First and Special Reports of the Public Service Commission upon matters concerning the Public Service of the Union.

Final Report of Commission for Revision, Assimilation and Consolidation of the Laws of the various Provinces relating to Patents, Designs, Trade Marks, Copyright and Tacit Hypothecations.

moved that the House at its rising to-day adjourn until to-morrow at ten o’clock a.m., and that Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Committees, as the case may be, do suspend business tomorrow at one o’clock p.m. until a quarter past two o’clock p.m.

said he was not offering any objection to the motion, but he thought it was only fair to the House and to the members that the right hon. gentleman should give his reasons for moving the resolution, that was, did he think it possible to bring the session to a close on Saturday evening? That would be the only justification for such a motion, not only in regard to the convenience of members, but also the officers of the House. Under these circumstances he (Sir Thomas) would like to know from the Prime Minister whether it was his intention to bring this session to a close on Saturday evening?

said that the motion was placed on the paper yesterday because the Government had hoped that they would be able to conclude the business on Saturday night. Yesterday, however, two lengthy debates had been started, and he did not know what further debates would be started. It really depended on hon. members themselves. A number of hon. members were going home on Saturday night, and if they sat on Friday morning the important business could be concluded by Saturday night and the session could terminate early next week.

pointed out that on the previous night they were obliged to press for the adjournment because of the importance of the subjects contained in the railway estimates then under discussion. These estimates had been in the possession of the House for a very long time, but the only opportunity given to discuss them was, as he said on the previous night, within 48 hours of the projected termination of the session. They were all anxious to get home, but how was it possible to pass business like this? They had a large amount of business on the Order Paper for that day, no fewer than 32 items being set down. He did not know if all the work had been done. He did not think they had better sit next morning. Let them do the work in the proper way; if they had to go another week let them do it. (Hear, hear.) Each session, proceeded Sir Percy, they had had the same experience with the railway estimates. By a process of exhaustion of the members they were passed through. On the previous night he had pointed out they discussed many items, and for a long time there was not even a quorum in the House. Their constituents were entitled to know what business was being done, and how it was being done, but they could not expect the newspapers to report in detail the whole of a day’s sitting from 10 a.m. to midnight. If there were a genuine desire for the business of the country to be properly conducted and affairs of the greatest importance properly discussed and ventilated, the Government would bring these matters up earlier. There was plenty of time in the first four months of the session. He thought it was absurd to ask the House to sit in the morning and then to continue until midnight and again to sit on Saturday morning. What work could be done? It was not within the limits of human endeavour to deal with business properly when it was put upon them at that rate and under those conditions. (Hear, hear.)

said he was very much in sympathy with what had been said by the last speaker as to the inadvisability of proceeding with the business of the country in this way. He took exception to their dealing with the administration of the railways at the end of the session. This manner of dealing with the business was not conducive to the best interests of the country. He suggested that if they desired to get away by Saturday, they should adopt the practice that prevailed on the mines, that was to go in for shifts of eight hours. (Laughter.)

called attention to the fact that there were in all 32 orders on the paper to-day, 15 of these being second readings. If they were going to go on doing business in this way, it was simply a farce. When one went back to their constituents they would ask what had been done, and hon. members could only say that they had done nothing.

You talk too much.

said that the reason was this, that they took one portion of a second reading one day, and then a Bill of another kind interposed, and they forgot all about the former Bill. This was the third session of the present Government, and he was sorry to see that there was no improvement. The chaotic condition of business was entirely due to the negligent way that the Government did its work. (Hear, hear.)

put the question, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

A division was called for, but was afterwards withdrawn.

The motion was, therefore, agreed to.

moved that the Appropriation Bill (1913-14) be read a third time.

said the hon. member for Hoopstad had yesterday imputed motives to the hon. member for Smithfield, to the speaker and to others, and had alleged that the matter about the poor settlers had been raised simply for electioneering purposes. He denied this, and said the hon. member should respect the opinions of other people. There was no need to ascribe motives to the hon. member for Smithfield. Why should election speeches be delivered? The hon. member for Hoopstad had made an election impossible. He had also charged other hon. members with running out of the House after having spoken, but the hon. member himself had adopted a most unusual procedure in speaking after the Minister had replied to the debate.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill read a third time.

drew attention to the fact that the workshops’ expenses had increased by £1,213,000. He did not find, however, any reference as to how this increase had arisen. He would draw the Minister’s attention to the decrease of £200,000 in the amount set aside for the Betterment Fund. In the face of the depreciation that he saw written off this year, he thought the Minister ought to explain why he felt justified in reducing the Betterment Fund by such an amount. He did not think it was sufficient to depreciate railway carriages and wagons by 5 per cent. per year. He thought the same applied to the case of 6 per cent. for locomotives.

complained that in the railway stations in the suburbs of Cape Town the Dutch words had either been mutilated or erased altogether. A spirit of vandalism seemed to be about in certain quarters, and he hoped the Minister would deal severely with anyone committing such acts. (Hear, hear.)

said it appeared to him that some more satisfactory method should be adopted in regard to new construction proposals than that of having these reported upon by the Board. He did think that the House or the country was satisfied with the method of reporting at present adopted.

The hon. member is referring to a past debate.

said he was referring to new construction proposals for next year or the year after.

There may not be any. (Laughter.)

said he trusted that the Minister would find some more satisfactory method of dealing with new construction proposals.

The question of construction is not now before the House.

said that, as the Chairman ruled that he was out of order, he would not proceed with this point.

said that he wished to express his appreciation of the recommendation of the Railway Board to create a sinking fund for using the £455,000 for the reduction of debt, instead of as interest on dead capital. If they were to have any reduction of railway rates for the benefit of the inland portions of the Union they must make a point of reducing the railway debt.

said he was rather surprised to hear the hon. member, who came from the inland parts of the Union, practically suggest that new construction should be built out of revenue. He agreed that, from a financial point of view, there was very little justification indeed for the payment of interest on that part of the railway capital, but it was clearly laid down in the Act of Union, and he would suggest to the hon. member, being a lawyer himself, that the better way would be to alter the Act of Union before they altered the effects of the Act of Union.

Alter the interpretation of the Act of Union.

said that a most unusual thing happened in that all the lawyers were agreed on the interpretation of the Act of Union.

That is the most suspicious part of it. (Laughter.)

I admit there is something suspicious about it. Proceeding, he said he hoped that the Government would not adopt the policy of a sinking fund for the railway capital, so long as interest continued to be paid on that part of the capital. He hoped the Minister would take the Railway Grievances Commission’s report into consideration, and would go into the manner in which overtime was paid in the Transvaal, for at present the men were paid less per hour for overtime than they were for their ordinary work. Again, the hours of work were too long, some of the shifts being 12 hours. It was dangerous to the public that engine drivers should be worked for more than 12 hours a day.

said he would like to correct an impression that existed among Northern members as to the position they had been left in so far as the railways were concerned. Although they had complained about the £445,000 being applied to the Sinking Fund, they had never made the slightest allusion to the fact that the Union had to bear the burden of paying 3 per cent. interest on about half of the loan of 35 millions which was charged entirely on the South African Railways. The latter had been relieved of the whole of the interest charged on that sum, and of half the sinking fund charges. That was now thrown on the general revenue of the Union.

said that not a penny of the 35 millions was spent on the C.S.A.R., and it had as little to do with the C.S.A.R. as with the sea.

referred to the unfortunate position of the people in the South-western Districts of the Cape, owing to the high railway rates they had to pay. Some relief should be given them, for the high rates stopped development. Relief had been given to the people of Somerset Strand, Walmer, and Sea Point, and that system should be extended further, so as to include the people living in the South-western Districts. He hoped that the Minister would approach the New Cape Central Railways on the subject, with the idea of arranging for S.A.R. rates being charged in return for a subsidy. Feeling in the districts concerned was very strong on the subject. The receipts of the N.C.C.R. had shown an increase of 25 per cent. during the past five years—not 45 per cent., as he had previously stated.

in moving a reduction of £1 from the salaries of the members of the Railway Board, said he did so in order to call attention to the unsatisfactory work done by the Board. The Board had not the time to make proper inquiries into new railways, and the work had been entrusted to the railway technical staff. The reports of the Board on new construction proposals were not satisfactory to the House. There was something wrong with the whole principle of examining new routes from motor-cars.

The whole thing was discussed on the Railway Construction Bill.

in supporting the hon. member for Riversdale, said it was as much to the interests of the whole of the Union that the New Cape Central line should be taken over at the earliest date possible, as it was to the interests of the people of the South-western Districts. That portion of the Union was developing at a very rapid rate, and new irrigation schemes were bringing thousands of acres under cultivation, so the sooner the company was bought out, the less would have to be paid for the line. Continuing, Mr. Heatlie referred to the rearrangement of railway rates to the competitive shipping areas. Under the old arrangement, Cape Town had a preference, so far as the conveyance of wine, spirits, and vinegar were concerned, over Worcester of £1 8s. 4d. per ton, to Port Elizabeth, East London, and Durban, in order to capture the traffic that went by sea. In the course of six months, from April 1 to September 30, 1911, against 2,000 tons by sea, they had only 339 tons by rail. He was mentioning this to show that there were no vested interests as far as Cape Town was concerned. By using this as a lever, the Cape Town merchants got a lower rate by sea. Last year he brought this to the notice of the Minister and the General Manager, and they both agreed that this lower rate should be granted throughout the wine districts. This was not done, but since Cape Town had not made use of the railway, the preferential rate was withdrawn from Cape Town.

It was much worse, however, now, because, whereas the difference used to be £1 8s. 4d., it was now £1 13s. 4d. If they got the same rate for shipping to-day, they would be 10s. better off. Not only was it worse at this end, but Cape Town got the benefit on the other side. This was a disadvantage, in so far that it practically excluded them from these markets, It would be far better to give them the same rate right down to Worcester as they gave to Cape Town. There was another matter which he would like to refer to, and that was that there was a complaint about the high rate which onions now paid. Onions were sent over the whole Union from the Western Province. Before the lowering of the rate, the rates were very much lower. The effect of the lowering of the rate was an increase of the rate on onions all round, and as a few instances I may mention the increases of 17s. 6d. to East London, 15s. 2d. to Port Elizabeth, and 14s. 2d. to Graham’s Town. The rate was also raised, he believed, to Durban. This was giving the imported article a better chance of competing and knocking the Colonial article out of the market.

said that until the House had defined by Statute the powers of the Railway Board, it was impossible to know whether the Railway Board was exercising these powers or not. They had a promise from the Minister that he would bring in a Bill next session dealing with the powers of the Railway Board. They could not lay the blame at the door of the Minister, because it was the Government that were responsible for defining the powers of this body. When these powers were defined, he had no doubt that this body would do very good service. He hoped that this would be the last time that they would have to refer to matters of this sort, seeing that they had the promise of the Minister that the powers of the Board would he defined. He would ask his hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Harbours what policy he intended to adopt with regard to the harbours of the country. Speaking from memory, last year the loss on the harbours was £230,000. The loss this year, he believed, would be over £300,000. Now, he would ask the Minister what policy he intended to pursue with regard to that loss. He thought the harbours ought to pay for the whole of their expenditure, and that the railways should not be saddled with the loss upon them.

complained that since the reductions in railway rates had taken place, the railway rates on coal sent from the Witbank Collieries had been increased instead of reduced. Surely, he said, there was something anomalous there. (Laughter.) Even where people fetched their own stuff from the station, they still had to pay the costs of transport. How was that?

said he wanted to correct the impression in the mind of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg that the railway system in the Transvaal was to be relieved of some particular burden. It was entirely incorrect to say that the loan of £35,000,000 was raised solely for the railway systems in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. The railways were responsible for the Sinking Fund simply as part of the assets of the Transvaal and the Free State. The Act originally provided that the profits should be used after providing for the sinking fund and interest for general purposes, but the Act of Union provided that the railways should be run at cost. Devoting the profits of the Union railways was a very different thing from devoting the profits of the Transvaal and Free State railways. He trusted that the profits of the railways were going to be used, in so far as they existed, as railway profits only and that, whatever could be spared from railway profits would be used for the reduction of railway rates. He would like to ask the Minister a question in regard to the provision of trucks for coal traffic, as to whether the position was any better now than it was a few weeks ago.

said that the hon. member for Fordsburg took rather a different attitude to-day in regard to the Act of Union from the one he took up the other day. He criticised what he described as the illogical position of the rates from the ports to inland towns. He submitted that the rates from Durban to Mafeking and Rhodesia on South African soap were anomalous. He also urged that the distribution rates for manufactured goods at inland places were unfair compared to the rates at the ports. Mr. Henderson went on to criticise the special rates, and especially complained that the rates were not published. He contended that these special rates and all rates should be published. He next turned his attention to the question of wharf dues at the different ports, and urged that at Durban manufacturers and merchants were handicapped owing to the higher wharfage dues they had to pay, as compared with other parts of the Union. He trusted that the harbours’ capital would be put on a proper footing. In regard to the shortage as to coal trucks, he was informed that the position, so far from being any better, was a good deal worse than it was a few weeks ago. Steamers were constantly being kept waiting at Natal for coal. He hoped that within a few days the administration would see their way to grant relief. Touching on the work of the forwarding agents at Port Natal, he emphatically repudiated the evidence given before a Select Committee to the effect that the forwarding agents did not do the work for which they were paid, that the administration did the work, and that the forwarding agents charged and got paid for it. So far as the general body of forwarding agents at Durban were concerned, he wished to say that the statement was absolutely incorrect. The hon. member pointed out that the cost of running the railways had gone up from £95 odd per mile in 1909 to £117 odd per mile in 1912, and he urged that it was incumbent upon the Government to keep down expenses as far as possible.

said that dissatisfaction existed in connection with the transport of mealies to the coast, owing to the fact that the railway administration refused to accept liability for damage. The speaker had drawn attention to the matter, and some one had been appointed to supervise the mealie traffic, but it did no good. The administration ought to be held responsible. He further wished to draw the attention of the Minister to the treatment which passengers’ luggage underwent on the railway. It was treated in a most indifferent manner, and was frequently damaged.

complained that the railway rates on livestock were higher now than before the general reductions were made. The cost of conveying sheep from Dordrecht to Cape Town had been raised from 3s. 6d. to 4s. 4d. Corn only cost 2s. per bag. Could not the Minister, the speaker asked, provide cattle wagons built with two storeys? It would undoubtedly cheapen the cost of transport.

said that earlier in the session the Government said it would refer the railway men’s grievances to the Select Committee, but that committee met to consider only the Railways and Harbours Regulations Bill. At that time no representation had been made by the men in the terms of the Act—which provided for the settlement of grievances—asking for the machinery created by the Act to be set in force.

That is so.

In spite of the appeal made in this House to the men to use the machinery provided for bringing forward their grievances, that has not been done so far. From that we must assume that there are grievances of a particular kind which cannot be settled by that method. At the same time, there is a very large mass of grievances of a smaller kind dealing with everyday matters. These have been reported on by the Grievances Commission, and some of them have been dealt with.

The huge bulk.

asked the Minister for an assurance that these grievances would speedily be dealt with. In the interests of the men and the country the grievances should be reduced so much that there would be no necessity to raise them in Parliament. Proceeding. Sir Percy said that no one had ever asked that people residing in the seaport towns should bear the cost of the harbours. What they asked was that the users of the harbours should pay for the upkeep of the harbours in proportion to the extent to which they used them. (Hear, hear.) Let there be fair play all round. He understood the Minister to say that it would be the policy of the Government in that way to make the harbours self-supporting. That was satisfactory.

There was the question of the coal combine. Certain coal companies had agreed with the Union-Castle Co., or the ring, that they would not sell their coal to anyone whoever he might be and whatever price he offered for transportation from Natal to Cape Town. They had the control of the output of these collieries—he (Sir Percy) did not know how—but they controlled the bunkering trade in Cape Town through that. Was it the same combine that controlled the shipping contract? He did not want to discuss the question of violation of the terms of the mail contract, but the fact was that simultaneously with getting this power they had raised the cost of coal, and they were the only deliverers of coal to Cape Town. The effect was that a number of the steamers usually coaling at the islands were formerly tempted to come to Cape Town to coal, but since the price had been raised they had ceased coaling here. This affected the position of South Africa. If they could get these steamers to see their way for a number of years to get coal more cheaply in Cane Town, which was the next point to Australia and other parts of the world on the shipping routes, it could be made a permanent feature for this part of the Union. There was a possibility of opening up a very large export trade in coal to India, a trade running from half a million to a million tons per annum. That would be money of another country spent entirely in this country, imported to this country in exchange for one of the mineral products of South Africa. This was for the railways to arrange, and they could do it. He would leave on one side the question as to whether a combination between coal-owners was improper, and the point as to whether there was a violation of the terms of the mail contract. The country had another weapon in its hands to deal effectively with this question of the export trade. They all appreciated the capacity and the amazing energy of the General Manager of Railways (Sir Percy added). The suggestion they made (he proceeded) was one that must be quite familiar to the General Manager and the Railway Board. They had huge deposits of coal in the Transvaal, but it was not as high in grade as the mines in Natal, which were locked up under the agreement. That was the reason why a combination of seven mines at present, with the shipping company, could control the situation. The railways alone could deal with this position. On the authority of the General Manager, the railways could convey coal from the Transvaal and from Waschbank, in Natal, at a cost of 12s. to 12s. 6d. per ton, without loss. That would deliver coal in Cape Town for bunkering at under £1 a ton, instead of 25s. to 27s., as at present, and it would turn the bunkering trade from the islands and bring it to Cape Town. It would give them cheaper freight, and there would be another safeguard against a shipping combination, such as they had in the past, and might have again. As soon as the Union-Castle Co, and other people found that Transvaal coal could be delivered here—and he might mention that the intermediate steamers of the Union-Castle Co., which called at Delagoa Bay, used Transvaal coal—the whole combination would break down. We had an instrument in our hands in the railways, and he sincerely hoped that Government would use that instrument. (Cheers.) Continuing; Sir Percy said Government should make still further efforts to obtain rolling-stock. With regard to the reduction of railway rates, he remarked that the Minister of Railways had stated during the debate on the Carnarvon line that the reduction in rates on live-stock had been made for the benefit of the consumer on the Rand. But the Minister had also said that reduction in coal rates did not reach the consumer. However, the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce had issued a statement showing that the case put up by the Railway Board, that the consumer had not reaped the benefit of reduced railway rates, took no notice of the increase in the cost of production.

What about coal?

said the question of coal was also dealt with in this report. It was no good putting forward the householder as a test. The householder did not consume l-50th part of the coal in the Transvaal. Coal was given to them in the Transvaal by Providence, so that they might have some chance of establishing industries. If they only brought the cost of mining down a shilling a ton, then they would be able to employ thousands more men.

No, it will simply mean more profit?

Well, they had the experience of twenty years. He did not say that it would not increase the profit, but would that stop more people making a living? This question of coal rates was riot merely a householder’s question. Until the last reduction was made, the coal line was paying for its entire cost out of the profits every six months. This seemed to him a scandalous waste of opportunity to do good to the country by endeavouring to foster the settlement of an industrial population in the country. In his criticisms, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg forgot that Natal had a considerable portion of inland territory, and they were safeguarding that just as much as any other part. (Hear, hear.) Quoting from a document prepared by parties interested in the formation and development of industries, the hon. member said that these people hoped to see the establishment of steel works.

They had got the ores and they had got the coal, but they had not got the population. They did not want to do anything by means of concessions; they wanted to get fair play. Every farmer knew that it was not the first cost of a plough that worried him; it was the spares and repairs, and these should all be made here. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member went on to illustrate the differences in the railway rates upon raw material and manufactured articles. Steel ingots and pig-iron cost £3 10s., finished material cost £1 19s. 2d., irrigation plant and machinery cost £1 16s., fencing material £1 1s. 3d. He thought hon. members would do well to study this and see what they were doing to foster legitimate industries in the country. (Hear, hear.) There was another side to the question, and that was that the rate of iron pipes was £3 6s. 8d., but iron plates and rivets, from which this material was made, cost £4 15s. for 367 miles. To his thinking, this must be an oversight, because raw material could be more easily carried and packed than the finished article. They had the coal and the iron and a small market here already.

And a steel trust.

Yes, for nick-nacks. Continuing, the hon. member said that he was not going to criticise the Railway Board. He knew that they had men upon that Board with life-long experience and great prestige. He simply allied himself with the remarks of his hon. friend (Sir T. W. Smartt). What he would say, however, was this, that that Board was not able to use its proper function. (Hear, hear.) If the Minister wanted peace and a good record of doing his business properly, surely it was in his own interest, and that of the Government, that they should have a competent Board untrammelled by any restrictions placed upon them. Every time they built new railways they were missing a grand chance. He believed that if the Board would ascertain whether people were prepared to make offers of a surrender of a portion of their property, they would get offers, without any law being enforced.

He did not know upon what system railway rates were fixed. In the first session he asked the then Minister what he regarded as the unit of paying expenses and giving no profit. The unit was capable of the most flagrant injustice. There was just as much room for manœuvring in the Act of Union, as there was without it. He believed that by persistent exposure of the position they would eventually get an understanding of the whole case. The claim they made for an adjustment of rates was not conceived in any spirit of hostility to anybody. Let them take the question of the Witbank line. It was said that they put on the high rates themselves. But then they were their own railways then. They were all inland and they were their own railways. It was still the trade of the competitive zone that made the profit. He had a map showing the whole position. The section Cape Town—De Aar showed a total loss of £84,000, Port Elizabeth—De Aar £1,919, and East London—De Aar £34,343. From De Aar to Kimberley there was a profit of £37,000. In the Free State there was a total profit of £285,000. That of course, was mainly on the through traffic. The Durban Harbour line showed a loss of £89,000, but the total profit on the Natal line to the competitive zone was £464,000. In the Transvaal, south of Johannesburg the line showed a profit of £1,279,000, and on the Eastern line a profit of £524,000. He did not care how keenly one might feel for his own particular part, he did not think any hon. member would feel uneasy at the reading of these figures or wonder that people complained that they were being taxed through their railway rates. They had got an area up-country which was clearly capable of being developed, otherwise they could not have a profit of one and three-quarter millions. That country could be further developed if they reduced the railway rates. It was in the hope that something would be done to bring about an alteration in the direction he had indicated that he brought these facts before the House. (Hear, heard.)

complained of the unfair pressure of the railway rates in the Transvaal; he especially drew attention to the carriage of mealies over the railways, and said that owing to the policy of the Railway Department in that regard an extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs had been created. The last speaker had talked too much about Provincialism. During their conveyance by rail, mealies were frequently damaged, and the Administration refused all responsibility for such damage. The co-operative societies could not bear the costs caused by those losses, and it looked as if, to the great loss of the Transvaal farmer, they would have to go under. The costs of growing mealies were heavy, and the farmer could only get a bare living out of it. The high tariffs practically prohibited exportation, and the conveyance of hay to the Johanesburg market was prevented for the same reason. The Cape farmer had captured the whole of the Johannesburg and Transvaal markets, whilst the Transvaal farmer could not exist.

called attention to one or two matters which were of importance to his constituents. He pointed out that the condition of things prevailing at Butterworth Station, owing to the want of storage room and sufficient officials led to confusion and encouraged thieving. He would like to know if that would be remedied. There was also a great shortage of trucks, and persons who had large contracts to supply meat were unable to carry them out for lack of trucks. He referred also to a fire which had occurred at one of the stations in his constituency in which certain consignments were destroyed. In connection with that some people received compensation and others did not, one particular case amongst the latter being an institution which had lost £100 worth of goods sent for their church and school. They had got no compensation, and he would like some explanation from the hon. Minister with regard to the reasons for that.

said he differed with his hon. friend with regard to the clause in the Act of Union which described the duties of the Railway Board, and said that until that clause was remedied there would not be much improvement. The Railway Board reminded him of an experiment with a fire extinction invention called the sprinkler, when an old building had been stuffed with shavings and set alight, but the experiment had proved an absolute failure. It was found that the explanation was a very simple one. The sprinkler had been put in upside down. That was what had happened in connection with the Railway Board, which had been put in such a position that it was practically powerless, and those who expected much from it in connection with the administration of the railway business had failed to observe that the original provisions made it ineffective for that purpose. Now, however, that the hon. Minister had consented to introduce a Bill next session defining the duties of the Railway Board they would be in a better position to obtain the services which the Board was well qualified to give to the country. There had been no reflection on his part or on the part of other hon. members upon the members of the Railway Board in connection with the duties which they had performed. Proceeding, the hon. member said that he had not previously had the opportunity of giving his views on the harbour question. With regard to the working of the harbours and railways as one administrative scheme, he quite approved of that; Natal pointed the way in that direction many years ago and indeed in many other directions in connection with administration in this country. The financial point was another side of the question, and he held that there should be no connection between harbour and railway capital. That was wrong altogether. In his opinion the harbours, so far as finances were concerned, should stand on their own feet. Every man and woman in the country benefited from the harbours, and they had no connection with the railway capital at all. He disagreed with those who argued that the people who used the harbours—the exporters and importers—should have to pay the interest on the money. It was impossible, if they wished to do justice all round, to make the users of the harbours pay for the working expenses and the interest on the harbours. In looking over the Estimates his impression was that the malady from which the railway administration suffered was one which they would all like to suffer from—an unlimited purse.

said he supported the proposal that the Government should take over the N.C.C.R., and he suggested that the new line from Caledon to Kykoedie should be extended 18 miles further, so as to reach Swellendam. The Minister ought to do the fair thing this year. Year after year they came forward with deputations and petitions, arid the answer was always the same: wait first until the districts without railways have been provided with them. If they had to wait for that, generations would pass by before the line was taken over, whilst its purchase price would be continually going up. The south-west districts were being heavily taxed by the line, the heaviest in the whole Union, seeing that the tariff was a hundred per cent. higher than that which was charged on the Government railways.

said he was not aware whether there was a coal combine or not. But ships had brought out coal from Scotland, which could compete with Natal coal, this being due to the fact that, owing to freights falling off, ships sometimes had spare space, which was utilised for the conveyance of coal. It was absolutely absurd to say that the coal combine had prevented ships from coaling in Cape Town. At the time Cape Town did such a big bunkering trade, the Australian ships were bound to call here, owing to the strike. But as cargoes to Australia were falling off, the ships now brought out more coal than formerly. He did not believe that the coal combine did any injury to the trade of South Africa. The Union-Castle Company was bound to make contracts to obtain its own coal. Could any man buy a line of goods from the Home firms for which the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was agent? No, he would be told to buy from the Cape Town agents. The outcry about this big coal combine strangling the trade of the Cape was raised to “spoof” people who did not know the facts, and it had been worked up by one or two disappointed men.

said he was delighted to see the attitude taken up by the hon. member (Sir J. P. Fitzpatrick) on the coal combine question. But why did not the hon. member support the Labour members when they first brought up this matter? As to the hon. member’s remedy to bring down Transvaal coal, he did not tell the House that there was also a coal combine in the Transvaal The President of the Chamber of Mines stated that the gold mines had saved £200,000 through the cheapening of the coal. It was a pure fallacy to say that the cheapening of coal meant increased employment in the mines; it did not do anything of the sort; it simply meant increased profit. The householder did not get his coal any cheaper also. Another matter that he wished to refer to was the proposed payment of railway men by the month instead of by the week. He thought the Minister was ill-advised to have adopted this system of monthly payments.

Again, with reference to the guards’ winter clothing, he would like to know how many guards had been supplied with this and how many had been taken ill through having to wear their summer clothing. Each article of clothing supplied to the guards had to last six years, but the quality of the clothing was so bad that it did not last more than a year. Frequently, also, these guards had to go away for three days at a time, and they often found that they were away at the end of the month and did not get their pay until the second week in the month.

referred to certain anomalies in the tariff book, which he urged the Minister to remedy before next session.

wanted to ask the Minister with regard to the cold storage at the Docks. He understood that the Government were to hand over the cold storage business to private hands. He believed that if that was so, it would not serve any good purpose. In the interests of the industry it would be a good thing if the Government came to some resolution with regard to the control of the storage at the Docks. With regard to the system of weekly payments, he understood that the Government had not finally fixed on the system of monthly payments instead of weekly. He pointed out that by paying these men monthly the Government was actually retaining money belonging to the men longer than they had any right to. The men would get more value for their money also if they were enabled to pay cash for their goods. He did not want to go into the question raised by the hon. member for Pretoria, East. Most of them admitted that people up-country had paid a general tax to the country in a larger measure through the railways. But it was fair to say that all these railway tariffs were paid mainly by one section of the people, and now that the railways belonged to the Union, some alteration should be made.

It seemed to him that if the railways were made only to pay their own way, there would have to be a readjustment of taxation throughout the country. The hon. member for Pretoria East, although he had criticised the present rates, had not indicated the basis on which he would fix the rates. It seemed to him (Mr. Struben) that some people wished to have all the advantages of living up-country without the disadvantages of the geography which was against them. He thought the real thing behind it all was that a readjustment of taxation would be necessary if the Act of Union were carried out. He thought it was intended that the Act should be a reality, and, sooner or later, this question, in justice to the interior portions of the Union, would certainly have to be tackled. With that he thought was bound up the question of the loss on the harbours. Although some people seemed to have an impression that it was desired to put all the burden of the loss on the harbours upon the people at the coast, he did not think that was the general desire at all.

said he wished to bring to the attention of the Minister two points. The first was with regard to the question of weekly, as opposed to monthly, pay. He knew the Minister was sympathetic on that point, and he hoped that in his speech he would be able to tell them that he had arrived at the decision to introduce the weekly payment system instead of monthly payment. In regard to the recommendations of the Grievances Committee, a number of recommendations had been made, and they had the assurance of the Minister that, as soon as the decisions of the Administration were reached in regard to those recommendations, the recommendations themselves and the decisions of the Administration would be communicated to the men. He wanted to impress upon the Minister how careful the Administration should be before they decided not to adopt the recommendations of the Commission.

said he wished to assure the hon. member for Newlands that he had never dreamt for one moment that the people at the coast should pay the whole cost of the harbours. He wanted to take the opportunity of saying a word to the Minister, who had stated that they had the advantage of getting their goods at a lower rate than the people living at the ports. They paid three-eighths per cent., the same as the people at the coast. They, in Kimberley, had all the disadvantages of the Transvaal in connection with certain things, and also all the disadvantages of the Cape Colony in other matters. They paid the same wharfage as the coast people for the use of the harbours, whereas the people in the Transvaal and in other parts of the country only paid an eighth per cent. He contended that, whether they lived at the coast or in the interior, when services were rendered to them by the harbours, they ought to pay whatever those services cost —(hear, hear)—and, if that were done, instead of there being a loss on the harbours, there was going to be a profit.

said that serious reductions had been made in the wages of the daily-paid men. The Administration had reduced the wages of artisans and others in the Transvaal from a maximum of 19s. per day to 13s. He knew that there was an allowance. In the Free State the men’s wages had been reduced to a lower figure. He thought it was a sad reflection on the Railway administration, on the Government, and on this House generally, that the lead should be given by the Government in the direction of decreasing the wages of men who were giving them good service. As to the overtime rates, he was glad to note that the hon. member for Fordsburg had come to view things from a different standpoint than he did when he was in authority on the railways of the Transvaal and the Free State. He would like the Committee to understand what it meant. The maximum pay for artisans and certain classes of workmen was 13s. a day all over the country. In the Transvaal a living allowance of 4s. a day in some districts, and 2s. a day in other districts and the Free State, was paid. This worked out in the higher ranks at 4s. 3d. for two hours’ work in the daytime. When a man was asked to work overtime, he was not paid overtime on this allowance, and thus he did not get for overtime in an hour what he would get for an hour in the day-time. He thought that this was encouraging men in charge to ask the employees to work overtime, and he said that the system was one that could not be defended. He thought that overtime should be paid on pay and allowance, though he was quite prepared to be told that allowances were not wages. He hoped, however, that the Minister would put this overtime question right.

said only one definite motion had been placed before the House, namely, that to reduce the salary of members of the Railway Board, so as to induce him (the Minister) to make a change in the method of bringing up the reports of the Board. This rather reminded him of the story of the landlord who was threatened by his tenants that, unless he reduced their rent, they would shoot his agent. The landlord had replied that, if they thought that they were going to terrorise him by threatening to shoot his agent, they made a great mistake. He (the Minister) made a similar reply, and he did not think that they would get any further by that motion. Various points had been raised by hon. members on the cross-benches, and he hoped that the case would have been put comprehensively by one of those gentlemen. However, he did not complain of the extension of the debate. With regard to the question of improvers, he would say that, since the matter was raised last, he had been trying to put this matter on a satisfactory basis. The question had not yet been finally determined, but he wanted to inform the House that at present, under the new regulations, it was quite possible for a competent improver to draw a journeyman’s rate of pay after two years.

Not in practice.

said that that was the case under the new regulations. With regard to the question of promotion, of course, that must be left to the person in charge, for only he could decide which men were most competent and efficient. At any rate, he was still dealing with the matter. In regard to weekly pay, he would say that, whatever might be the opinion on the subject of hon. members, there was no question that the employees themselves held a very divided opinion. He was not certain that the majority of the men were not in favour of monthly pay. He had, however, extended the system, hitherto adopted in the Cape Province, of giving these men subs. This would refer to the cases of men drawing up to 11s. 6d. per day. That he thought was reasonable. With regard to the overtime question, there was no doubt there was a good deal in the arguments raised in the House in favour of including allowance in the overtime. It had been a very difficult question to deal with, and there was much to be said on both sides. The view the Administration had taken finally, and the view he was prepared to defend, was this: Local allowance was granted throughout the Union upon a certain annual calculation. The allowance was calculated for one class at, say, £60 per year, and that £60 was granted to a man whether he was paid a salary or whether he was a daily paid man. In the case of the latter the allowance was paid to him on a calculation based upon six days’ work per week. The whole of this allowance for the year was included in the six days’ pay that was given to him, so that when he worked overtime, say on Sunday, if they paid him on the allowance they would be putting him on a scale larger than that allowed the man who was paid a salary. With regard to the Grievances Commission’s report, he knew that it was a matter of great importance. He had said before that the recommendations of the Commission were being dealt with as rapidly as possible. There was an enormous number of recommendations, and great care had to be exercised in determining the extent to which the Administration would be wisely advised to go. It had to be pointed out that the Commission, in making these recommendations, had not had their minds directed to the financial effect of these matters, and they had to be extremely careful in accepting recommendations affecting large classes of men until they saw what was going to be the effect on the expenditure of the country. If they wanted to carry out the whole of the recommendations they must be prepared to face a large increase in the railway expenditure of the country. So far as possible, these recommendations were being carried out, and those recommendations, which the Administration thought right to adopt in the interests of everybody, would be adopted. The hon. member for Pretoria, East, had asked in an earlier stage of the debate why grievances had not been brought before the Select Committee on Railways. He had undertaken that grievances would be brought before the Select Committee on Railways. In the first place, he had not received any of those statements or grievances, and in the second place, the committee had no sooner been appointed than it was brought to his notice that the majority of the men rather than have that method of inquiry by a Select Committee, would prefer an investigation by a Commission to be appointed, and they could not have an investigation going on in both ways. He agreed to that arrangement, and since then had waited patiently for petitions to be sent in, but had not yet got any such petition. The Act only came into operation quite fairly and reasonably on certain terms. There must be a petition signed by at least one-fifth of those who were affected, but he had not received a single petition which conformed with the terms of the Act. Let him say at once, that he was in possession of only two petitions altogether. One was the petition lodged by the hon. member for Jeppe some time ago, which had been referred to the Government for consideration, and the other was from Salt River, about the matter of piece-work business. That did not conform with the terms of the Act and he told the men at once, as he told the House, that with regard to the question of piece work he did not propose to have any further inquiry either by a Select Committee or by a Commission; that matter had been inquired into exhaustively by Commission after Commission. The hon. member for Yeoville had referred to the increased expenditure in the workshops. The explanation as to that was as the hon. member supposed. The increase was due to the fact that a larger proportion of half finished material was now imported, which meant that a great deal more of railway stock was now manufactured in the country than before. (Hear, hear.) Then with regard to the betterment. That, different from depreciation was a matter of policy. One year they must provide more than another year. They must cut their coat according to their cloth. And this year he had not felt justified in putting down more than he had done in the Estimates. There was the last year’s surplus of about £350,000, which, with the £100,000 he had told the House he proposed to add would bring the provision for betterment in the Estimates to no less than nearly half a million. The hon. member for Fordsburg had drawn attention to the hours of work, and in that respect he (the Minister) was entirely sympathetic.

Then with respect to the shortage of trucks, he wanted to say that he was aware of that fact. There was considerable difficulty in the matter, and the position remained, as he explained to the House on the last occasion that the question arose. There had been an unusual expansion of business throughout the country. That only arose since Union. Their tonnage in goods had increased by four millions. That was to say that since 1909 there had been an increase in their goods traffic on S.A. railways by 40 per cent. In the matter of passengers the increased traffic was still greater. It had gone up to £13,300,000, which represented an increase of 50 per cent. It might be said that the railway administration ought to have foreseen that, and to have made provision, but it was not quite reasonable to expect them to have foreseen such expansion as there had been. They did make provision for a certain amount, but he would admit they did not foresee—and he was glad it had come— that there would be expansion on such a scale as that. Additional trucks had been on order for some time. Some 1,600 had been on order. Those things took a long time to get out, and there had been special difficulties in Europe with regard to strikes and so on within the last twelve months, which had a great deal of influence on their obtaining new railway material. He could assure the House, however, that they were pressing the matter as much as they possibly could. In connection with the point raised by the hon. member for Riversdale regarding the acquisition of the New Cape Central Railway, the subject had been before the House previously, and he was not in a position to give a definite undertaking at present. Dealing with the remarks of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort in respect to the Railway Board, he (the Minister) wanted to make clear about the matter of a misunderstanding which had arisen. He had not said that he would at a very early date next session bring in a Bill to define the powers and duties of the Board.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said the question of the harbours had been referred to. As to the harbours not paying, the matter had been discussed several times. It was a reasonable thing to say that the harbours should pay for themselves, and he hoped that when that was done and the burden was rightly distributed the country would be satisfied. But he did not think some hon. members would be satisfied as they did not anticipate the way in which the distribution would go. Of course, there was a large mass of what might be called dead assets. (Hear, hear.) A departmental committee was inquiring into the matter, and when its report came in the harbour administration would be relieved of what was an unfair burden, and the loss on the harbours would be very different from what it was now. (Cheers.) With regard to the conveyance of coal from Witbank there was originally in the Transvaal a flat rate on coal of ½d. per ton per mile. It was true the long-distance rates had been reduced, but anomalies were bound to occur so far as short distance traffic was concerned. As to the mealie traffic, he hoped to be able to do something to meet the representations that had been made, but the export rate was an extremely low one. (Hear, hear.) For instance, mealies were being carried from Camperdown in Natal to Cape Town, at 10s. a ton. He knew that that rate would require adjustment by and by, but for the present the farming community reaped the benefit of this low rate. Seeing that they obtained the benefit of the owners’ risk rate they must undertake that risk themselves, and for such a low rate they could not expect the administration to provide all the safeguards that were made in the case of goods sent at higher charges. The hon. member for Barkly (Dr. Watkins) had raised a number of points, and undoubtedly there were many anomalies in an immense system of this kind. But the hon. member was too logical for him (the Minister), and for the railway administration. They could not live up to his high pitch of logicality, there must be some pull and haul. (Hear, hear.) Now with regard to the observations of the hon. member for Pretoria East (Sir J. P. Fitzpatrick), on the question of raw material. There again it appeared that they had to deal with an anomaly. It did seem anomalous that they should carry the manufactured article cheaper than the raw material. Yet the explanation, when they once had it, was as simple as the explanation in regard to Columbus’ egg. What did they carry in the way of manufactured articles in the sort of instances the hon. member had given? Let them take iron. They carried at a low rate fencing materials, agricultural implements, machinery, and this class of thing for the purpose of developing their agricultural industry in this country. That was the reason for that low rate on the great bulk of this material carried up-country. As soon as it was shown that there was really a move forward, that there was some substantial prospect of iron being manufactured in South Africa, he was sure that the Railway Administration would see its duty and would deal with the matter. At present the only raw iron material that was being carried up-country was pig iron, which was being used for the repair of mining machinery. But if they carried this at a specially low rate, they ran the risk of having the raw material used for all sorts of things. As to the inland portion of the Union, he was not going into this matter again; they had been dealing with it in this House ad nauseam. He only wished to make a few remarks on the question of the raw material argument, which had been used quite fairly this afternoon. He just wished to say a few words to illustrate how difficult it was for the Railway Administration, in endeavouring to act fairly to everyone, to fix low rates in this connection.

Ever since Union they had been endeavouring to hold the balance fairly between the coast manufacturer and the inland manufacturer, and the surest sign that they were doing rough justice was that both parties were entirely dissatisfied. (Laughter.) The manufacturing people in Johannesburg declared that they (the railways) were giving them a rate upon which they could not live. At Durban, the people told them—and with great force, he was bound to acknowledge—that they (the railways) were not giving them anything like reasonable recognition of their geographical position, and that they were given rates at which they could not be expected to compete with the people of Johannesburg. They maintained that the railways were killing them, and the people of Johannesburg maintained the same. The object that be had before him was this: that they should so adjust the rates that the inland manufacturer on the Rand and the manufacturer at the coast could compete on fair grounds in that same competitive area. They had endeavoured to go on the best way they could, so as to suit all parties. They had changed these rates, and modified them, in an endeavour to arrive at a fair medium. But the conundrum, so far, they had been unable to solve. The evidence which was laid before the Select Committee satisfied him, and he believed that it satisfied most members of the Committee—without going into all sorts of evidence and building up a case which they need not attempt to build up—it satisfied him that the control of the coal for bunkering purposes in Cape Town, and, indeed, for other purposes as well, was in the hands of the Union-Castle Company. The evidence satisfied him entirely on that point. He was satisfied that they had control of the supplies, and that appeared to him to be an unwholesome state of affairs. And the question was: how were they to deal with it? They might use an instrument, in the shape of the Transvaal coal. But they had not done so, so far, because it had been represented to them that this Transvaal coal was not suitable for bunkering purposes. But it appeared, in the course of inquiry, that this Transvaal coal was used by steamers for bunkering purposes; so that the contention that the Transvaal coal was unsuitable for this purpose fell away. Therefore, he would tell the House, as he told them on a previous occasion, that he was watching this matter, and he would do what he thought the proper thing to do in order to protect the public and give freedom in these matters. The Railway Board would be engaged in dealing with this matter, and he hoped that he would be able to take such action as would be advantageous to the country. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the query about leave of absence, it appeared to him that the Defence Department had different periods in different parts of the country. They had six days in one part and twelve days in another. He had given instructions that any such period which should be required by the Defence Department would be counted as leave by the Railway Department. (Hear, hear.)

said that his hon. friend the Minister had not made any statement with regard to the promise he made that he would bring in a Bill next session defining the powers of the Railway Board.

said he was perfectly certain that if his hon. friend looked at Hansard he would find that he never stated that he would introduce a Bill at an early date to deal with the matter. What he said was that he had now found that his predecessor had stated his intention of introducing a Bill that session, and having found that, he would consider the matter during the recess with a view of taking action. In all human probability the introduction of such a Bill would be the end of it.

said that he understood that his hon. friend the Minister had given a definite assurance that he would bring in such a Bill.

said the Minister had made no reference to the uniforms of the guards and the pay of the men.

said the hon. member was very solicitous with regard to these uniforms. Well, he regretted to say that the delay was due to a strike in England. (Laughter.) With regard to the pay, he had already explained to the House why this change was made.

said the Minister had not answered his question on the subject of the costs of transport.

said he would inquire into the matter.

pointed out that the railway charges upon coal from the coalfields to the port of Durban for export purposes was 6s. 8d., with a rebate of a shilling, but coal for local consumption cost 10s. 4d., and 8d. for storage, which made it 11s. Most householders in Natal used coal every day. Hundreds of poor people used coal And he thought it was quite possible to bring this down to three shillings less per ton. In the second place, the Government could buy coal at 6s, and nothing was charged for railage. He thought that they should charge at the railway stores the full cost that the merchants charged. He hoped that steps would be taken to put these matters on business lines.

reminded the Minister that the evidence given at the Select Committee on the Coal Combine was one-sided. None of the collieries concerned, nor the Union-Castle Co., were represented.

said the Minister had misunderstood his point. What he pointed out was that the raw material was carried at double the rate at which the finished article was carried, and that could not by any manner of means be represented as a fair basis of competition either with the coast towns, which he was not thinking of, or with the foreign manufacturer, who was the person he was thinking of. It was said that if they carried this raw material at the agricultural rate there was a risk of the material being used by the mines.

I did not say by the mines.

said that this was the very thing they wanted, so that some industry would be established in the country, and that people would do the very thing that the Minister was dreading they might do. It was the only thing that could save them.

It had been represented to the Minister that the headquarters staff of the railways should be transferred to Pretoria. He (Sir Percy) had undertaken to raise the question and he would be glad if the Minister would deal with it, so that the matter could be cleared up and they could see to what extent the Administrative Capital was entitled to the headquarters and to what extent that transference could be carried out, having regard to the administration of the railways. He did not wish to press for an unfair advantage.

said that, in regard to the question the hon. member had asked, that was a matter which had been pressed upon him recently rather more than before, and he could only say that hitherto he had not been convinced that it would be a wise thing in the interests of the State and of the Railway Administration to change their headquarters from Johannesburg to Pretoria. (Hear, hear.) He was not concerned with the claims of one capital or another capital, or of this, that and the other; he was only concerned with the interest of the railway administration in connection with the State, and all his advice tended to show that where the chief centre of activity was, which was the Rand at present, there the headquarters of the administration should be. Since he had come into office he had done what he could recently in the way of recognising the position of Pretoria by making the Railway Board change their headquarters from Johannesburg to Pretoria.

said that what the Minister said now was really what was understood by the National Convention. The whole question was discussed, and he thought the general understanding was that the main centre of trade in the North, Johannesburg, was the proper place for the headquarters of the Railway Administration.

said that one of the most serious charges that he had laid against the Administration was that the Government had gone deliberately out of their way to reduce the standard rate of wages for artisans in the Transvaal, O.F.S., and Natal. (Hear, hear.) In his previous remarks he had asked the Minister what explanation he could give for this severe and uncalled-for attack on the standard wages of artisans, but the Minister had completely ignored the point. He was interested to hear that the term of improvership was being considered, though he thought it would have been much more satisfactory if the Minister had taken the recommendation of his own departmental advisers and laid down in the regulations that the period should be one year instead of two years, especially in view of the fact that the Grievances Commission, backing by their own advisers, said that, if there were any period of improvership at all, it should be for one year only. He challenged the Minister’s statement that a substantial majority of the men wished the monthly system of payment of wages to be continued, and declared that if the Minister took a ballot of the men in the service he would find an overwhelming majority in favour of weekly payment. It seemed to him that the Minister’s attitude with regard to the recommendations of the Grievances Commission was one dictated, not by a sense of justice, but by what was cheapest. In order to protest strongly against this, he moved the reduction of the Minister’s salary by £10. (Laughter.)

said that anything so paltry as reducing the standard rate of pay seemed to the Minister to be a laughing matter. He would suggest to the Minister that he should go to any big industrial centre and address a gathering of artisans and men engaged in that big industry, and put before them this question of the attack he had made on the standard rate of wages as a subject that amused him vastly. The Minister would find himself alone in regarding it as a matter of amusement. The Government was lamentably and deplorably ignorant of the consequences of its own action. It was significant that when the Government dealt with any other than the moneyed or property owning classes it seemed to think that their interests were negligible. The Minister had stated that the standard rate of pay was too high—in other words, that the railway was going to pay less—and he practically told private employers that they would have Government’s sympathy if they did the same. Let them take a parallel case. Some years ago the Cape Government bought a large stock of brandy. How would the wine farmers feel if a year or two ago the Union Government said, “We will sell it for what we can get—never mind what the effect is on the brandy market.” If that had been done there would have been howls of execration. The Government’s action in this matter of wages was inexcusable. It was one of the instances showing how ill-advised the Government was to refuse to take account of the traditional way of dealing with their employees. It was insensate to refuse to recognise the men’s Trades Union. Some of the railway men belonged to the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, and thus the Government’s action affected the status and pay of members of that society who were not employed on the railways. The state of unrest and anxiety which prevailed was due as much as anything to the fact that the Government had shown itself to be against the men’s interests, and to be extraordinarily callous as to the just rights of the men. The initial mistake of the Government was its refusal to recognise the men’s union, and it had also said that it would not recognise any trades union official. That was a matter over which there had been industrial battles without end, and many a prolonged and many a bitter struggle. There was no excuse for a reduction in the standard rate of pay. Were the railways any less valuable to the people than they were a year or two ago? What sort of excuse could the Minister make for taking this step without any justification except to save a paltry £20,000 or £30,000 a year? The Minister had not only inflicted an injury on the railway men, but he invited private employers to do the same, so far as their men were concerned.

I would venture to hope that a somewhat more generous sense of humour might well be spread among those benches. The hon. member said that I was taking the reduction of the pay of the men as a matter of amusement. What amused me was the idea of hon. members on the cross-benches thinking that this matter could be rectified by reducing my miserable salary by £10. I have explained more than once the action taken by the Administration. It is based on taking the prevailing rate of wages at the coast and making due allowances for the inland parts of the Union. The standard rate on the Rand is 20s. a day. But hon. members on the cross-benches forget that the railway men have a large number of privileges. Challenges have been made to me. I would challenge them to produce a single workman who prefers the outside rate of wages to employment on the railways.

said there were certain privileges which the railway men had, but in commuting the pay, 1s. a day was supposed to represent those privileges. The Labour members felt it incumbent upon them to protest in the strongest possible manner against the action of the Railway Department.

said he would help the Minister out of a difficulty. (Laughter.) He would give him an example of a man leaving the railways and seeking employment outside. A man named Martin was induced to go from Natal to Park Station, believing that his pay would be 11s. 6d. a day, but when he reached Johannesburg he was paid 7s. a day wages and 4s. 6d. a day as an allowance. He was a ticket examiner, and a man of fine character. He found, and his case was typical of many, that the conditions were undesirable, and he went to work elsewhere.

put the motion for the reduction, and declared that the “Noes” had it.

called for a division.

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

declared the amendment negatived

The vote was then agreed to.

On vote 8, Depreciation, permanent way and works and rolling stock, £1,198,559,

said his hon. friend spent last year out of renewals fund something like £779,000, and he had at the end of the year ended 31st March, 1912, a balance of something like £3,057,000. That was a very large sum to have in hand by a party which placed no statement before the House as to how it was to be spent. He would like the hon. Minister to explain why some such statement had not been laid before the House.

said that before referring to the general subject of depreciation he would call attention to the heading which read “Contribution to Renewals Fund for Depreciation.” The hon. Minister, he said, had been most particular regarding interference with the Act of Union, and in that respect he did not blame him, but to his mind that fund represented a departure from the Act of Union, as no such thing was contemplated, and no one ever dreamt of the Fund being expended by the administration without Parliamentary sanction. On the general subject of depreciation, he said that at the end of the present financial year there would be a sum of over £6,000,000 which had been taken from the revenue of the railway and placed to the depreciation fund. He had endeavoured to draw attention to this particular matter, and with a view to getting something done he gave evidence before the Public Accounts Commission last year. Later on he saw that some attention had been given to the subject, and the suggestion was made that the matter should be looked into. Then he saw that a departmental committee was appointed to go into the general subject, but the result of that committee he did not know.

They have not finished yet.

proceeding, said, there was another point in connection with depreciation to which he would like to call attention. As he had indicated, his persistence had not been rewarded hitherto with much result, but he was hoping that something would still be done to put it on a correct footing. The other day he put a question to the Minister as to the state of that fund, and in the absence of the hon. Minister a reply was given by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to the effect that up to the 28th February last the depreciation amounted to £1,561,000. Surely there was some mistake about that fund, because at present it stood at nearly £5,000,000, and he would like to know what had become of the other £4,000,000. Many millions had been appropriated from the railway revenue, and at the end of this financial year, assuming that this vote and others of the same kind would be passed, there would he over £5,000,000 to the credit of the Depreciation Fund.

said there had been a tremendous amount spent.

said he wanted to know the authority for spending it. When he first asked the question from the Minister the answer was to the effect that the balances of that fund had not specifically been invested as such, but were included in all other railway balances and treated as a whole, and placed with the Public Debt Commissioners for investment in terms of Act 18 of 1911. There was thus some security in placing the money in official hands. He had to admit that in the Act of Union there was some amount to be placed for depreciation, but the question was, how much? One of the answers given to him was that the contributions to these funds were based upon the rate of depreciation to be estimated by the life of the assets. He had never been able to find out upon what method this depreciation would be calculated.

He found, in the Auditor-General’s Report, an extraordinary proposal, which was attributed to the Railway Board. The permanent way materials were estimated at £12,000,000, and the proposal was to assess the depreciation at three and a third per cent. per annum, which amounted to £400,000. He was speaking with absolute knowledge on these matters—(hear, hear)— and how anyone could judge depreciation in that way he could not understand. They all knew that sleepers and rails wore out, but every week these were being renewed, at the cost of working expenditure, and if this percentage was adopted at the end of 30 years they would have an accumulated fund that would pay for them all over again. They were now asked to vote some £369,130 for depreciation of the permanent way, which amounted to about £1,000 per day, while every day they were renewing this permanent way out of working expenses. He thought these matters required some investigation, because it was an important question. (Hear, hear.) There was a similar item in the vote connected with the rolling stock. It was a larger item still. It was proposed this year to put aside £883,000 to renew rolling stock. He quite understood that there would be a large addition of new rolling stock, but the expenditure connected with this had been taken from the loan fund, and the fact that they had new rolling stock made the necessity for depreciation much less. Anyone who knew about these matters would tell the Minister that there would not be a great deal of depreciation on the rolling stock for several years. He had an unpleasant feeling about these large sums of money that were being put aside from the revenue. These large sums in themselves represented the possibility of large reductions in the rates. Since Union the depreciation for rolling stock was very small indeed. There was another point that he would like to refer to, and that was that large sums had been credited for betterment. In 1911 it was £183,000. In 1912 it was £750,000, and in 1913 £600,000, so that for betterment the amount allocated during these three years amounted to a million and a half. This ought to amply cover all depreciation. There was another fund, which was termed the Rates Equalisation Fund. This was also provided for in the Act of Union, but in rather ambiguous words. Nobody ever was able to explain to him what these words meant. Even the General Manager did not know. In this fund there was £304,000 now, and an additional sum of £50,000 provided for in the current Estimates. This was also a temptation to any ordinary human-minded Minister to apply sums from this fund to any other matter where the money was wanted. This fund had never been used, and nobody seemed able to give a satisfactory explanation as to how it should be used.

hoped that the policy of his hon. friend (Sir D. Hunter) would not be carried out. Because if there was one sound policy they had got for the Transvaal, it was this policy providing for depreciation. Proceeding, the hon. member quoted from the Auditor-General’s report to prove that an adequate amount for depreciation had not been provided for on the Natal railways. (Laughter, and hear, hear.) It was very much the same in the Cape Colony. They had not the regular system of setting aside a certain amount every year which was now followed, to his mind, with very great advantage. If his hon. friend referred to the Auditor-General’s report for the year ending March 31, 1912, he would find the expenditure on permanent way work, rolling stock, etc., set forth. These monies had been paid out of renewal fund.

There is no such fund.

Oh, certainly. This money is taken and what is not used by the Railway Department is put into the charge of the Public Debt Commissioners until it is required by the department. Mr. Jagger went on to urge that the money spent on new rolling stock, repairs and the like was spent without any authority being asked from Parliament. He thought it should be impressed on the Minister that something should be done to obtain the authority of Parliament for that expenditure.

said that before they could possibly deal with this question the House should have a full valuation of the rolling stock of the railways. A large percentage of the rolling stock taken into the capital account was absolutely obsolete, and should be written off by the railways.

They are dead assets. There is a committee sitting with regard to the rate of depreciation.

said that the Minister’s predecessor practically gave an assurance to the House last year that a proper account would be made out of this rolling stock. He understood last year that the rolling stock in the three Provinces taken over by the Union stood in the books at something like five or six millions more than its real value. This committee should have an opportunity of deciding what amount of depreciation it was necessary to urge upon the Government to write off year by year until the six millions were written off.

said that, with regard to the vote of £205,800 for rolling stock, most of that money went out of the country, and he asked whether it would not be possible to keep a large portion of it here by building the rolling stock in South Africa?

said he thought the hon. member for Woodstock was not in the House when he answered the question which had just been raised. The large increase in their workshops was due to the fact that they were manufacturing more rolling stock in this country than they did before. In regard to the other matter, he was glad his hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) had defended their system against the attack made upon it by the hon. member from Natal. The hon. member for Durban, Central, had fallen foul of the Constitution on more than one point. Whatever his (Mr. Burton’s) view might be on one or other point, he was, unfortunately, at present bound by the Constitution, and that laid upon them the necessity of providing this fund. As to the Equalisation of Rates Fund, it was true that the amount was over £300,000, and the object was to reimburse the revenue for any loss it might suffer owing to putting on uniform rates. The hon. member had asked about the rates of depreciation. As he had said, there was a committee sitting on that question now. He thought the probability was that the rate would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 5 per cent. There was also a committee inquiring into this matter of the rolling stock. The report of that committee would be presented to Parliament when it was ready. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had stated that he found no authority for the expenditure of large amounts from the renewal fund. That was not quite the case. There was perhaps no detailed authority, but they would find in every one of their capital estimates that the amount was down.

It is not down this year.

I understood it was.

For betterment, but not for special expenditure.

I will look into the, matter.

said that these amounts, which were debited against depreciation every year and taken out of current revenue, were, by the Government’s own answer to his question in 1911, placed in the custody of the Public Debt Commissioners and invested. There was no authority, as far as he knew, for spending the money. With regard to what the Minister had said about the Union Constitution, he (Sir David) made no question about that, but what he disagreed with was the enormous sums taken out of the current revenue and put, as he thought, into a corner.

said that the word used in the Constitution was “depreciation.” The ordinary expression used every day for the same thing was “renewal fund.” The view taken, if they were to provide, as the Constitution said they must provide, for a depreciation fund was that in the light of all experience their depreciation was very far behind. (Hear, hear.)

said there was a great danger with regard to those large surpluses, because they encouraged the spending of money in a reck less way. He wanted that to be thoroughly understood, because he was speaking from his own experience.

asked if his hon. friend, in order to settle the matter, would promise to lay on the table next year a thorough valuation of the whole of the rolling stock on the railways.

was understood to say he would agree.

asked the hon. Minister to give a statement as to how the renewals fund had been spent. He could easily get the particulars from the Department, and a statement could be laid on the Table of the House.

referring to the remarks of the hon. member for Durban, Central, said that the evidence laid before the Public Accounts Committee was to the effect that the provision for depreciation so far was in adequate, and if the hon. member looked at the accounts he would find that they would support that statement. The last public statement showed that they had £3,000,000 of railway money. Railway betterment had gone on with railway construction, and it would have been unwise for them to borrow fresh money whilst they had that in hand.

said it was only natural that he should have suspicions in view of the statement by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs that the amount was a million and a half.

said there had been a considerable change of policy with regard to the Renewals Fund.

said that the new railways when working would require rolling stock, and there was no possibility of the House knowing whether the Renewals Fund would be used for purchasing new rolling stock for the new lines. Under the circumstances the hon. Minister should come to Parliament for authority, and the fullest information should be laid before the House.

The vote was agreed to.

On vote 11, Costs of lines hired, £13,500,

asked when the contract would expire.

said he would give the information later

The vote was agreed to.

On vote 12, Miscellaneous Expenditure, £31,000,

expressed surprise in regard to certain rebates which were being granted at the present time. They were pre-Union arrangements, he knew, but he thought that after Union they should be stopped.

was understood to say that he would take steps to stop what the hon. member had referred to.

The vote was agreed to.

On vote 13, Contribution to Betterment Fund, £400,000,

said that the policy at present seemed to be to transfer the whole of the money to Capital Account. He thought it would have been better to keep those amounts specially for betterment works.

The vote was agreed to.

referring to catering, said he was told that the Government employed barmaids at the light wine buffets at the railway stations.

How do you know?

I have got eyes to see, although they have screens there. (Laughter.) Proceeding, he said that the hon. Minister knew that the feeling was against that, especially the country people. The Government was setting a bad example. He did not want these ladies to lose any money, but surely other places could be found for them.

wanted to know if when the new dining room at the Cape Town Station was opened only Cape wines would be sold there?

said that, as to the barmaids, it was a dangerous thing, especially nowadays, to object to the employment of any members of the opposite sex. (Laughter.) As to the question of the hon. member for Maritzburg, North, he would have a larger selection of drinks.

The vote was agreed to.

On head 18,

complained that on the northern sections of the railways passengers could not get beds unless they had through tickets.

said he would inquire into the question.

The vote was agreed to.

asked for an explanation of the decrease of £800 for stevedoring, and of the increase from £17,676 to £25,300 for bunkering. Was Cape Town bunkering done at a loss?

said it would not be fair to say that there was a loss on bunkering done in Cape Town, taking all the concomitants into consideration.

The head was agreed to.

asked if anything was being done at Port St. John’s with a view to keeping the mouth of the river open?

Not that I know of.

said the reason he asked was that there was Government land there which would make an admirable place for settlement purposes, and as there was no railway to Port St. John’s, it was important that sea communication should be kept open.

The head was agreed to.

On head 29, Lighthouses, £20,088,

said it was reported that the lighthouse-keeper on the Roman Rock in Simon’s Bay was to be removed, and that the light was to be kept going automatically. His hon. friend, the member for South Peninsula, wanted to point out that this was a somewhat dangerous procedure. Supposing that the light went out, a whole week would elapse before they could communicate with the rook in bad weather, and they might have an accident.

said he would like to ask the Minister if the Government desired to act in conformity with the report of the Lighthouse Commission with regard to the erection of a lighthouse on Slangkop.

was understood to say that the lighthouse was being proceeded with.

in reply to Mr. Jagger, said that the matter was being considered. The Railway Board appreciated the point raised that there might be danger.

Agreed to.

desired again to bring to the notice of the Minister the question of local allowances to a few men between Kimberley and Vryburg. The Administration gave these local allowances to the men in Kimberley and the men in Vryburg. But no allowances were given to men between these two towns. The Minister had told them that local allowances could only be given to men in towns. The Postal authorities and other departments gave these allowances, and he thought these men were also entitled to them. He raised this question last year, and he intended to raise it again and again, until he got a more satisfactory reason why these allowances should be withheld.

said he wished to support the plea put forward by the hon. member for Barkly.

said that the hon. member for Barkly had undoubtedly been importunate enough about this matter. He had given the hon. member the view of the Administration. Surely he did not expect that he (the Minister) should decide between the hon. member and his advisers. For the present he was bound to take their advice. The explanation given by the Administration was that most of the men at Kimberley had got to provide quarters for themselves, and that the men at places between Kimberley and Vryburg got the benefit of departmental accommodation there. In the second place, they got the benefit of a provision train, which the men in Kimberley had not got. He knew the hon. member did not admit the facts. These were the facts on which he was advised by the Department that the difference was made.

said that, in reply to a question which he had put on a previous occasion, the Minister had stated that 78 employees in Kimberley out of 222 received railway quarters. He had also stated that the Kimberley men had not got the advantage of the provision train. There the Minister was absolutely wrong.

said it was clear that a large number of the men in Kimberley had to provide quarters, and he was not sure that he was in error about the provision train to Kimberley. The Administration thought it was a reasonable and fair thing under the circumstances, and that no change could be made.

said that the Minister’s statement was wholly unsatisfactory, and he hopped from one ground to another, and sheltered himself behind the Administration.

said that, if it were a fact that the Kimberley men had the advantage of the provision train, he thought it was only fair that his hon. friend, who was responsible for the Administration, should say to the hon. member for Barkly that he would inquire into the whole circumstances, and, if what the hon. member had said were correct, that he would be prepared to go de novo into the question.

I have no objection to that. I have been speaking from recollection about this thing, but I am not sure that I am not right even now.

said he was quite prepared to accept the Minister’s promise to go into this matter. If the provision train were not running to-day to Kimberley, he added, it had only recently been discontinued. Even the men at Vryburg were getting provisions by the provision train.

raised a question regarding the issue of certificates to railway employees. He had asked the question on a previous occasion, but had received no answer.

said the hon. member was out of order.

Do I understand the Minister does not intend to give a reply?

The Chairman has ruled the hon. member out of order.

The vote was agreed to.

replying to the hon. member for Durban, Central, said that the hon. member might remember when he (the Minister) made the Budget statement, that he intended to apply the surplus of £100,000 to betterment and £200,000 to depreciation.

said that rather accentuated what he had said earlier. It was quite right that that money should go to some fund, but the fund was growing to enormous dimensions. It emphasised what he had said that the Railway Administration was getting into a position of having unlimited money.

urged upon the hon. Minister to have his accounts prepared, so that they could be understood by the average member of Parliament and by the ordinary member of the public. At present they were not very clear to other than experts.

The vote was agreed to.

Progress was reported, and the only amendment—a formal one—was at once considered and agreed to.

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

The Minister of Railways and Harbours brought up a report of the committee now appointed to draft and bring up a Bill to give effect to the Railways and Harbours Estimates and Supplementary Estimates, as adopted, submitting a Bill.

as an unopposed motion, moved that the Bill be read a second time.

objected.

The Senate is waiting for it.

The Bill is not even printed yet.

The second reading was set down for tomorrow.

in moving the second reading of the Loan Redemption (1910-1911) Validation Bill, said it referred to two items—£32,000 on account of the Civil Servants’ Guarantee Fund, and another sum of £2,000. These two items the Public Debts Commissioners recommended should go into the Public Debt.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a second time.

said that he had received a message from the Senate returning a Bill for the construction of certain lines of railways in which the Senate had made one amendment in the Dutch version. The amendment was purely clerical.

The Assembly concurred in the amendment.

said that he had received a message from the Senate returning the Bill for the Regulation of Immigration, in which the Senate had made several amendments.

The amendments were set down for consideration to-morrow.

moved the second reading of the Railways and Harbours Application of Moneys (1911-1912) Validation Bill.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill read a second time.

in moving the second reading of the Bills of Exchange (Non-Business Days) Bill, said that the object of the Bill was to correct an anomaly in the law.

said he could not allow this to go through without making an appeal to the Minister to take into consideration during the recess the necessity of correcting an anomaly in connection with the public holidays. The Public Holidays Act was practically useless to a great majority of the people. In many industrial centres businesses and stores were kept open, and no notice was taken of these holidays whatever.

said he would like to support the appeal of the hon. member, and hoped that the Minister would bring in at an early date next session a Bill making these holidays obligatory all over the Union. There was a general demand for this.

drew attention to the non-observance of Dingaan’s Day, which should be regarded in the same way as any other public holiday.

said he would like to support the statement of the hon. member for Jeppe with regard to these holidays. He would like to draw attention also to the fact that the mining community on the Rand had only two holidays in a year. These men get only Christmas Day and Good Friday, and a large number of them were forced to work even on those days. These men should be protected, as a matter of policy, by the Government. He thought more holidays should be enforced on the mines.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a second time.

in moving the second reading of the Stamp Duties and Fees Amendment Bill, said he thought he had sufficiently explained on previous occasions the objects of this Bill. It was intended to exempt Government stock and also Municipal stock from the Stamp Duty Act.

What about the Rand Water Board?

said that the Rand Water Board was included. He added that it was also proposed to exempt certain brokers’ notes.

raised a point as to the exemption of Union stock from estate and succession duty.

said that Union stocks were not subject to estate and succession duty, but simply stamp duty.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a second time.