from inhabitants of Kakamas Labour Colony for extension of the railway line from Prieska to Kakamas.

from W. J. Hooker, Department of Customs and Excise, praying that the period during which he did not contribute to the Pension Fund be taken into consideration in the calculation of his pension.

from F. T. Doyle, Government stock inspector, for a pension.

from inhabitants of Bethlehem, Frankfort, Ficksburg, and Vrede, for extension of the railway line from Frankfort to the Groot Vlei Coal Mine line.

from F. Thomas, a constable, for condonation of a break in his service.

from Edith E. Featherstone, Railway School, Amabele, for condonation of a break in her service.

from H. O’Connor, Salt River Works, for leave to contribute arrears to the pension funds.

brought up the report of the Select Committee on the Removal of Restrictions under Wills Bill. The Committee brought up an amended Bill. He moved that the first reading of the Bill be discharged and that the Bill be withdrawn.

Agreed to.

The Bill was accordingly withdrawn.

Return of petitions, resolutions, telegrams, papers and correspondence dealing with the services of Sergeant Purden as Public Prosecutor at Newcastle, and with the appointment of his successor.

asked the Prime Minister if any steps had been taken with regard to the appointment of a High Commissioner in London.

replied that no final decision had yet been arrived at.

The Bill was read a third time.

declared the motion negatived.

moved the insertion in line 21 of the words, “or Special Justice of the Peace.” He pointed out that frequently in the dorps there were no magistrates. If the amendment were accepted, it would often render it unnecessary to refer a case from one district to another.

moved the insertion of the word “European,” so as to ensure that arrests could be made only by white police officers. Police officers obtained large powers under the Bill, and only a white man should be entrusted with them.

said it would be wrong to insert the words in that particular part, as they were only dealing with definitions in that clause. To insert these words would not affect the Bill. The hon. member should move his amendment when they reached the clause which was affected.

said there was nothing in the Minister’s objection. The police were given certain powers, and only white men should be given the right to exercise them.

said he shared the same objection to the Minister’s standpoint.

said the jurisdiction of the Special J.P. went no further than £12, whilst the Bill provided for a punishment of £25. The amendment was therefore impracticable.

said he understood that the hon. member proposed to insert “Special Justice of the Peace ” in sub-section (d). He would point out that, under clause 6 of the Bill, civil jurisdiction up to £100 was placed in the hands of magistrates. Surely the hon. member did not want to give jurisdiction up to that amount to “Special Justices of the Peace ”?

said he would like an explanation from the hon. member in charge of the Bill as to what the difference was between an “ox ” and a “steer.” Both terms were used in the definition of “animal,” under sub-section (a).

supported the amendment of the hon. member for Boshof. Some districts were so extensive, and so thinly populated, that the magistrates’ offices were in some cases far distant.

explained that the Bill laid down certain penalties, and any court could inflict punishment if the offence were committed within its jurisdiction. If they wanted to give to a Special J.P. all the powers of a magistrate, then the amendment of the hon. member for Boshof would be acceptable.

pointed out that if the magistrate’s office was at a great distance from the place where the offence was committed, nobody would bring up a charge.

said he had moved his amendment because of the extensive districts. In the Free State special or resident justices of the peace had a certain jurisdiction, and he wished to extend that jurisdiction so far as the present Bill was concerned.

pointed out that, under section 6, jurisdiction was given to magistrates’ courts, if it appeared that the offence had caused damage to a person, to give damages up to £100. In section 10, the words “Magistrates’ Court” were used, and in section 15 the word “magistrate” appeared. In section 14 they found the words “magistrate’s court scale.” It would be interesting to know how the hon. member thought that, by inserting the words “Special Justice of the Peace,” he was going to confer jurisdiction upon those officials to deal with these cases.

said he supported the amendment because of the extensive character of the district.

said that the measure was based upon an Act of the old Natal Parliament. It seemed to him that the word “steer” was tautological, and that it did not matter very much.

Yes it does. I wish to move the deletion of the word “steer” in line 9, and “stier” in line 10 of the Dutch version. The word means absolutely nothing beyond the word “ox.”

said he would accept the amendment.

said he thought the word “steer” ought to be retained.

said he hoped the amendment would not be accepted. “Steer” was not the same as “ox.”

What is the difference?

I despair of the hon. member for Umlazi, who does not know the difference between a steer and an ox. (Laughter.)

A steer is a young bull; an ox is not a bull. (Renewed laughter.)

said that the hon. member for Turffontein seemed to have no knowledge of this matter, and he was bound to accuse him of the most gross ignorance on a simple point like this. (Laughter.) The word “steer” and the word “ox” had exactly the same meaning.

who rose amid some laughter, said he had looked up Webster just now, and he found that the hon. member for Umlazi was absolutely correct. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)

The amendment to omit “steer” was negatived.

said he would like to know from the hon. member in charge of the Bill whether he was prepared to accept his amendment for the insertion of the word “white” before “police officer.”

said he could not accept the amendment.

said that very extended powers were given to police officers under this Bill, and it would never do to allow native policemen to arrest white men under these circumstances.

said it was wrong to amend the definitions. The amendment should be moved when they reached the clause affected. It should not be made impossible in the definition of terms used for a coloured constable to take action in a remote district.

said he could not understand such reasoning. The powers given in the Bill were not such powers as should be conferred on coloured policemen.

supported the amendment.

said that clauses 10 and 11 provided that only white policemen should have the prescribed powers. But the power conferred in clause 7 could be given also to coloured policemen.

The amendment should therefore not be accepted for the moment, but might be accepted when they dealt with the clauses.

said he hoped the Committee would not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Rustenburg. He was prepared to move an amendment to clause 10, but preferred that this clause should stand as it was.

said he would withdraw his amendment on the Minister’s assurance.

said that in distant parts of the country the native police had a certain amount of power. He could not agree, however, that native policemen should be allowed to arrest Europeans. A native policeman should not have the right to order farmers to destroy an animal, seeing that even veterinary surgeons made mistakes in regard to the destruction of animals. They would have to be prudent in such a matter, and not give too much power to the native police.

said they should not allow native policemen to come on farms to inquire into the condition of animals. He supported the amendment of the hon. member for Rustenburg, and agreed that they could not be too careful in a matter of that sort. He related his experience even with veterinary surgeons.

moved that the consideration of the clause stand over.

It was decided that clause 2 should stand over.

said he thought the hon. member for Rustenburg should have put his motion on the paper.

On clause 3, Offences under this Act,

moved that after the words “over-load” in line 23 the following words be added: “Neglect to supply with water.” He pointed out what happened frequently on the railways with regard to the watering of stock, and said they could not expect railway servants to risk their lives in trucks of infuriated animals.

thought it better that the amendment should read, “or fail to supply with water.”

thought that the Committeo should wait until the Minister of Railways was in his place.

pointed out the difficulty of carrying out the amendments. Some animals wanted water every 30 minutes and others could go without for 48 hours.

said the definition in the clause was very poor. There were times when they might not be able to give sufficient food or fodder to the animals, and there might be unavoidable abuses of the regulations. How far did the Bill apply in such cases?

thought they were treading on dangerous ground. If it was to be applied to the railways, how was the Minister going to act? He thought it was impossible to carry out such an amendment.

said he also thought the amendment was impossible to carry out.

moved the deletion of sub-section 2 of the clause. He could not agree that the owner should be responsible if his servant committed a crime in ill-treating animals, and he also objected to the heavy punishment. Suppose he sent his servant away on horseback, how could he foresee what would happen?

said that if amendments like that of the hon. member for Umlazi were pressed, the Bill would be wrecked. They should be very careful how they applied amendments of this sort.

said he opposed the amendment of the hon. member for Edenburg.

said that he only wished to endorse what had been said by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt), and the word “under-feeding” had been put in in “another place” and had not been originally in the Bill; and the same objections which the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Fawcus) had raised applied to “under-feeding.” They ought to punish acts of cruelty; but where they punished acts of omission, they ought to be very careful.

moved, as an amendment, that the word “under-feed” be deleted, for the purpose of inserting the words “wilfully starve.”

said he thought it would be a pity to strike it out altogether. There were cases where there were certain classes of people who kept animals which were starved from day to day. They might put in some definition, as the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Fichardt) had suggested.

said he thought cases of the kind mentioned by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. W. Smartt) could be met by the concluding words of the section—any act which caused unnecessary suffering. He thought that would be clear enough. He could only express an opinion, and, as the House knew, lawyers differed.

said that he agreed with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort that so many amendments would be put into the Bill so that it would be finally wrecked, but should they not have no Bill at all rather than a bad Bill? (Hear, hear.) Should they have one law for the private individual and another for the Railway Department? (Hear, hear.) If they dealt with cruelty to animals, they must deal with the question of hundreds and thousands of livestock carried by the Railway Department every year. The question raised by the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Fawcus) was an extremely important one. He did not say that the hon. member’s wording was strictly correct, but it was much more important that they should deal with the watering of stock carried by the Railway Department than that they should deal with the under-feeding of animals.

said that evidently his hon. friend had not got much practical experience in the transportation of animals. He strongly held that the Railway Department should do everything they possibly could to see that the suffering of travelling animals was minimised. There were things which were impossible; and if his hon. friend (Mr. Currey) put a satchel on his back and followed sheep for a couple of days it would not take him long to recognise that it would be days and days before one could get animals which had been accustomed to drinking in dams and spruits to drink from troughs. If they wanted really to assist in preventing cruelty to animals, they muse devise some system for the Railway Department more rapidly to transport these animals. What they wanted to see was that livestock on the railways should practically take precedence over all other traffic, and not that livestock should be put on sidings while other traffic went past. Let them be practical, and put into the Bill anything of a practical character, but let them not put anything into the Bill of an unpractical character. It would be a pity if a Bill like that, with its many admirable qualities, should be wrecked in Committee. (Hear, hear. )

said that there were practical difficulties which had to be considered. There were so many difficulties, he thought, that he asked whether the hon. member who was in charge of the Bill would not be willing to report progress. (Dissent.) The hon. member advised the Bill being referred to a Select Committee.

said that the Minister in charge of that Bill had told them that it was to go through that afternoon. Surely they were not going to have another all-night sitting! (Laughter.) Were not all these matters they were talking of covered by the latter part of the clause? Would it not be quite possible to leave out the word “underfeeding,” and, as far as the Railway Department was concerned, if there was all that difficulty, the word “reasonably,” he thought, would cover it, He agreed with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort that a lot of unnecessary suffering occurred through delay to live-stock on the railways.

said that he wished to support the hon. member for Clanwilliam in referring the Bill to a Select Committee.

said that if a Bill such as that were put into working, he wanted to know what would become of the man on the land, as had been said by an hon. member to his left? Where people did not have sufficient food, through no fault of their own, with which to feed their animals, they were, according to that clause, to be proceeded against. He supported the suggestion of the hon. member for Clanwilliam.

said that it was because they were so anxious to see that law passed that he would appeal to the hon. member in charge of the Bill (Mr. Rockey) to send it to a Select Committee. They would then get a Bill which would be acceptable, and they would not have nearly as long a discussion as they were now getting. They all wanted a Bill to prevent cruelty to animals. (Hear, hear.)

said that if the Bill were referred to the Select Committee, it would be very difficult to pass it this session. The measure had received very full consideration in another place, where it was dealt with by practical stock farmers. Under those circumstances, he thought the House could go on with the Bill, and he appealed to the hon. member for Clanwilliam to withdraw his amendment. If they reported progress, it would be very difficult to pass this session what was a very necessary Bill. The hon. member for Ficksburg need not fear that the measure would interfere with farmers whose land was in a part of the country where little rain fell. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals would not exist very long if it tried to penalise farmers, instead of looking after the numerous cases of cruelty which were perpetrated every day. (Hear, hear.)

said he did not wish in any way to hamper the Bill, and would rather see it go through in its present form than that it should not be passed at all. (Opposition cheers.) He would withdraw his amendment, but as there was such a strong feeling on the matter it would be better to put the matter to the vote. He would move to report progress.

pointed out that the Bill was not an entirely new measure, as it included clauses from existing Acts. If they did not go on with the Bill now there was great danger of this very necessary measure not passing through the House this session.

said he wished to draw attention to the very dangerous doctrine which had been enunciated, that as they were so anxious to have a Bill they must not scrutinise its provisions too carefully. That was a doctrine he would never subscribe to, and they would be neglecting their duty if they acted on it. That principle was no new one, and the Statute-book was littered with Acts got through on those lines, Acts of Parliament containing provisions which were utterly unworkable, and as the result of which they had fallen into disuse. For instance, we had a most stringent Stoppage of Fires Act, and there was a famous Act passed about 40 years ago—the Wild Bees Protection Act. (Laughter.) He wondered how many wild bees had been protected. If clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill under consideration were carried out they would create a great deal of bad blood. The Bill would create more quarrels between neighbours than anything else he knew; for instance, there was a provision that the informer was to get half the amount of the fine. (Laughter.) He could imagine in our quiet countryside what a game there would be. The hon. members on the Ministerial side of the House knew the circumstances of the country well, as did the hon. member opposite (Mr. Rockey). The circumstances of the country and of the population required to be taken into consideration. Otherwise they would be opening the door to a lot of mischievous prosecutions which would lead to a great deal of trouble. A Select Committee could turn out a vastly better Bill than the one now before the House.

said it was very unfair for an hon. member who took the trouble to prepare a Bill of this kind to say at the eleventh hour that the Bill was no good and that it should be sent to a Select Committee. The opposition to the Bill was quite unexpected.

said he quite agreed with the hon. member for Victoria West that the House should not be encouraged not to criticise the Bill too narrowly, but the great plea on behalf of the Bill was that this afternoon they had a certain amount of time vacant which they could employ by considering the Bill. The only other measure on the paper was a Bill called the Peace Preservation Bill, for which, he was perfectly sure, there was no particular hurry. (Laughter.) Hon. members could listen to the arguments as to the terrible danger the countryside was to suffer, but the hon. member for Ficksburg and others need not be alarmed as to the poor farmers, for they would have exactly the same alarm when the Bill came from the Select Committee. The arme boer was not likely to come to any harm, for he could always take care of himself. If the motion to report progress were carried the Bill would not be heard of again this session. (Opposition cheers.)

hoped the amendment that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee would be agreed to. He held that the Bill was full of all kinds of small points which would have to be discussed, with the result that at six o’clock they would be no further. On the other hand, if the Bill were passed as it was it would cause great difficulties.

said that they had got a free afternoon practically, and he would ask hon. members on the other side to bring forward their amendments, so that they could be considered and voted upon in the course of the afternoon. He hoped the Government would back them up in their desire to carry the Bill forward as far as possible that day.

said he quite agreed with what had been said by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, that if the Bill did not get through this afternoon it was as good as dead. He felt that a Bill like this was most essential, and he was sure that, although there might be mistakes in the Bill, every member would be in favour of the principle. No one who treated his animals humanely need have any fears that he would fare badly under the measure, and he, for one, was going to vote against the motion that the Bill go to a Select Committee. The House had the whole afternoon to discuss the Bill, and mistakes could be put right. He hoped the amendment would not be agreed to, and that they would thresh the subject out and make a good Bill of it.

said he wanted the Bill to go to a Select Committee, because he wanted to see a good law produced. The House could not possibly get on with the Bill as it stood now; but if it were dealt with by a Select Committee it would be easy to pass it afterwards. The more they examined the Bill, the more faults they found in it.

said that the very arguments of the Minister of Railways induced him to vote for the amendment, that the Bill should go to a Select Committee. No progress had been made so far. The Bill, as it stood, could hardly be called a Bill. If they passed such a measure at all, it should be a good and a workable law, and before it could be that it would have to go before a Select Committee. There was no great urgency about it either, as each of the Provinces had a law dealing with the subject.

said he realised quite well that he was beaten. (Cries of “No” and laughter.) They knew perfectly well that if this Bill now went to a Select Committee it would not be passed this session. A great many objections had been raised to the Bill on really small points. They had been told that the various Provinces had their own particular Bills. This Bill had been brought forward to consolidate those Bills. He wanted to tell hon. members that all Bills, and all good Bills, were meant to deal with evildoers, and not for the punishment of the righteous. He could not appreciate the action of the hon. member for Victoria West in drawing a red herring across the trail. This was not a bad Bill; it was a good Bill, an extraordinarily good Bill.

Question.

continuing, said that when the Bill now came before Committee of the House it was blocked by a number of members who had not even taken the trouble to table a single amendment. He knew he was wasting time, but he might as well waste time as other hon. members. (Laughter.) The hon. member compared the provisions of the Bill with the existing law on the subject in the Cape Province and the Orange Free State, and pointed out that the Bill was based on existing Acts, and more particularly the Natal Law No. 31 of 1874.

urged that the question should be put, seeing that they had already spent three-quarters of an hour discussing whether they should send the Bill to a Select Committee or not.

said that they had spent a good deal more time on far less important matters than this. He agreed with the hon. member that many of the objections raised to this Bill were raised with the idea of killing it. (Cries of: “No.”) Actions spoke louder than words. He saw nothing in this Bill to prevent the Committee from going on with it at once and discussing the various clauses. He admitted that the Bill wanted amendment in certain respects and he would urge upon the Committee that they should try and amend it, instead of reporting progress. He hoped every member on that side would do his best to get the Bill discussed now, instead of being sent to a Select Committee.

put the motion that progress be reported, and declared that the “Noes” had it.

called for a division, but shortly afterwards said that he would withdraw.

objected, and the division was accordingly proceeded with, with the following result:

Ayes—19.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bekker, Stephanus

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Merriman, John Xavier

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

E. B. Watermeyer and C. T. M. Wilcocks, tellers.

Noes—78.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Berry, William Bisset

Blaine, George

Botha, Christian Lourens

Botha, Louis

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Crewe, Charles Preston

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

Currey, Henry Latham

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Duncan, Patrick

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fawcus, Alfred

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Graaff, David Pieter de Villiers

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Haggar, Charles Henry

Harris, David

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hull, Henry Charles

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Juta, Henry Hubert

King, John Gavin

Krige, Christman Joel

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Louw, George Albertyn

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

My burgh, Marthinus Welhelmus

Nathan, Emile

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Orr, Thomas

Quinn, John William

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Rockey, Willie

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Tobias

Steytler, George Louis

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willern

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Whitaker, George

Wiltshire, Henry

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

H. Mentz and H. C. Bekker, tellers.

The motion to report progress was therefore negatived.

moved an amendment to delete in line 30 the word “unnecessary” for the purpose of substituting the word “unreasonable.”

pointed out that the word “unreasonable” already appeared in the text.

said he would like to call the attention of the member for Colesberg to the fact that it was for the court to decide whether animals had been cruelly deprived of water, so that there was no necessity for the hon. member for Prieska and the hon. member for Colesberg to oppose the amendment. If reference to underfeeding was not in the clause, he (Mr. Fawcus) would not be so particular with regard to the watering of cattle. He appealed to the Committee on the grounds of humanity to put the watering of stock on the railways in this Bill. He hoped the Minister of Railways would favourably consider the matter, as his department were generally credited with being the chief offenders in this direction. He could see no reason why stock should not be successfully watered in the trucks, if an arrangement of sliding troughs were adopted.

warned hon. members to be reasonable on both sides, or the Bill would be killed. He thought if the Bill legislated for acts of wilful cruelty that would be sufficient. Personally with regard to the third clause, he did not see why the word “underfed” should be inserted, as the Act in itself was one of cruelty, and in that case was sufficiently defined in the clause.

asked the member for Umlazi (Mr. Fawcus) to withdraw his amendment. From what had been advanced during the discussion, it would appear as if this matter of watering cattle had never come before railway officials at any time. He could assure the House that it was a subject which had been constantly before the railway management, and was a most difficult matter to remedy.

agreed with the amendment proposed by the member for Umlazi. He failed to see why there should be any opposition to it, as the House was merely asked to express its opinion that animals should not be kept cruelly without water. He was surprised that hon. members opposite opposed the amendment, as it was well known that animals had been kept as much as four days without water on the railway. He (Mr. Madeley) thought if any act of cruelty was mentioned in the Bill it should be that of failing to water the stock.

said his opposition to the amendment by the hon. member for Umlazi was that it would make it practically impossible for people to convey stock by railway, because it was impossible for the authorities to water animals unless they had stations where this could be properly done.

Continuing, he said that the word “cruel” should be enough. The question was, who was going to judge as to whether an act was cruel or not?

The magistrate.

said that one man might say that it was cruel to allow stock to go without water for twelve hours, while another might say it would be cruel to let them go without water for twenty-four hours.

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

was understood to suggest some alteration to the clause.

said he hoped that they would not start redrafting the clause at that late stage. If they went on doing that he did not know where they would get to.

asked why some offences were specified and others not? He thought that the words, “any person that shall cause unnecessary suffering,” would cover all.

said it might be covered, but it would lead to a lot of discussion. He thought the words “under feed” should be dropped. Even if they overstated it would not do any harm.

The amendment of the hon. member for Ladybrand, that the words “under feed” be deleted, was agreed to.

The amendment that the words “wilfully starve ” be substituted was negatived.

The amendment of the hon. member for Ficksburg, that the word “unreasonable” be substituted for “unnecessary,” was negatived.

asked whether sub-section (2) was not dangerous, seeing that it held the owner responsible for the acts of his servants.

replying to Mr. J. A. Venter, said “owner” was defined as the person who was for the time in charge of an animal.

held that, as the clause stood, there was a danger of the owner being held responsible for acts committed by the servants. Sub-section 2 of the clause, he stated, was quite superfluous. The definition was quite sufficient.

said his experience as a magistrate in the past had shown him that, in the larger villages and towns, there were people letting contracts; it happened that people in the employ of such people would say to the employer that they could, for instance, not take a horse out, as they would contravene the law prohibiting cruelty to animals. Yet they might be forced to take the animal out. The clause was intended to provide for such cases.

said that the argument of the last speaker clearly showed that the “owner ” would be responsible. If the acts of the owner were made punishable, those of the servants should be made punishable also.

remarked that there could be only one owner. If the real owner was away and the servants was guilty, then in accordance with the terms of the present Bill the last-mentioned would be regarded as the guilty party.

said he did not think the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Van Niekerk) and the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Kuhn) had quite read that sub-section as they ought to have done. It said that the owner was only responsible if he had failed to exercise reasonable care. Only if the owner was at fault himself, was he held responsible. He agreed with the hon. member for Ladismith (Mr. Becker) that if they left that section out, they would let off a number of men who were really responsible. He thought that these hon. members were really getting anxious about something which was not dangerous at all.

who agreed with the last speaker, said that there ought to be some further provision to protect innocent men suffering through the faults of their employers.

referring to sub-sections (d) and (e), said the provisions of these sub-sections caused him a certain amount of anxiety. It happened that farmers were sometimes obliged to use poison. Under these clauses, farmers were placed in a dangerous position. How could they prove that they had a reasonable excuse for using poison if a neighbour’s dog ate such poison? He did not like the provision that only experts should be allowed to perform operations on animals. Farmers themselves often had to perform operations, and these clauses rendered the farmers’ position dangerous.

said he could not agree with the Minister’s remarks in regard to “owner.” The owner would be the man who would, in the first place, be held responsible. As to the question of ill-treatment, they had been told that the railways must be kept out of the matter; who else but the owner was then to be held responsible for any ill-treatment of animals conveyed by rail?

Proceeding in English, the hon. member said, according to that section, the owner was the man who owned, plus anyone who had charge of the animal for the time being. It did not dispense with the owner. When reading that clause they felt everywhere that, no matter how excellent the motive or the object might be, there was everywhere a vagueness to such an extent that he was afraid that, when that thing was put into operation, they would come to see how far they had gone in that Bill, through the suffering of individuals.

thought the hon. member had given a somewhat unreasonable interpretation, although he (Mr. Creswell) did not profess the hon. member’s knowledge of the law. Surely if an animal was on the railway, it was out of the owner’s control, and the railway was responsible?

No, no.

maintained if the owner handed an animal over to the Government the Government was responsible and not the owner, and if the Government looked lightly on those matters it was their fault. The point of the hon. member was that handing animals over to the Government was no guarantee at all.

said that whether or not it was the intention to throw responsibility on the Railway Department there was nothing in that clause to do it. Unless an owner made himself responsible for the feeding and watering of a horse travelling, say, from Johannesburg to Cape Town, he would be liable under that section. The hon. member had suggested that the carrier should be made responsible, but the railway as the carrier only undertook to carry an animal and nothing more, consequently the owner had to look after his animals himself. That was why it was usual for grooms and attendants to accompany animals travelling from one end of the journey to the other.

said that in that case he thought the hon. gentleman answered himself to some extent. He (Mr. Creswell)was under a misapprehension, for he thought that the railway, besides having to carry the animal, had to see that goods were delivered in a reasonably good condition, and surely it was their duty to see that there was no suffering on the way on account of neglect of watering or feeding. He saw no objection to placing the responsibility on the owner, but he had always imagined that the railway had some responsibility in the matter.

held that sub-section 2 might have the effect of bringing quite innocent people into great difficulties. It was very easy for servants under this clause to bring owners of animals into trouble, although owners might have done their utmost to prevent any cruel treatment. He thought, therefore, the sub-section should be deleted. The hon. member for Smithfield had seen the need for that. The whole Bill was so disconnected that it would lead to all sorts of actions.

pointed out that his explanation had been given in reply to a specific case put forward by the hon. member for Wodehouse, in that case his wagon had been in charge of a tried servant.

said that hon. members seemed to lose sight of the fact that the object of the Bill was to prevent cruelty to animals, and between the owners and the railway they wanted to get rid of the responsibility of feeding and watering the animals. It was quite clear that the railway took no responsibility, and that the responsibility was thrown on the owner. They should not blink their eyes to the fact that the owner was to be responsible, and it was the duty of that House to say that it was no use their trying to burke the responsibility and that if they did so they would be punished.

thought that when that Bill was passed the railway would be responsible. There were many fears expressed in the House with regard to something which did not exist. It was not a new thing, and there were magistrates in the country, men with good commonsense. The House should take a reasonable view and trust the magistrates. He did not think that any hon. member should bring forward a case where an owner had been unjustly punished.

said that naturally they wanted to protect animals against cruelty, but they should do so in a reasonable way, and to do that they must not introduce conditions which ultimately would cause infinitely more injury than that law was going to take away. Did the hon. member for Von Brandis prefer leaving animals on a farm to die, or would he rather see them stay without water for three days in a train while they were being transported from one end of the country to the other, from a place where there was nothing to eat to another part of the country where there was plenty?

If he did want the farmer to put his sheep in a truck to be watered and fed and offloaded every day, let the hon. member say so, and they would know to vote against the Bill. If they were going to do a foolish thing like that, all those in the House with practical experience would certainly oppose it. It was absolutely impossible to send animals from one place to another without suffering, sometimes in a rather severe degree, and that might bring down magistrates, inexperienced in such matters, on the heads of owners for actions which had been of great benefit to the poor animals, which otherwise would have suffered much more. Supposing a farmer contracted with a man to have water and food provided for his stock, that would not, in every instance, prevent the former being punished for cruelty which might be caused to stock Nothing in the Bill took away the eventual responsibility of the owner if no one else could be found upon whom the responsibility could be placed.

said he could not agree with the explanation of the hon. member for Von Brandis. If that explanation was right, then it would mean that it would be practically impossible for a farmer to have animals conveyed by train. If all responsibility lay with the owner, he could not vote for the clause.

said he found it very difficult to follow the hon. member for Smithfield. (Hear, hear.) Did the hon. member maintain that if he (Mr. Duncan) wished to have animals sent from here to Johannesburg, and handed them over to the Railway Department for that purpose, that he was responsible if the department ill-treated them? Surely in entrusting them to the Railway Department he had exercised all the care that the law reasonably could expect.

said the definition of “owner” was clearly for the purposes of this clause.” If an owner sent a driver out with horses in good condition, and one of these horses was subsequently injured, the owner was to be held responsible. The owner was not exempted from prosecution and fine, and that was a most unfair provision, he held.

said that frequently stock were five days on the railway when they were being transported from one part of the country to another. The Bill stated that the owner could be dealt with unless reasonable care was exercised; so that unless the owner made arrangements to have the stock and fed on the train he would be liable. The arrangements on the railway were such that no owner had an opportunity of seeing that his stock was watered and fed while in transit.

wished to know if he could be said to have taken reasonable care and supervision when he knew that his animals were going to be ill-treated throughout the time they were being conveyed by train?

quoted a case in which sheep were left at a railway siding for some considerable time without being watered, and asked who was to be held responsible, the Railway Department or the owner? The owner was at any rate exposed to considerable risk.

also held that the “owner” was placed in an unnecessarily dangerous position, and was dealing with the question of railway transport, when he was told that several hon. members had used this argument. When he noticed the differences of opinion held by the legal members of the House as to who bore the responsibility, it made him more alarmed than ever.

said it was quite clear that the owner was responsible, and not the railways. He could not agree with this clause.

said that when this Bill first came before the House he thought there was no urgency about it, but the more one listened to the arguments of hon. members on the opposite side of the House the more one wondered whether there was not the greatest urgency in this matter, because hon. members seemed to be deadly anxious that they should not be made liable for cruelty to animals when moved about the country. The whole attitude of hon. members opposite seemed to be to protect the owner as against the cruelty which might be caused to animals. The section used the words “unnecessary suffering.” If an owner of stock forwarded his stock about the country in such a way as to cause them unnecessary suffering it was said that it ought to be a good answer to simply say that he was the owner. The section referred simply to matters over which the owner had control, not to matters over which he had no control, and only then when he caused unnecessary suffering. It seemed to him that anybody listening to the debate must come to the conclusion that the farmers in that House were afraid of the Act. He thought, after this debate, one must have been more convinced than ever that it was absolutely necessary to have some Act for the prevention of cruelty to animals while on the railway or elsewhere.

moved to add at the end of sub-section (1), “and any fine so imposed may be paid by instalments or in such manner as the magistrate may direct.”

said he would accept the amendment.

said it seemed to him a most extraordinary procedure that a magistrate might impose a fine to be paid by instalments.

said that before the clause was put he wished to point out that the method of paying fines by instalments was recognised in all modern legislation. This had been of enormous benefit in preventing people going to prison. It tended to keep persons out of gaol. Boys were sometimes fined the sum of £2, which, at the rate of wages they were receiving, made it impossible for them to pay, but the magistrate would direct that the fine should be paid by instalments out of the boy’s wages. The promoter of the Bill was ready to accept the amendment which stood in his (Mr. Brown’s) name.

was proceeding to state that the system of paying fines by instalments had the effect of keeping people out of prison, when the Chairman pointed out that this had already been stated by the previous speaker. Continuing, Mr. Nathan hoped the amendment would be accepted.

Mr. E. N. Grobler’s amendment was negatived.

The amendment of the member for Three Rivers was then put and agreed to, and clause 3, as amended, was adopted.

On clause 4, Courts may order animals to be destroyed.

moved, in line 19, after “animal,” to insert “and removing and burying the carcase.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Clause 4 as amended was then agreed to.

Clause 5, The Court may order animals to be disposed of,

hoped the member for Langlaagte (Mr. Rockey) would not accuse him of trying to wreck the Bill, but he thought some amendments should be made to this clause, because a man could not only be fined or put in prison, but his animal could be taken away from him. It was ridiculous legislation, he thought, that a man who might be fined £5 under this Act and, after paying that fine, be liable to have his horse taken away from him. He would like to know who received this forfeit.

The horse would be sold.

continuing, said that someone would still have to receive the forfeit, and he supposed the man who gave the information would probably get half the amount. Did his hon. friend mean that a man should lose an animal, however valuable it might be? It was a very serious matter.

said he could not agree with the hon. member for George. There was an important qualification in the clause. It was that only in very extraordinary cases and when the court was satisfied, after a person had a previous conviction for the same offence, that he was not the proper person to own an animal that this right was given. Such a person had no right to own an animal.

You can see that the hon. member is the owner of a motor-car. (Laughter.)

said he was prepared to withdraw the clause.

said the matter was left entirely in the hands of the magistrate. He was astonished to hear the arguments of the hon. member for Caledon. A magistrate was to decide whether a person was fit to be an owner of animals!

I would point out to the hon. member for George that the same power was given with regard to children.

said he was sorry his hon. friend had withdrawn, not for the reasons which actuated the hon. member for George, but there was no doubt it must be within the knowledge of many that there were individuals who had got animals that they treated in a disgraceful manner. They were brought before the court and punished, and he thought it was perfectly right that the animals should be taken out of their possession. Therefore such a clause was necessary, and he did hope that his hon. friend the member for Langlaagte would reconsider his decision. He was sorry to see such a difference of opinion between such great family friends as the hon. members for George and Caledon.

said there was no greater authority on family divisions than the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. (Laughter.) They had just witnessed quite a good exhibition of a difference of opinion between the hon. member for Fort Beaufort and the hon. member for Langlaagte.

put the question that the clause stand part of the Bill, and declared the “Ayes” had it.

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

Ayes—68.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bekker, Stephanus

Berry, William Bisset

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Crewe, Charles Preston

Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Duncan, Patrick

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fawcus, Alfred

Henderson, James

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Juta, Henry Hubert

King, John Gavin

Krige, Christman Joel

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Louw, George Albertyn

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Maginess, Thomas

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray.

Myburgh. Marthinus Wilhelmus

Nathan, Emile

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Orr, Thomas

Quinn, John William

Rockey, Willie

Sampson, Henry William

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Whitaker, George

Wiltshire, Henry

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

H. Mentz and J. Hewat, tellers.

Noes—26.

Currey, Henry Latham

De Waal, Hendrik

Fichardt. Charles Gustav

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Haggar, Charles Henry

Henwood, Charlie

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert

Leuchars, George

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Merriman, John Xavier

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

P. G. W. Grobler and C. T. M. Wilcocks, tellers.

The clause, as printed, was accordingly agreed to.

moved a new clause 6, to follow clause 5, as follows: “The proceeds of the sale of such animal shall be handed to the owner of the animal.” He said that one could not take a man’s property away from him, and not return it, as the proceeds of the sale.

said that under clause 5 an owner was deprived of his ownership. Who would the owner be under the new clause, proposed by the hon. member? (Laughter.)

Clause 5 says that the owner shall be deprived of the ownership of his animal.

To whom would the proceeds go?

There is nothing before the Committee. Clause 5 has been disposed of.

On clause 6, Power of Magistrate’s Court in criminal prosecution to award damages summarily against accused,

moved that the clause be deleted.

The hon. member can vote against the adoption of the clause.

On the motion being put that clause 6 stand part of the Bill, the Chairman de dared that the “Ayes” had it.

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

Ayes—73.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Becker, Heinrich Christian

Bekker, Stephanus

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosnian, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Crewe, Charles Preston

Cronje Frederik Reinhardt

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Duncan, Patrick

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Piet Gert Wessel

Harris, David

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Hunter, David

Jagger, John William

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Krige, Christman Joel

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Leuchars, George

Louw, George Albertyn

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Maginess, Thomas

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Nathan, Emile

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Orr, Thomas

Quinn, John William

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Rockey, Willie

Sampson, Henry William

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Schreiner Theophilus Lyndall

Searle James

Smartt, Thomas William

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Whitaker, George

Wiltshire, Henry

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

H. Mentz and J. Hewat, tellers.

Noes—10.

Currey, Henry Latham

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Charles G. Fichardt and C. T. M. Wllcocks, tellers.

Clause 6 was accordingly agreed to.

On clause 7, When police officers may destroy any animal,

said the price of an animal should not be submitted to the approval of a magistrate. If an animal was worth £20, why then should its relief from suffering depend on the approval of the magistrate? An animal worth, say, £15 could be destroyed without reference to the magistrate, but if it was worth more, the magistrate had to be consulted. He moved the deletion of the words, “Provided that no animal of the value of £20 or upwards shall be slaughtered without the approval of the magistrate of the district.” If they wanted to reduce the suffering of an animal what had its value to do with the question?

said they knew that veterinary surgeons in the past had made many mistakes, and he was not satisfied to leave it in the power of veterinary surgeons to order the destruction of any animal. He therefore moved in line 48, to omit all the words from “at once”, to the end of sub-section (2) and to substitute: “destroy such animal, if two landed proprietors residing in the neighbourhood of the place where the animal is found certify that it is necessary to destroy such animal”.

moved, in lieu of the words “within a reasonable distance,” to insert “within six miles.” The word “reasonable” was, he said, too elastic, and police officials would differ widely on such a subject. The amendment was of importance because it was afterwards provided that an owner must remove his sick or destroyed animal if within a reasonable distance.

said he would like to see sub-section (2) deleted.

asked for an explanation of sub-clause 3.

moved the omission of sub-clause 3,

moved the omission of the words, “be absent or,” in line 47, and the substitution of the words, “or his representative.” He thought the clause as it stood was much too severe. If a police officer, owing to the absence of an owner, was given power to destroy animals, the farmer would never know what was happening on his farm.

could not agree to this, and referred to the cases where people had been trekking, and left animals in a miserable condition. Often the owner could not quickly be got hold of.

referred to the danger of an owner being absent for a day from his own farm when an accident took place. During his absence the police officer might order an animal to be destroyed without the owner’s knowledge.

said he would suggest to the hon. mover (Mr. Rockey) that he should consider the desirability of scrapping this clause altogether. He thought the practical effect of the clause would be very small.

said that he must press the clause.

moved to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

The motion was agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again on Wednesday next.