from L. Honey, formerly an assistant resident magistrate, for a pension.

Report of the Board of Trustees of the South African Public Library, Cape Town, for 1913.

brought up a special report of the Select Committee on the Removal of Restrictions on Wills Bill. The Committee requested leave to bring up an amended Bill

moved that leave be granted.

The motion was agreed to.

stated that when this debate was adjourned yesterday, the Question before the House was a motion by the Minister of Railways and Harbours: That the Bill be now read a second time. Upon which an amendment had been moved by Sir Thomas Smartt: That the Order for the second reading be discharged, and that the subject matter of the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for enquiry and report. Mr. Boydell had moved, as a further amendment, seconded by Mr. Creswell: To omit all the words after “That,” and to substitute “in the opinion of this House the threatened retrenchment of a large number of railway workers last December on the grounds of decreasing railway revenue was not justified, and was the cause of the railway strike; and that the Government should take into consideration the advisability of introducing legislation providing for the re-instatement of, and complete amnesty to, all railwaymen who were concerned in the strike of January, 1914.”

said he thought Government was to be congratulated upon taking some steps very soon after the passing of the Indemnity Bill to try to deal justly and fairly with the men who had been so severely affected by the railway strike. The principle of the Bill, however, appeared to be faulty, inasmuch as the recognition of the loyalty of the men who remained true to their superiors was insufficient, while the penalties upon the deluded victims of the strike authorities were capable of considerable amendment. In the case of the men who stayed out, even after the Minister’s final warning, it was somewhat deplorable to find that a large number of them did so with the view, apparently, of obtaining instructions from the head centre as to whether they were to go back or not. It was a striking commentary on the action of those who had controlled the strike to find that these unfortunate men were unable to take their places because they had not the necessary authority to return to work. It was deplorable to think that the men who had relied on some such authority to guide them only ceived the reply that this precious Federation had never told them to go out on strike, and, therefore, could not tell them whether to return or not. A large number of men were thus left out in the cold. It was not in the power of the House, he supposed, to punish the men who so misled the railway workers, and so inconvenienced the whole public service. The Bill proposed to deal with salaried officers drawing salaries up to £500 a year by giving them overtime, but he always understood that salaried men did not draw overtime. I he Bill did not deal adequately with these men.

Those who were over 25 years of age and who were not attracted by a few days holiday might have issued to them as a mark of distinction and as a mark of favour of that House a certificate of honour to be issued under the law entitling them to draw at the conclusion of their service a certain gratuity from revenue on the basis of their annual salary. This would not interfere with the Pension Fund. He thought it very undesirable that the Pension Fund should be interfered with. One other advantage of some such scheme as that would be that it would fall very lightly on the revenue of the year and a sum could be voted on the Estimates year by year to meet the cases that would fall to be dealt with in that year. That was the suggestion which he put forward with a view to its being considered at a later stage. The proposal therefore of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort to the effect that the subject matter of the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee would meet his view, and would, he thought, enable any proper alterations to be made. That was a matter which he hoped would be considered by a Select Committee. As regarded the men who went on strike and who occupied spheres of influence and who were the means of egging on a great body of men to strike, he was clearly of opinion that they should be dealt with rigorously, but he felt that those who were deluded, as they now recognised they had been should be mercifully treated. They had already lost their wages, and that would have inflicted a considerable amount of hardship on them. It had been said by the hon. member for Greyville that the threatened retrenchment in the Railway Department was the cause of a strike, but he did not think that that had been borne out. Retrenchment was not a new thing in the railway department of South Africa. He could remember that during the last 30 years there had been periods of inflation and depression, periods of war, periods of pestilence, and various circumstances which had given rise to retrenchment. During those 30 years, periods of inflation had been followed by periods of depression, as night followed the day. There had been a certain amount of talk about the impropriety of sending out of the country a large number of orders for rolling stock, and it had been said that if that had not been done there would have been no need for retrenchment.

To a large extent that was a fallacy. In the case of the standard iron wagon, for instance, nearly everything had to be imported. Wheels and axles were not made in this country, the underframing of a wagon was a thing that was manufactured at Home in a way that could not be done here, and there were numerous other things which must necessarily be imported. Supposing it could be possible, and it was possible to a certain extent, their first requirement would be to build workshops and the second would be the importation of skilled workmen. The third item in the programme would be the retrenchment of the men when the work was done. (Hear, hear.) But in South Africa they had made considerable progress, and in this respect the action of the railway authorities had been, and he believed still was, progressive. With reference to the question of Appeal Boards, he had some little knowledge of them, and he remembered one that was formed in Natal some years ago. It was composed of absolutely impartial men—the Chief Magistrate of Durban, the Mayor of Durban, and, he thought, the Mayor of Maritzburg. During its existence six cases of appeal were lodged before that Board, and it had lasted for three or four years. Every one of the six cases excepting one was rejected by the Appeal Board, and the position of the management upheld. Why was it that the railway service was now the centre of dissatisfaction? It seemed to him that through the Union bringing the railways into one common concern the men had been very easily operated upon by the agencies of discord, whose business it was to sow discontent. He could not understand how it was that in a service in which men were better paid than any other in the world there should be that discontent. One reason, he was afraid, was that the old personal human touch between those in authority and those in service was apparently being lost. He wished he could make an appeal to his old comrades in the railway service to disregard a great deal of what they heard and to which they were incited in regard to their rights and privileges, and in regard to the service to which they belonged. He was old-fashioned enough to believe in the old virtues of industry, sobriety, and frugality, and if his word could reach the young men who were growing up in the service he would advise them to cultivate those old homely virtues. The new fashion seemed to be to terrorise innocent men, women, and children. There was an older-fashioned principle that he would commend to the attention of those who had been advocating the views of the railway men: “Whatsoever you would men should do unto you, do ye even so to them.” To him, so long connected with railways both in England and here, it was a matter of extreme regret and sorrow that they should have heard of so much discontent and so much ill-feeling generated in a concern in which, by all working together, they might bring about the dawn of a brighter and better day.

said that since the Minister spoke they had had two amendments placed before the House, and he would have thought that the Minister would have taken an opportunity of telling the House what he intended to do with regard to these proposals. He must have seen that the general opinion was that something must be done about this matter of rewards and penalties, but he thought it might fairly be said that they were all very much at sixes and sevens as to what should be done, and having heard some of the views and knowing that the Ministry were in a great hurry to get this Bill through, one would have supposed that the hon. gentleman would have listened and told them what he was going to propose. Last year his hon. friend went oversea for a holiday. He did not say he did not deserve that holiday, but he would like to point out that it might have been a little bit owing to his absence that these troubles occurred, and they might be justified in saying that while absent while all this turmoil and disturbance took place it was quite possible that he was not in complete touch with the situation. Therefore it was possible that the whole of the circumstances connected with the railwaymen might have taken their colouring from the sketches given to him by those whom he left in charge. He thought that that was a thing that might be fairly urged, and which they might put forward in justification of some of the views the Minister put forward. The Minister introduced a good many matters that were not germane to the Bill before the House. He wanted to take notice of one of these matters. The Minister dealt extensively with wages, and the point he (the hon. member) wished to make was that they had never heard it indicated to the House that the disturbances on the railway had anything to do with the question of wages. He had never seen any indication on the part of the railwaymen that their quarrel with the Administration had anything to do with the question of wages. The Minister seemed to wish the House to believe that the whole of the trouble was due to wages. The hon. member went on to refer to an interview which a number of railwaymen had with the Minister early this year, and said that in the report which appeared in the Press the men who interviewed the Minister made it a strong point that they were prepared on behalf of the railway-men, to say that if dismissals and retrenchment were necessary they would gladly concede the point of forfeiting an hour’s work or pay a day in order to make up the amount required to compensate the Government for retaining the services of these men. Now he said that if the men could make that plain, surely the Minister could have made it plain that it was not a question of wages that entered into the quarrel. There were two factors he thought that led to the railway strike. The first cause arose apparently from the fact that men were being dismissed when sympathisers in the Department believed there was no necessity for it, and the other factor was that there were put into circulation rumours that large orders for work were being sent oversea instead of the work being done in workshops in that country.

He was not there to say that those were the actual causes of the trouble, but the Minister practically admitted that this was the case in his speech. This was surely some justification for the men becoming suspicious and afraid that their turns would come next, and that there was a wholesale intention to dismiss men from the service who had been in the service for years past. He put that forward because it was a ground of complaint that these men were threatened with dismissal while work was being sent out of the country and he thought that the House should take serious notice of the matter. When it was argued that the men had no justification for coming out he said he thought the men came out out of genuine sympathy for the men who had been turned out of the service. The Minister of Railways in the same way as the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, seemed to think that the men should be allowed nothing in the shape of a union or association of any kind. That was the root and branch of the whole trouble. If Ministers would not put their ban on associations of this character the result would be that every member of the service would join these associations and that the older men, the more conservative, would restrict and restrain the younger men of the service. (Hear, hear.) But these Ministers seemed to take an attitude of antagonism to these associations, and they seemed to forget that this disapproval the men looked upon as a slight and not justified. He hoped the Minister would consider this point and give it due attention. They were all agreed that they should reward those who were loyal, but he considered the proposals in that Bill were meagre. They were not such as would redound to the credit of the Minister or the Government.

He went on to read a telegram which he said he received from railwaymen who were his constituents just after the Bill had been published, and which had been in his possession for a fortnight. The message read “Special holidays not wanted. What we want is redress of grievances. Cost of living here very high, and local allowances necessary to meet that cost.”

I thought there was no trouble about wages. (Ministerial cheers).

There is a difference between local allowances and wages. (Labour cheers.) At any rate I always thought there was a difference. Continuing, he said that grievances were not only confined to Pretoria, Johannesburg, Durban or Maritzburg, but were felt by men of all grades in other parts. An hon. member on the cross-benches had said that the idea of compensating one class of the service out of the fines taken from others would be repugnant to the men. He thought so too. (Labour cheers.) They must remember that the men would take a broad outlook of the Minister’s proposals, and they would say, “Here is a nice thing. They give us £10,000, and they fine us £36,000, a difference in favour of the Government of £26,000.” That was how they would look at it, and he thought they would be justified in looking at it in that way. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort threw out the suggestion that a period should be added to the service of those on the fixed establishment. The Minister professed to be enamoured of this proposal, but pointed out that it would cost a quarter of a million. He (Sir Bisset) made bold to say why should they not find the money, seeing that they had been prating about the loyalty of the railwaymen for the last six weeks.

There was another way in which a great deal of satisfaction could be given to thousands of the Cape men, and that was by the refunding the deductions taken from their pay two or three years ago. (Hear, hear.) Last July he spent an evening with the railwaymen in his town listening to their grievances, the principal of which was the pay deductions. It had been stated that an example must be made of the utmost stringency in connection with the strike. But he thought the time had arrived for the adoption of a more magnanimous policy. The utmost that should be done in the way of punishment, even in the case of the greatest offenders, would be to suspend them for six or twelve months. It would be most unfortunate to turn men adrift for ever. In conclusion, Sir Bisset said that his leader had proposed an amendment which he (Sir Bisset) supported on this ground—that the House could make no change in a Bill of this kind because it was pre-eminently a money Bill, and no private member could bring forward an amendment touching a question of money, but if the Bill went to a Select Committee that body could thoroughly consider the various suggestions which had been thrown out. (Hear, hear.)

thought every hon. member would appreciate the speech of the hon. member for Queen’s Town. They had some rather extraordinary speeches in that debate. For instance, the hon. member for Durban Central referred to the Appeal Board which existed a few years ago in Natal, but he failed to state not only all the truth, but the most important part of the truth. The hon. member was strongly opposed to the formation of a Board, and five of the six men who appealed to the Board were dismissed.

It is not correct. (Ministerial cheers.)

I called for the papers in the Natal Parliament, and they were placed on the Table, and I daresay the hon. member can find them. He also forgot to tell the House that the Board reported it was useless because its verdicts were not upheld and because the men were intimidated from giving evidence; the General Manager demanded that the Board should apologise, but the Board refused. Continuing. Sir. Haggar said the railwaymen had been described as very intelligent on the one hand and yet on the other they were said to be dupes misled and deluded. The hon. member for Maritzburg had stated that the men were entitled to an explanation as to the inner workings of the railway. That was precisely the statement made by Mr. Bain, for which he was condemned. There had been falsehoods—he would say untruths.

The hon. member must not say untruths either.

I will say incorrect statements, then. (Laughter.)

Continuing, he stated he would prove that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) and his companion, the Mayor of Cape Town, were directly responsible for the men coming out on strike at Salt River, whereas he (Mr. Haggar) found that in the “Argus” of January 9 he was reported to have advised the men not to strike. On the other hand the Mayor of Cape Town told the Salt River men that he believed men were justified in striking sometimes if they were convinced that they could not get redress by any other means, but if they had grievances they should exhaust every legitimate means to obtain redress before striking. If the hon. member for Fort Beaufort knew anything about the matter he knew that Mr. Arnold Smith had been sent to Pretoria with this message, “A strike is inevitable; we have tried every constitutional means.” Hon. members were frightfully ill-informed. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort stated that the strike was declared without the Salt River men being consulted, whereas a fortnight before that these men had come to their decision and sent their representative to Pretoria. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort incited these men to strike because he said the railwaymen were not the servants of the Government, and that they held the key of material prosperity in their own hands. That was a new doctrine. The “Cape Times” said: “After the meeting addressed by the Mayor and Sir Thomas Smartt had concluded, another was held on the Market-square.” That meeting had been in progress for nearly half an hour before he or the hon. member for Springs appeared on the scene. Nearly an hour before the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had done the mischief, and the men came out in protest.

Who is the agitator?

quoted from the “Cape Times” report, which stated that “in response to loud calls, he addressed the meeting, saying that he had always been opposed to strikes. He and others were tired of this constant unrest, and if this sort of thing continued it would be better for them to be dead. In conclusion, he asked them as decent citizens to continue their good behaviour and to come to a wise decision. He told the men that if they continued to act as they had done in the past they must always be unsuccessful, and that as things were victory was impossible; victory was not to be gained by the obsolete weapon of the strike, but by recourse to the ballot box.” Proceeding, Mr. Haggar said that the Minister at first spoke against the idea of retaliation, but a suspended railwayman had been refused the services of the railway doctor at Wynberg. The Minister undertook to tell the House the truth, but the Minister was not in a position to give correct information to, the House. The other day he (Mr. Haggar) asked the Minister about certain men who wanted leave and could not get it. The Minister said there was only one such man, but there were hundreds.

At the Cape Town station there was one man who had had no leave for 12 years, and was entitled to six months’ leave on full pay, but although the man had applied for the leave he could not get it. When the men were told that under the Bill they were to get four days’ leave they simply laughed at it, because there were so many men who had been entitled to leave for three or four years and they could not get it. Some of the railway station were shamefully undermanned. The Minister had said that only 52 men were retrenched from the mechanical staff, and that every one of them had been entitled to only 24 hours’ notice. That was not true. On the 26th December, at Wynberg, a man with 11 years’ service brought to him his notice paper—he was given 24 hours’ notice. He went back with his notice, and was told he was to say nothing about it. He only mentioned that to show that the Minister was not giving accurate information. If the four days’ leave was agreed to by the House, how was the Minister going to carry it out? In order to carry it out there must be 160 periods annually of four days each until each was exhausted. That was how loyalty was to be rewarded. He mentioned the case of a man who had been in the service for a great number of years. Ten years ago that man was reduced to £12. Since then one of those marvellous increments of £5 had come back to him. To-day, with double responsibility on his shoulders and after nine years, that man found that he was £9 worse off than he had been, and he had reached his maximum. That was his reward. There was another case of a porter between here and Simon’s Town who was also doing shunter’s and foreman’s work. That man had been loyal. Some time ago he made an application, and although a coloured porter was getting 7s. a day and he only 6s. 6d., he was refused an increase of 6d. Mr. Haggar mentioned several similar cases. There was the case of one man who was put on skilled work at 5s. per day After 12 months he asked for a rise and did not get it. He was there at the time that the deduction came about, and he submitted to it without a murmur. At the time of Union, after many years’ faithful service, he got the marvellous increase of 1/4d. an hour. That man was asked to represent his mates on the Commission to inquire into grievances, and from that time he was a marked man, and had been put on the hardest work with natives in the yard. In 1911 they were told there were no grievances and that, the alleged grievances were of their own manufacture for the sake of getting votes. The men who had been victimised recently were men who had acted for their mates. A great deal had been said about the chances of those men of getting their grievances redressed. What chances had they got? The General Manager in his report pointed out that if those men failed to get satisfaction from the man immediately above them they could appeal to himself: addressing themselves to the General Manager did of mean what it seemed to be. If a man posted a letter to the General Manager without the sanction of his immediate superior he was immediately cashiered. That had been done in Cape Town not a long time ago. If a man made a complaint to the General Manager his immediate superior must be consulted, and hon. members would see the danger of that. Courtesy in the Administration was unknown from one end of the country to the other. Inexperienced porters had in several cases been put on as guards. There was the case of the young fellow on the Reef who was put on as guard, and who shortly afterwards was picked up on the line dead. That man was inefficient and did not know his duty. When they took a storeman as driver and his clerk as fireman, what about efficiency? They were told that the railway had to be run on business principles, but from what point of view? Although the railways were national property they had been run as if only for the purpose of piling up huge profits.

Continuing, the hon. member said he wanted to point out that the statements of the Minister with regard to pay in South Africa and other countries were not correct, and he would take as his authority the bulletin issued by the Commonwealth of Australia. The artisan in Victoria got 12s. a day, but he would like hon. members to take notice of the point that 12s. was the minimum. In Queensland the artisan got 11s. 9d., and he would like hon. members to note that the wages in these two States were very much less than in any of the other States. When it came to South Africa, the Minister gave them the maximum wage, and that was 13s. How did that pan out? What a man bought in Victoria for 12s. he could only purchase for 16s. in this country. The engine-driver in Victoria got a minimum of 14s. 6d. a day as compared with 19s. 4d. which was stated to be the pay in South Africa—with his allowance. Really it was only 15s. 4d. a day, when the allowance was taken away. He thought that the figures were most unfair. Then they had this fallacy about the cost of living. In Melbourne, porridge oats cost 5d., here they cost 6d.; cheese there cost 3d. as against 6d. and 1s. here; butter 7d. to lid as compared with 1s. 6d. and 2s.; meat 3d. to 8d. as compared with 8d. to 1s. In Melbourne a 2 lb. loaf of bread cost 3d., whereas a loaf of bread of 28 oz. here cost 6d. Then rent over there was £2 as compared with £3 10s. here. This was the best test and showed hon. members how fallacious it was to talk about the high wages that were paid in this country. They were told that in the Transvaal the highest pay for engine-drivers was £49 per month. How many got that? The daily pay of these men was 15s. 6d. for a day of nine hours, and working that out at 27 days for the month it amounted to £16, and thus they had a balance of £33 left equal to the pay of two other men working full time.

He wondered the Minister was not ashamed of bringing such figures as he had done before the House. Even if they took the pay at 19s. 6d., it worked out at £26 2s., leaving the balance of £22 4s., which was more than the pay of another man. He said it was a disgrace that such a scandal should be allowed to go on in this country. Three years ago hon. members on those benches told the House that the best men would leave the country and scores had already left, and because of that the Government made one man do the work of two men. They found Chambers of Commerce and big merchants criticising the General Manager, and in that City two merchants, one of whom was a Unionist, said that they would never get peace in that country until Mr. Hoy had followed in the footsteps of the one in Durban and went. Coming to the victims of the strike, he asked how there could be 250 ringleaders. He went on to refer to what had happened at Durban some years ago, where, he said, men who were outside were pounced upon as ringleaders, whereas the real ringleaders were at work in the shops. He was glad to say that those men who had been victimised were doing well. He said that these men down here victimised in connection with the strike had been victimised simply because they were Trade Unionists, and if the Minister did not know that, he did not know what he was paid to know. Nearly every man of any note victimised at Salt River—he was barring those who were told to go on strike in order to peach on their fellow-strikers—were Trade Unionists, and many of them did not take any part in the disturbances at all. Now the hon. member for Queen’s Town had received a telegram from railwaymen, and he had also put forward what he thought were two causes for the strike, and he (Mr. Haggar) wondered why that hon. gentleman had not been deported as an agitator.

He alleged that the Administration was responsible for the atmosphere of unrest among the railwaymen. It was created by Mr. Hoy saying that a thousand men must go. The Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce took up the matter, and questioned whether there had not been some cooking of accounts—whether certain charges made on funds had never been made before. The General Manager, in his report, did not say a word about retrenching these men. The question was: Was retrenchment economically necessary? He would give the opinion of papers that influenced the money market. They must deal with the matter, not from the standpoint of the department, not from the standpoint of a big balance-sheet or profit, which was unconstitutional, but they must take it from the standpoint of the state of the whole. An alleged reason was decreasing revenue. Why? Because £750,000 was deducted from freights, but not a penny was deducted from the necessaries of life. Another reason was that there were too many men and too little capacity of output; but he would point out that less men were working on the lines than had formerly been the case. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth rightly challenged the right of one State department to inflict a burden on another department, and the hon. member proceeded to quote from an English paper, which, at the conclusion of an article, remarked: “It is not impossible that Mr. Burton had other grounds for what he did.” He went on to allege that the Administration not only created evil by retrenching these men, but created unfair competition, and he proceeded to give figures to show how men with big pensions were drawing salaries in various businesses, and so unfairly competing with men who had a better right to these positions.

The hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), had stated that in the main the taxes were paid by the workmen in the towns. Yet £750,000 had been taken off railway rates, and not 1d. taken off the people’s food, although food in South Africa was at a scandalous price, and would remain so until our policy changed. At Durban, a few years ago, observed Mr. Haggar, men earning 8s. a day on the railway were dismissed and taken back a day or two later at 6s. a day. As to rewarding the loyal men he had recently met a man in Cape Town who did not go out on strike but had been dismissed on the ground that as he had been unfaithful to his fellow-workers, he might also prove unfaithful to his employers. As to the railwaymen’s wages, was it not a fact that before they received them they had created the value which those wages represented. And if they did not create a bigger value than they drew there would be no railway profits. The men in the Cape Peninsula spoke with scorn at the idea of receiving any money from the penalties imposed on their fellow-workers. The strikers’ crime was this—that the railwaymen who were the most competent to give an opinion wanted a voice in the administration. Lord Furness, and other authorities, too, had stated that it was impossible to secure industrial peace unless there was some real partnership between the workers and their employers. The Minister of Railways had said that the railwaymen had a chance at the ballot-box. Theoretically they had, but until we had decent election laws, the men had no real chance. All the advantages were on the other side and all the disadvantages on the side of the workmen. For years and years every Labour leader he (Mr. Haggar) had met had pointed to the ballot-box as the road to peace and prosperity and the gate of hope. That was what was meant when these terrible men went forth and said, “We must capture the machinery of Government.” Yet they had the Minister of Railways advocating that very idea. What could the men do in the meantime, seeing that the Minister denied them the right to strike. The people were learning that if they were to do anything at all they must take the power from those who had used it for their own ends and hand ‘it to those who were prepared to use it for the common good.

The railwaymen had been fighting for status and asking for a proportionate say in deciding the terms and conditions of their labour. Who should say that this was wrong? Until the men had that there would be strikes and nothing but strikes. If the Minister wanted a contented service he would meet these people as a practical man who desired to be just and desired this country to go ahead, but again he (Mr. Haggar) warned the Minister that until conditions were changed the people would revolt. They might suffer, but they would revolt until they won. He believed the strike was entirely the result of provocation, and the offer to the loyal men of a monetary reward, taken out of the pockets of those who had gone on strike, would be regarded as an insult to the men—an insult which they would fling back in the face of the Government, and the Government would rue it. (Labour cheers.)

said the Minister had given them a very elaborate statement as to the grounds on which he felt retrenchment was absolutely necessary. Having proved the absolute necessity for retrenchment, the Minister went on to show that there was no retrenchment or, at any rate, only the ordinary retrenchment which went on continuously. When he (Dr. Watkins) heard the Minister say that his mind went back to the time when the Minister, speaking at a certain dinner in the Transvaal, did not refer to the retrenchment as merely an ordinary thing that had been going on for years. On that occasion the Minister said it was essential to embark on some measure of retrenchment, and added that if there had been no strike retrenchment was about to be undertaken. That hardly seemed to tally with the view the Minister put forward in introducing the second reading of the Bill. He (Dr. Watkins) had no doubt that that was the correct view, for he was sure the Minister would not mislead them, but in view of his statement one certainly could not help feeling from the Minister’s first speech that something fresh in the way of retrenchment was to be introduced. The Minister of Railways had announced that it was necessary to embark on retrenchment, and had said that even if there had been no strike or disturbances retrenchment was about to be undertaken, and one felt that the man in the street was almost certain to take the view that the words the Minister had uttered were to be taken by them as a threat that retrenchment would be used as a weapon against them.

He did not believe it was so intended. He acquitted the Administration of anything of that sort but he thought the Minister if he had sat detached from the whole matter must have felt that surely such words were likely to be taken as a threat, and likely to bring about serious trouble, which it was most essential to avoid if possible. If the Minister had been anxious for peace and tranquility one could not help feeling that he would have been wise to avoid putting any such weapon into the hands of the agitators. The Minister had spoken of the great trouble of the presence of the agitator in this country, but the Minister knew perfectly well that the seed sown by the agitators would not grow unless it had fallen into good soil. The soil he was afraid had been there for some time, and when the Minister used those words he was using the watering-can in a most effective manner. He did not excuse the men for one moment. They were wrong, and he was sure that a great number of the grievances that were supposed to exist were grievances of no great magnitude. But one could not feel that everything had been done by the Minister and his department to do away with those grievances. The feeling among the men had been undoubted. If they went through the Grievances Commission report they could not help feeling surprised at the large number of grievances that had been laid before it. Had the Minister’s department been run properly it should not have been possible for that large number of grievances to be brought forward, and the Commission had recommended a large number of the grievances. That showed that if the department had been working smoothly, and that if the Minister had been in touch with the people who had the grievances those grievances ought to have been cleared away without the necessity of their coming before the Commission at all. The mere fact of their coming forward at all was a discredit to the Minister and to the Administration. It was the want of the Administration getting into touch with the men that led to that sort of thing. He himself had brought forward a question of the local allowances between Kimberley and Vryburg. He had all sorts of explanations given him, and then he brought the grievance forward on the floor of that House. The Minister told him that he had already replied to his grievance, but he (Dr. Watkins) said he wanted the Minister to make a statement to the House. The Minister made two statements, both of which he contradicted, and the Minister did not admit that he (Dr. Watkins) was right. However, the Minister promised to make further inquiries into the matter. He expected to receive a reply within two or three days, explaining that the Minister had been in error and that he had been wrong in the reply he had given him and that he was taking further steps. He got no reply at all. He then wrote, and got a reply saying his letter was received and would receive the Minister’s consideration. Then Mr. Sauer died. When the present Minister returned he was most courteous. All the same, nothing happened. Time went on until the beginning of this session, and then he had the pleasure and satisfaction of seeing the Railway Board itself. They discussed the matter, and in the end they came down to this—that the men of the railway cottages outside could buy fowls and eggs cheaper than those in the town. That was a small matter, but a feather or a straw would show how the wind was blowing. If he had been hammering away at that matter and getting nothing he could imagine how much satisfaction the men got. That was the sort of feeling there was amongst the men, that they did not get the sympathetic attention they ought to have. If that sort of thing went on the wages might be twice as much, but if they did not treat the men with courtesy and sympathy they would always have dissatisfaction. The really important thing was how to get from the condition they were in now to a healthier and better state of things. The Government had rightly brought in that Bill, but was the measure before the House the best way to deal with the situation so that they might get further along the road, so that the next strike would be a long way off. The school-boy holiday idea which had been put forward as a reward to the men who remained loyal did not appeal to him. He did not think it was possible for them on the floor of that House to discuss details as to what form the reward should take— it would be to the detriment of the service that any such discussion should take place. It would be better to discuss it on the floor of the committee-room, and he regretted that the Minister had not moved for the appointment of a Select Committee at the beginning of the session.

Proceeding, he said he supposed the hon. Minister has taken the trouble to find out whether the rewards were going to be acceptable to the men, for it would be a sad thing if the men turned round and indignantly refused the gift. If he were a railwayman he would not feel satisfied with a reward of four days’ holiday at the expense of his fellow workers. The suggested rewards would have the effect of causing friction amongst the men, and instead of that they should try and get the service into a happy position. The men who had remained loyal would be the first to say: “Let us get rid of this bad feeling.” They would rather give up any little advantage than have a reward that would lead to bitterness amongst the men. If the Government could not give a general amnesty they should try to get as near as they possibly could, and they should not try to manufacture ringleaders by the hundred. It very often happened that the man who was a ringleader in the end was one of those who required the strongest pressure to met out on strike at the outset. Many men went out under pressure of circumstances. For these reasons he had no hesitation in supporting the motion that the subject matter of the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee, where the details could be quietly gone into. They on that side of the House had not tried to make party capital out of the matter. They had given loyal support to the Government, and in asking that it should be taken to a Select Committee he did not think they were asking anything but what was just and reasonable.

said that, as a representative of perhaps the largest railway centre in the Union, he felt it his duty to give an expression of opinion as to how the Bill affected those in the Salt River district. He had no sympathy with agitators. They deserved all they got and were very lucky to get off as they had done. With regard to the general strikers, he had a good deal of sympathy with them. He knew the force that was behind them to get them to come out on strike. He was very much surprised to hear the hon. member for Roodepoort say that he tried to prevent the strike, but he (the speaker) knew that if it had not been for him and for the hon. member for Springs there would have been no strike at Salt River. Whether directly or indirectly,the men were encouraged to strike and break their contract with the Government by the two hon. members on the cross-benches. Many of the men who came out on strike had been misled. They were told that they would lose none of their benefits and they were warned as to how they would be treated when the strike was over if they did not come out. Those men who had been pressed to come out on strike against their will were going to suffer under that Bill. The hon. member went on to refer to the case of a man of 54 years of age who had many years’ service. His colleagues had all gone on strike, and he said that if he went back his life would be a misery to him. But he did go back, and the agitators went so far as to tackle his wife and children. (An Hon. Member: “Rubbish.”) He went on strike the next time and he was amongst those who were going to suffer by that Bill.

The hon. member went on to say that in his opinion the country could afford to be magnanimous. They should have some feeling for the men who were misled and went on strike. Let them be magnanimous, forego the fine, and allow those men to return. The hon. member for Barberton had said the other day that he was against loyalty being recompensed, but he (Dr. Hewat) could not agree with that. Take the case of he men on the footplate who so loyally stuck to their work and undertook great risks in doing so. In many cases they were carrying their lives in their hands, and it was the duty of that House to give those men more than was suggested by the Bill. They would feel that they were recompensed if the Government would add something to their period of service. With regard to the grievances, they were of an individual character. There were few collective grievances. With all due respect to the General Manager of Railways, he (Dr. Hewat) could say that he had never yet placed a general complaint before the General Manager but it had been redressed and got the consideration it deserved. But many of the men employed in the Service did not have an opportunity of placing their grievances before the right quarter. The position to-day was that if they reported to their immediate chiefs these reports passed further and further on and eventually the man got no redress, but rather a black mark against him for making the complaint. It was absurd to say that men could complain direct to the Minister. If they did that they would suffer eventually, for their immediate chief would object to their going over his head. There should be a Board before which those men could place their just grievances.

Continuing, he said he thought that if that were done it would do a great deal to clear up matters and give satisfaction to the men, especially those who were in the habit of speaking against the Administration. With regard to the question of retrenchment, he put it to the House that if men were told that there was a chance of numbers of them being retrenched they would join any movement that would have the effect of driving that bogey of retrenchment away. Now these men were told that numbers of their fellows were going to be retrenched by the Government. He remembered in the old times the good feeling there was in the Cape and the interest the men took in the doings of the Government and their work. But that good feeling was no longer in existence, and he contended that it was swept away during the regime of the right hon. the member for Victoria West. Previous to that, when men had been in the employment of the Government for a certain time they were placed upon the Fixed Establishment. The retrenchment that took place during the regime of the right hon. the member for Victoria West broke the faith of the men in continuous employment in the service of the Government. Therefore, when rumours went about that men were going to be retrenched there was no wonder that the men grew uneasy, and were glad to clutch at any straw that would drive away this evil of retrenchment. He was not one of those who said that it was not the business of a State Department to do away with redundant men, but what he did say was that if any retrenchment was going to take place it should be among the temporary men who had been in the service of the Government only a short time, and not the men who had been in the service for a good many years. Then the Minister had said that this country was not in a position to construct the rolling stock that was ordered from oversea. It was a pity that after all these years they were not in a position to do so, and he thought the Government should take steps in the direction of putting them in a position to turn out this work. Another reason was the want of sympathy between the heads of the department and the employees, and he pointed out the amicable way in which the men and the Administration met in the Cape in the old days. That did not exist at the present time. What was the cause of it? It was not the General Manager. He said it was due to the transportation system under which heads of departments were shifted from one place to another. He felt there should be some method whereby a better feeling and a better attachment might be created between the heads of departments and employees. He hoped that the Minister would agree to the appointment of a Select Committee, because there were several points in the measure that were worthy of consideration, and there were men who would be able to point out hardships entailed by the present Bill.

said he was one of the hon. members who represented large numbers of railwaymen, and whenever they spoke of their affairs were accused of electioneering. He had listened with considerable pleasure to the debate that afternoon, for the reason that the General Manager had been left out of the discussion. He must say that he did think it ought to be a moral for the future, because whatever the General Manager might be it seemed to him he ought not to be mentioned in these discussions, and he thought the Minister would agree with him on that point. The real responsibility rested on the Minister. The Minister had to dictate the policy of the Government in railway matters and it was his business to see that that policy was carried out. The General Manager was a man with an enormous amount of energy and determination, and he (Mr. Fremantle) was certain that he would carry out any policy the Government determined upon. When it came to the policy, he did not think the Minister had any definite policy in regard to this matter. He thought the Bill was a most hopeful sign of the right policy he had seen for a long time. There was one point in the Bill that seemed to be a definite sign that they were going on a right line. After all, it had been ruled from the Chair that on this Bill they were discussing the whole question of industrial unrest on the railways, and he thought it was only right that they should lay down a right policy. What was the policy of the Government? The Minister had mocked at certain views. He said that when they talked about creating a feeling of confidence and sympathy between the employers and the employees that was foolish. He (Mr. Fremantle) did not know why. He thought that the policy that the Minister described as foolish was exactly the policy they wanted. The Minister’s policy, according to the party programme, was “The improvement in the conditions of labour, and securing white labour its fair share in the agricultural and industrial development of South Africa.” The Minister wanted to centre attention entirely on material questions—wages, payments, and so on— whereas the policy out forward by the hon. member for Smithfield and his friends was more sympathy with the real desire of the workpeople—that their status should be recognised and that they should be allowed to have a fair voice in the conditions of their employment. He (Mr. Fremantle) was encouraged by the Bill, because it was dealing with a passing matter, but the great point about it was the reference to a Grievances Board.

When he (Mr. Fremantle) proposed the establishment of a Grievances Board the Minister said everybody was against it and that it should be treated with the contempt it deserved. This was about the eighth session that he (Mr. Fremantle) had proposed this in Parliament. Now, after deriding it, the Government itself was adopting the idea He congratulated the Government with all his heart for adopting the proposal on the lines he suggested, for the Minister’s proposal was entirely on the same lines as his (Mr. Fremantle’s) Bill. The Minister had changed his mind a great deal more than he (Mr. Fremantle) had He hoped this little incident would not be forgotten by his hon. friends on the Government side of the House and that it would be a lesson to them to look into questions more on their merits and not to judge them by the fact whether they had been proposed by the Government or not.

As a law had been passed stating that strikes on the railways should be regarded as illegal, Parliament was bound to act accordingly, and he did not think it was right that we should pass over the railway strike as if nothing at all had happened. Unless special reasons could be shown that this strike was quite different from strikes contemplated by the House in 1912, Parliament would be stultifying itself if it passed the matter over without inflicting punishment on the men who were really strikers. For this reason he could not support the amendment put forward from the cross-benches. At the same time the House should consider whether the Bill really met the case or not. He wished to bring to the attention of the House certain cases. He had previously mentioned the case in which the General Manager of Railways gave a man wrong information as to the report of the Commission on his case, supplying the man with only half the report. Then how did it happen that the little Commission appointed to see how far the report of the Grievances Commission had been carried out was wrongly informed in regard to this man’s case? An incident of this kind created a great deal of discontent, and also uncertainty, which was the root of all discontent.

He was informed that favouritism was still going on to such an extent that some men who struck, but who had friends at court, had been marked down as being absent on leave and immediate inquiry should be made into this matter. It would occupy the time of the House too long if hon. members with railwaymen among their constituents went into all the cases of which they knew. His principle had always been this: He had a large number of grievances sent to him; he knew many of them were without foundation, but the best plan was to hand them over to railwaymen in whom one could trust.

Unfortunately Government was trying to deal with a whole mass of railwaymen without calling them into consultation. That was a principle which was entirely obsolete, and it led to industrial troubles. If they wanted to have contented men they were bound to call them into consultation, and then one would find no more diligent and effective colleagues in regard to these matters than the railwaymen themselves. He was glad to see that the Minister of Railways—by force of circumstances —was changing his mind, although the Minister himself might not be aware of it. The impression the Minister’s speech made on his mind was that the Minister was anxious to score off the railwaymen. Last year we had an excellent sample of how to create grievances. A book of new regulations was issued for which the clerks —and not the Minister—were responsible, but the men were not consulted. His people at Uitenhage at once told him that the thing was unworkable. The Minister, however, refused to consult the men or to have a Select Committee; instead the Minister rode the high horse, and said the regulations were the acme of perfection, but as soon as the regulations were brought into operation they were found to be unworkable, and the book was withdrawn. The book was most materially altered and re-issued after the men had been consulted, with the result that the book had been considerably improved. Still, it was only by force that changes were made. The result was that you had these questions fought out on the floor of the House with a complete misunderstanding of the point of view of the railwaymen. The Minister had referred to the question of piece-work in a most triumphant way, and said we must have it because it existed in the great building shops in other countries. But the question here had little to do with construction, but with repairing work.

In construction they could standardise the work, and therefore piece-work was more or less right, but when an engine came in for repairs, how were they going to have piece-work? What was the good of the Minister telling the House that they had all the work of other countries done by piece-work. They were talking about repairing sheds, and the parallel of his hon. friend had nothing to do with the matter. There was a matter in the regulations which was largely responsible for the unrest which had produced the strike. In the Cape they used to have two breaks in the day, and now they had only one. The Minister would say that one break a day was the system in other countries, but let them remember that the climate of other countries was not the climate of South Africa. It had been found that with two breaks the amount of work done was greater. Hon. members would remember what had happened in the Cape. They were induced by their permanent officer to establish the one break system. A great commotion was created, and the question was again gone into. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort, who was in charge of the railways at the time, decided to reverse the decision and go back to the two break system. He knew quite well that it might mean a certain amount of extra expense, but he was certain that the men could do their work better with two breaks than with one. No change of that sort ought to be carried out without consulting the men. The Minister had made concessions in exactly the wrong direction. What had happened in July? Instead of making some concessions which the men would really value, the Minister made concessions directly opposed to the wishes of the House. He made a concession to the effect that a man might be allowed to stand for Parliament while in the railway service. He thought that a most monstrous proposal. It had been voted down by the House. What happened? The Minister gave in on that point. Then he came and said, in a most triumphant way, that nobody had taken advantage of it. If the Minister was out of the country at the time, then somebody else was responsible for it. He made that concession contrary to the wishes of the House. Now a man might stand for Parliament while he was still in the railway service, but the Minister triumphantly pointed out a regulation to the effect that a member of the railway service might not sign a requisition. Lots of railwaymen liked to take a free part in politics, and if they allowed them to do so, it would meet the wishes of a large number of the men.

If the members of the House who formed the majority on the occasion he referred to were prepared to concede that men might stand for Parliament, much more were they prepared to concede the smaller rights. He was certain there was not a member of that House who would not feel that a serious mistake had been made. The Minister was still anxious to go back to the old days when the master laid down his decree and the servant accepted it. But it was a long time since that condition of affairs existed. He hoped members of the House had read, and would continue to read, the report of the Economic Commission. That Commission was not a Radical Commission, not a Conservative Commission, but a one man Commission to a large extent. In that Commission’s report there was a most adequate discussion of the question of collective bargaining. There was the Government’s own Commission urging the Government to carry out that principle of collective bargaining as much as possible. Why then was the Government fighting a rearguard action against the principle?

I do not see anything in this Bill dealing with collective bargaining.

Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully submit that on this Bill we are dealing with the whole question of industrial unrest on the railways. I urge that it is the refusal to accept collective bargaining that led to the strike on the railways. However, I shall bow to your ruling. Continuing, Mr. Fremantle said might he congratulate the Government that there again they were gradually coming round to that principle? A certain number of engine-drivers had gone to see the Government, and had put the Government in a favourable state of mind, by saying that they were not in favour of a strike, with the result that the Government at once agreed to the suggestion to discuss matters with the men. What was the remedy for that unrest? When the question was brought up in the House the Government said the remedy was provided for in the form of a Commission. That seemed to him to be no remedy at all. It would be seen that the Economic Commission held that what was required to put a stop to industrial unrest was the immediate dealing with the question before it gained a head. What was wanted was some machinery for preventing grievances reaching those serious dimensions. The root of the whole question was in Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill, which dealt with the Grievances Board. He was convinced that it was the refusal to adopt that proposal which was now put forward which created a feeling of bitterness more than anything else, and led the men to listen to arguments in favour of a strike. He thought that as they had in the Bill clauses 7 and 8 that ought to be an encouragement to the men to look to Parliament. Then there was the question of wages.

It was highly misleading of the hon. Minister to quote wages in this and other countries and leave it at that. Nothing could be more misleading. Wages did not show the comparative wealth and prosperity of men in different countries. The Commission clearly showed that you must consider a great many other things. Although money wages in this country were high, they had to set against that the extremely high cost of living. If they wanted to pay men less they must bring down the cost of living in the country. Moreover, the cost of living and the scale of living was largely dictated by social conditions, and in this country where everybody desired that the white men should be distinct from the coloured it became essential that the white men should live on a different scale from the coloured From his own experience and that of others amongst his constituents who knew the conditions in both countries, he believed that the men here were neither better nor worse off than the working-men on the railways in England. It was not to the point for the hon. Minister to quote money wages, as if that were the final word in the matter.

The Minister had said in the course of his speech that it would be a diabolical policy for the Government to try and pull down the wages of the men. He did not say that that had been done, but there were grave reasons for thinking that it had been done, and a large number of the railwaymen thought it had been. Whereas the rates in Bloemfontein were 19s., including allowance, the Government were bringing men from the Cape at 13s., and allowance. That meant reducing the standard rate by 2s. Such things as that were the immediate cause of the strike. He was assured that Durban men had been brought to Bloemfontein and paid 14s. and 2s. allowance, and a little time before going back to Durban were taken into the mechanical engineer’s office and compelled to accept work at 13s. Was that a fact? The Minister’s own word was at stake. He said the policy was not adopted by the Government. He (Mr. Fremantle) did not say it was, but the men thought so, and if the Minister inquired into the matter he should make sure of the point. The Minister had called it a diabolical policy, and he should make proper inquiry into it, for it affected his reputation. No doubt he said nothing that he did not believe to be true, but he was badly informed on the matter. The men were dissatisfied with the method in which their wages had been cut down.

Proceeding, the hon. member said he did not agree with the attitude of the hon. members on the cross-benches, who resented the reduction of rates. The Government itself had rather suggested that the reduction of rates was simply to be regarded as a reduction of the wages fund, and therefore as a loss to the men. That was an entirely erroneous way of looking at the matter. The reduction of railway rates ought to mean increased traffic. It was not a question, as the Minister tried to suggest, whether it was an increase of revenue or not, it was an increase of traffic, and there should be increased employment. How was it that it did not mean increased employment? Then there was a large increase of employment owing to the great increase of mileage. With regard to the redundant men the hon. Minister had quoted the report of 1912, which showed there were 450 men too many, but there would probably be a good many too few at the present time, on the same showing. That report did not only show there was a large number of redundant men, but it also showed there was extreme inefficiency in regard to the machinery, and especially in regard to the arrangement in the stores. That inefficiency so far as the stores were concerned was entirely the fault of the Government. He was glad to say that it had been largely corrected now. But why did not the hon. Minister refer to that when he referred to the report? He gave the impression that it was entirely a question of redundancy. The, inefficiency in the Stores Department was simply colossal, and men were waiting for hours together for material for their work. Now that this had been corrected and employment had increased it was idle to quote the report to prove redundancy. The hon. member went on to say that he agreed with the contention of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth with regard to the matter of wastage. They had got it from the Minister that there was a wastage of something like 3,500 men. They had it from the mechanical engineer some three years ago that there were 450 men too many, but since then they had increased the mileage and lowered the rates and traffic had increased enormously. Was it, then, still necessary to go in for a policy of retrenchment on the score of redundancy? That was not an efficient policy in that matter. With regard to the question of rolling-stock, he could not agree with the hon. Minister on that point. The hon. Minister quoted official views and they all knew what official views were on those matters. The official view was that taking their machinery at the present time they could not make rolling-stock. They could not make locomotives, he said, and evidently he made an impression on the minds of hon. members. But would it be believed that they were making locomotives at the present time?

Putting them together.

The hon. member opposite is the great representative of the importers of all those things.

Continuing, he said he wished hon. members would go into the matter and see if the Minister had been rightly informed, because he (Mr. Fremantle) believed that he had been wrongly informed. They had increased the capacity of their shops for dealing with locomotive work. In the matter of the construction of locomotives they had made a good beginning. They had been designing them even in this country. All they wanted to do was to increase the machinery in their shops, and they would be able to deal with a lot of the work. There was no impossibility about the matter. A great part of the work was already done in this country, and he said that the Minister failed to realise the importance of the matter. The Minister had said that he was prepared to allow 7 to 10 per cent., but he (the speaker) said that on business grounds he ought to be prepared to go further. He could not tell the House how much. That was the fault of the Government, and the Government ought to help him to know. He was of opinion that the Government ought to appoint a Commission to go into the matter. The money that would be paid out would be spent in that country, and would be worth a great deal more than the actual value of the money, and he would also point out that it was admitted that every employee in the country meant £8 or £10 to the Government in Customs revenue. He thought that there should be a Commission to inquire into the matter, and find out what it would actually pay the Government as a business transaction, and he considered that they might even allow 7 or 10 per cent, on top of the business transaction. In saying what he did the Minister was weighting the dice against the people of this country. He thought that the argument of redundancy could be dismissed; there was no foundation for that argument of the Minister. So far as ordinary retrenchment was concerned, that was another matter. There must be retrenchment from time to time. The Minister said that there had been retrenchment because there had been redundancy. The Minister was wrong.

The Minister went into the finance in a most extraordinary way, and said that he had had to retrench owing to the financial position of the railways. The Minister had put forward figures, but he did not seem to understand his own figures. He took the revenue for the nine months, and he said that the revenue was going down, but as a matter of fact the revenue was not going down, but was going up. It was £3,000 above the estimate for the year. Then he failed to take into account the harbour revenue, which was £85,000 in advance of the estimate. Altogether they were going on at the rate of £100,000 a year in excess of the estimates. Naturally when there was retrenchment under those circumstances it created unrest among the workmen. Personally, he could not understand how the Government had spent too much money. The Minister had said that in July he made concessions to the railwaymen to the extent of £300,000 a year, and on top of that he dismissed others. Why did he do it? On its own showing this retrenchment under the circumstances was owing to a want of financial control on the part of the Minister. It was harsh and unfair to compel these men to suffer because of the Government’s want of financial control.

He moved the adjournment of the debate.

The debate was adjourned until Monday next.

moved that the two financial motions on Monday’s Order Paper be adjourned till Thursday.

No motion is required for that.