or essences of vinegar and on acetic and pyroligneous acids of one shilling per Imperial gallon or fraction thereof if of a strength not exceeding the strength of proof, and in addition for each degree of strength in excess of the strength of proof, that an excise duty be imposed of fourpence per degree.
4. 4. That the rate of excise duty be increased in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope— (a) on beer brewed from worts of the specific gravity of less than 1040 degrees, from four shillings and sixpence per 36 Imperial gallons to six shillings per 36 Imperial gallons; (b) on beer brewed from worts of the specific gravity of 1040 degrees and over, per 36 Imperial gallons of worts of a specific gravity of 1057 degrees (with a proportionate increase or decrease for any difference in gravity) from nine shillings to twelve shillings.
5. 5. That with regard to customs duties in any Province in respect of—(a) perfumed spirits, the customs duty be increased of one pound two shillings and sixpence per Imperial gallon now payable, a customs duty of ten per cent., ad valorem be imposed; (b) liqueurs, cordials and mixed spirits, exceeding three per cent. of proof spirits, the customs duty be increased from one pound per Imperial gallon, to one pound two shillings per Imperial gallon, or to twenty-five per cent., ad valorem, whichever duty is the greater; (c) other sorts of spirits, exceeding three per cent. of proof spirits, the customs duty be increased from nineteen shillings per Imperial proof gallon to one pound one shilling per Imperial proof gallon; (d) medicinal and toilet preparations and essences (liquid) and syrups and tinctures, the customs duty be increased from one pound per Imperial gallon to one pound two shillings per Imperial gallon, or to twenty-five per cent., ad valorem, whichever duty is the greater; (e) spirits (other than wine brandy) the produce of any one Province of the Union, on importation into any other Province of the Union, where the customs duty now charged is a less duty than ten shillings per Imperial proof gallon, the customs duty be increased to ten shillings per Imperial proof gallon; (f) extracts and essences of vinegar and acetic and pyroligneous acids of any strength not exceeding the strength of proof—-(i) if the same are in bottles or other vessels of a capacity of not more than one Imperial quart, the customs duty be increased from one shilling and one penny per Imperial gallon to one shilling and sevenpence per Imperial gallon; and (ii) if the same are in larger vessels, the customs duty be increased from sevenpence per Imperial gallon to one shilling and one penny per Imperial gallon, and in addition in either case for each degree of strength in excess of the strength of proof that there be charged a customs duty of fivepence per degree.
6. 6. That the said duties of excise and customs hereby increased or imposed shall be subject to the exemptions, allowances and rebates permitted, and to the conditions which may be prescribed, by any law now in force in the Province in which the duty is payable or by any other law relating to excise and customs.

raised the question of stock medicines. He did not know whether the hon. Minister had received any application from importers with regard to an alteration in the present Customs duty, which prevented the importation of these medicines, which were valued by farmers. He had been requested to bring the matter to the attention of the Minister and had done so.

said that representations had been brought to his attention, but the Customs and Excise Department, after having gone into the matter, had advised against them. The hon. Minister went on to move the deletion of the word “proof” before “gallon” in three places.

said the Minister had treated his hon. friend in rather an off-hand manner. They wanted to improve their stock, and yet they were putting a bar on these medicines which were extensively used by farmers. He thought that the tariff might be so framed that some rebate would be allowed these stock medicines.

said that in the interests of the animals he thought that it was a very good thing. (Laughter.) If the virtues of these medicines were only disclosed they might be made here. (Laughter.)

said that he must agree with his hon. friend. (Laughter.) It was a more serious thing than the Minister seemed to think――

For the animals. (Laughter).

said that many farmers used these medicines and they had to pay very high prices for them. He thought that some rebate should be allowed.

said he had received a communication from some Natal manufacturers of acetic acid, pointing out that, should the proposal become law, they would be compelled to close down.

pointed out that the clause with regard to acetic acid had been passed.

said he would hand the communication to the Minister of Finance.

said he was in much the same position, he having a similar letter from the Transvaal Manufacturers’ Association, who pointed out that the proposal would kill the industry.

The motion was agreed to.

moved This Committee recommends: That the customs duty on spirits manufactured from the products or by-products of the sugar cane in any one of the Provinces, on importation into any of the other Provinces be further increased from ten shillings per Imperial proof gallon to one pound one shilling per Imperial proof gallon, where any customs duty on such spirits has not already been proposed to be increased to one pound one shilling per Imperial proof gallon.

said that the Minister had not condescended to reply to the very serious protest which had been made by Natal, and also from the Cape Colony, notably by the hon. member for Cape Town, with regard to the important differentiation between Natal and the other Provinces. He would ask the Chairman to give a ruling as to how far this new proposal infringed section 136 of the Constitution? This was a differentiation against Natal. He would like the Chairman’s ruling as to whether the proposal was in order.

stated that as the subject matter of the motion had been specially referred to the Committee as an instruction, the question should more appropriately have been raised at a previous stage, but he would accept the motion asking for Mr. Speaker’s ruling.

If it is pointed out to you that there is an infringement of the Constitution, are you not bound to take notice of it?

I think it is too late to raise the question now.

In its operation it is an infringement of the proposal that there should be free trade within the Union.

It says nothing about Natal.

In its operation it means that there is not free trade within the Union. It differentiates unduly against the sale of rum.

said that the hon. member would not be debarred from bringing up this question when the Bill embodying these duties was brought before the House.

asked whether it would not be competent for them to ask for Mr. Speaker’s ruling on this point?

I have not ruled; I hold that it is an instruction to the committee on the assumption that it is correct. The point should have been raised when Mr. Speaker was in the chair.

Is it not competent for us to ask for Mr. Speaker’s ruling as to whether your assumption is correct?

Oh, yes, quite competent.

said he would move that the Chairman report progress in order to obtain Mr. Speaker’s ruling on the question as to whether this motion is not in conflict with the provisions of the South Africa Act.

said he would submit that the proper time to bring this up was when the House was discussing it and giving instructions.

urged that the motion was not in order at all.

said the proposal constituted a breach of the South Africa Act.

replied that they could amend the Constitution.

Why should we make ourselves ridiculous by asking for Mr. Speaker’s ruling in these circumstances ?

wanted to know whether he would be in order in moving “ that in any one of the Provinces on importation with any of the other Provinces.” There should be no differentiation, he urged, in the matter of Customs or Excise with regard to the different Provinces. If the principle were adopted it could be extended in a 100 ways.

asked if he would be in order in moving the matter be considered that day six months.

said the hon. member could vote against the motion.

agreed with the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens. He was sorry to appear to give facilities for trade in liquor, but that clause of the Act of Union decided there should be free trade within the Provinces.

objected to any such differentiation as that proposed.

said there was no question that it was a contravention of the Act of Union. If they passed this resolution it would mean that there would be free trade in the Union with regard to everything except Natal rum. He did not mean that he wished to see an extension of the sale of Natal rum, but next year some other product of the Transvaal or the Cape or the Free State might be placed in the same position. He thought that it was a very dangerous principle, and if they laid it down they would have difficulty in getting out of it next time. He would be compelled to vote against the proposal

said it was admitted that even if the sale of Natal rum were prohibited in the Transvaal there would be facilities for the natives to get Cape dop. He had no interest in Natal rum, but he raised the point on higher grounds. He appreciated the action of Cape members in taking up an independent attitude on the question. He did think that when a Minister deliberately altered the constitution the House should take notice of the matter. He appealed to the Minister to appreciate the arguments that had been raised, and he asked the Minister on what grounds he justified the proposal.

said the questions the hon. member had been asking to-night, he (Gen. Smuts) explained when he introduced the motion. He (Gen. Smuts) did not want to kill rum, but the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, wished to do so. He (Gen. Smuts) did not see any reason for killing Natal rum in Natal, but he wished to keep it out of the other Provinces. As to abstract arguments on the Constitution, would free trade prevent them putting an excise on anything or applying prohibition?

A uniform excise.

This is perfectly uniform. Whether the sugar cane is grown at East London or in any other part of the Union you will have a differentiation. It is a general measure applying all over the Union. We might have gone a step further and prevented sugar cane spirit being sent to any Province outside that in which it is manufactured. If it is an infringement of the principle of free trade you cannot impose an excise. The only way to secure perfect uniformity would be to kill the manufacture of the spirit in Natal too.

We shall kill dop here too.

proceeding, referred to the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Durban, Berea. They had been discussing Natal rum as a potable substance, but the hon. member spoke of it in respect of manufacturing purposes. In that case there would be uniformity.

asked how the Minister could contend that it was going to set up a system of free trade, a system where they had to set up excise stations on the borders of the Provinces. He might as well argue that they could have a special customs duties between the various Provinces as there once were. He (Mr. Baxter) was surprised how many members on both sides of the House were prepared to run their pens through clause 106 of the Act of Union. If they did that with that particular clause where were they going to stop.

said he was almost persuaded by the hon. Minister, who said that all they had to do was to equally restrict the trade in all the Provinces, and then they had free trade. It was too delightful. He was sorry he withdrew his demand for a division earlier in the evening.

said that if out of deference to what was after all a matter of opinion they were going to allow the Transvaal to be flooded with this cheap spirit, then he thought they would be doing a very foolish thing. They were not imposing restrictions that did not exist at the present time; they were only continuing the old restrictions. He could not follow the argument of the hon. member for Georgetown. He advanced the argument that because it was wrong to bring the natives into the Transvaal and because by keeping spirits away from them they were made more efficient and docile workers, he was opposed to the proposal of the Minister.

said that the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, reminded him of a member of the Jacobin Club during the French Revolution who said: “Abolish your colonies but maintain your principles.” He did not care what interests were concerned—material or human souls—so long as he maintained his principles. This was not a duty which it was proposed to levy on Natal rum alone, but rum made anywhere. They had heard a lot of talk about the Act of Union. It was a very sacred document that evening, but he had seen it torn to tatters on the floor of the House. The Act was a very sacred document when it suited some people. This was not applicable to Natal rum alone. If they made the stuff anywhere else it would be equally applicable. He did not see how they could say one particular Colony or one particular industry was penalised. They might just as well say that it was not right to have one Excise for grape brandy and another for wine brandy. What had they done already in regard to dop ? He did it in the Adulteration Bill he introduced. Practically dop was a thing of the past. They had dealt with it far more drastically than they proposed to deal with rum.

said he hoped the hon. member for Gardens would not feel too much crushed. (Hear, hear.) Naturally, the Minister of Justice scored over anyone who stood for principles. If the proposal had come from anyone else, no one could have demonstrated more clearly than the two hon. members that this was a departure from the principle laid down of free trade within the Union. It was clearly meant to deal with Natal rum. The main grievance as to the natives having liquor was because the natives, by indulging in it, were unfitted for work on Mondays. If Natal rum did not debauch the millions of natives in Natal, there was no reason why it should debauch the much smaller number of natives employed on the Rand mines. Was the fear that there was to be cheaper raw spirit at the disposal of the Transvaal illicit liquor seller sufficient to justify a departure from the Act of Union? Did the Minister think that this increase would put an effective barrier on the illicit liquor traffic? Why not increase the Excise duty on rum in Natal, and let it apply all over the Union? He would sooner kill Natal rum than establish a precedent which might be used for erecting further barriers in the Union, until at last we might reach the stage already arrived at on the Continent, where local duties had to be paid on every cabbage taken inside a city.

said the reason for bringing this matter forward was not because Natal was the Province where rum was manufactured, but the establishment of a differentiation not contemplated under the Constitution. The Minister, in his original proposals, proposed a rate which would have allowed the entry of Natal rum into the Transvaal, in competition with the Cape Province. That was pointed out to him by the hon. member for Troyeville, and it was to meet that objection, and to prohibit the sale of Natal rum to the natives, that that legislation was contemplated. Surely the hon. Minister could have done that in a more direct and proper fashion. He strongly protested, not because he was a Natalian, but because they would create a precedent which would be far-reaching in its consequences. There was only one construction to be placed upon it. It was an impulse to prevent the sale of Natal rum in the Transvaal, and that differentiation was a contravention of the Act of Union.

said the Minister knew very well that this was an infringement of the article. He urged the Minister to put a differential rate on all the products other than products of the vine. By these means he would keep this free trade article intact.

said that the Minister of Justice had done him an injustice. The point he made was: why put this extraordinary tax on Natal rum if you allow dop to get into the Transvaal?

The motion to report progress in order to ask for Mr. Speaker’s ruling was negatived.

asked whether he could move that the clause stand over.

said the hon. member could not do so.

moved that progress be reported, and leave asked to sit again.

put the motion, and declared it negatived.

said he thought that the way out of the difficulty would be to place all these spirits on the same basis as regarded Excise. He moved that the duty on wine brandy in the Orange Free State, Transvaal, and Natal be the same as that on rum when it went outside Natal.

said that the amendment would not be in order.

moved, as an amendment, to delete the clause for the purpose of inserting “On spirits other than the product of the vine per Imperial proof gallon, 3s.”

said he would appeal to the Minister to let this clause stand over so that he could put a resolution on the paper dealing clearly with what he was aiming at.

put the original motion and declared the “Ayes” had it.

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

Ayes—41.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Brain, Thomas Philip

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Waal, Hendrik

Duncan, Patrick

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Hewat, John

Joubert, Jozua Adriaan

Louw, George Albertyn

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Sauer, Jacobus Wilhelmus

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Theron, Hendrick Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watt, Thomas

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

C. Joel Krige and H. Mentz, tellers.

Noes—14.

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Fawcus, Alfred.

Fitzpatrick, James Percy

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Jagger, John William

Long, Basil Kellett

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

E. Nathan and Morris Alexander, tellers.

The motion was therefore carried.

there upon reported that the Committee had agreed to certain resolutions, and asked leave to bring up a report to-morrow.

Agreed to.