from J. H. Vermeulen and other cattle farmers in Prieska, for the imposition in the Transvaal and Orange Free State of an import duty on meat and South African products.

from N. Allen, Customs Department, for condonation of a break in his service.

from J. W. W. Vlok and other cattle farmers in Kenhardt for the imposition in the Transvaal and Orange Free State of an import duty on meat and South African products.

Reports of the Registrars of Deeds of the various Provinces for 1913.

Amendments in the Regulations of Trained Nurses. (Cape.) Regulations under the Natal Adulteration of Food Act, No. 45 of 1901. Regulations under the Marriages, Births, and Deaths Registration Act, No. 16 of 1867. (Natal.) Additional and amended Regulations under the Births, Marriages, and Deaths Registration laws. (Cape, Transvaal, and Orange Free State.)

in moving the second reading of the Rand Water Board Supplementary Water Supply (Private) Bill said that though, according to the Rules of the House, this was a private Bill, he thought it would be generally recognised that it dealt with matters of very great importance, which were worthy of the consideration of the House. In the first place, it dealt with the supply of water to the municipalities of the Witwatersrand, to the municipalities, including Johannesburg, and the supply of water to the mines, and also to some extent to the railways, and it was also concerned with the rights of owners of land along the banks of the Vaal River, both in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. He did not think it was necessary to go very deeply into the past history of the Rand Water Board. The whole history had been set out in the evidence given before the Select Committee to which this Bill had already been referred. To put it shortly, the Board was created in 1903, as a result of very long investigations, undertaken by a Commission appointed by the Transvaal Government in 1901. The Board, in 1905, took over certain private companies and undertakings, which had been formed for the supply of water to the Municipality of Johannesburg and to the mines. The price at which they were taken over by the Board was fixed by arbitration, after very lengthy proceedings, conducted under the terms of the Board’s Statutes. The Board, in taking over these services of supply, took over sources which, in some respects, had not been fully developed. They were capable of development, and it was clear that the first business of the Board would be to spend money on developing those sources of supply. With this object, the Board raised capital to the extent of £3,400,000, part of which was spent on the purchase of properties, and part on their development. Under the Bill now before the House it was proposed to raise a further loan of £1,250,000, the net proceeds of which, it was expected would be sufficient to provide for the cost of the new scheme. The system which had been pursued by the Board, acting under its statutes was that it supplied water in bulk to the towns and the mines at precisely the same price. The supply to the householder was regulated as to price by the amount which the municipalities concerned had to charge for distribution, but the price at which the water was sold by the Board was the same in each case. As the net result of what the Board had done for the householder in Johannesburg, at all events, he might say that the price at present was 5s. per 1,000 gallons, whereas at the time when the Board commenced its operations it was 10s. per 1,000, plus 2s. 6d. charged as meter rent, or 5s as against 12s. 6d. The Board at the same time rendered valuable service to the mining industry by providing a supply of water which, although it was not and never would by any manner of means be adequate to supply the whole of the mines, yet supplied an appreciable amount to which the mines could look by way of insurance. It had been said, he was told, in connection with this Bill that the Board was a speculative concern. He was told that a report had been circulated that the Board’s business was to make a large amount of money, the proceeds of which he did not know into whose pockets they were supposed to go. That, of course, had no foundation whatever in fact. The operations of the Board were carried on at cost. There was no profit made of any kind. All that was done was to provide for working expenses and interest and redemption of the Board’s capital. There was equal representation at present on the Board as between the mines and the municipalities. He thought the Board had done a great amount of hard work in the interests of the public. With regard to the relations existing between the mines and the municipalities, there had never been any voting or division as between the mines and the municipalities. Under the statutes already in force the Board were limited to taking from their underground sources 10,000,000 gallons per day. But for some years past the Board had been severely pressed in order to meet the demands of its consumers, and pending a new scheme a good deal of money had been spent on temporary works, amounting to about £100,000. Some of those temporary works could not form part of the new scheme, and would therefore be lost to a large extent. The supply of water of which the Board had available when it first came into existence, was about 21/2 million gallons per day, and the population then consisted of 120,000 whites, and 150,000 coloured. At the last census in 1911 the population had increased to 192,000 whites and 303,000 coloured, or possibly half a million Souls. It was therefore apparent that the Board is faced at the present time with a far different proposition to that which it first of all had to contend with. The demand for water had increased all round, and amongst the Board’s largest consumers was the Railway Administration. The arrangement with the Administration was that they should be charged double the amount paid by the other consumers. But in some cases the railway had been able to get water through the Municipalities at a lower rate than that which they ought properly to have paid. A satisfactory arrangement, however, had been made for the future by which the Administration would become responsible for per cent of the standing charges and would be represented on the Board by one member. There had also been a greatly increased demand for water for industrial purposes, and as the mines were dependent upon the amount of water found in their mines for their industrial purposes, and this being, as it was well known, a diminishing quantity, the quantity used from the Water Board by the mines had considerably increased. Roughly speaking, the mines took about one-seventh of the gross quantity of water consumed by them from the Board. The result has been that the Board were placed in a difficult position of not being able to supply the amount of water required, and this position has had to be met by restricting the supplies. The amount which the Board could supply was about nine million gallons per day at present, while in December last they disposed of 121/2 million gallons a day, and they could have sold something like 15 millions if so much had been available. From this it would be seen that there was every justification for this Bill being passed. It was not right that the population of 500,000 souls and such an important industry as that of the gold mining industry should be dependent upon these underground sources, which were believed to be gradually diminishing, therefore the Board came to the conclusion that new sources of supply must be found. The scheme proposed was to take water from the Vaal River. This scheme, he might say, was encouraged by the Government because it was less likely to interfere with any scheme of irrigation than any other catchment area that could be selected near the Rand, because the result of underground supplies of waters being drawn upon, did no doubt affect the area in which such operations took place. Therefore the officials of the Board and the Board itself had come to the conclusion that the best course to adopt was to bring the water from the Vaal River to Johannesburg. So far as the Government were concerned it would be seen from the evidence given before the Select Committee that there was no objection to the scheme.

said that the question of the water supply of Johannesburg was one of the greatest importance, and hon. members would not be disposed therefore to make too many difficulties. The Bill, however, touched the question of vested interests. If power were given to the Water Board to dam up the water in the Vaal River vested interests would be concerned. For instance, Vereeniging, which was a progressive place, would suffer as a result of the proposed works, and it would accordingly be necessary to be very careful in dealing with the Bill to see that no one was injured. He proposed personally to see that all existing rights were protected.

He objected to the proposed expropriations of land alongside the Vaal River. The ground was to be expropriated on behalf of the Water Board, and the owners of certain rights would have them taken away. As the defiling of the water would be forbidden, the owners of riparian rights would no longer be able to take their cattle to the river to drink. In view of those points it would be necessary to be very careful in dealing with the Bill.

The Water Board already held the right to draw water from the Klip River, and the owners of farms there had got into difficulties. Was not there a chance to help those people under the present Bill? From the report of the Land Bank it appeared that the farmers along the Klip River had suffered serious injury owing to the pumping of water from the river. The Water Board also got the right under the Bill to lay down pipes across the farms and to remove building materials which lay on those farms. Well, that was unfair. The people had already suffered considerable injury, and it was necessary that they should be paid good compensation for it.

If the Vaal River was dammed up, the communication with the Free State by means of the drifts would be broken, so that traffic would have to be maintained by means of ponts, and they knew what that meant. That damming up would render valueless many farms which were cut in two by the Vaal River, as the owners would be cut off from a portion of their farms. The Bill needed to be thoroughly examined.

said he would like to move as an amendment, to omit all the words after “that,” for the purpose of substituting the following words: “In the opinion of this House facilities should be granted for the additional supply of water to the Witwatersrand on the lines indicated in the first twenty clauses of the Bill. It is, however, of opinion that the supply of water to all consumers within the area of a municipality whether private citizens, companies, or the Railway Administration, should be under the control of the local authority, and seeing that all matters relating to the government of the municipalities concerned are placed by the South Africa Act under the Transvaal Provincial Council, this House considers that it should not now proceed to the second reading of the Bill, but that before this House extends the scope of the Rand Water Board, the Bill should be referred to the Provincial Council of the Transvaal for inquiry and report.” (Ministerial cries of “Oh,” and laughter.)

ruled that he could not accept the amendment in this form, as it affirmed the principal abject of the Bill.

With profound respect, Mr. Speaker, does it not state that this House do not proceed with the second reading and there is no condition attached to the passing of it at all?

I have given my ruling.

said he would like to state a few of the reasons which prompted him to submit the amendment. They found themselves up against a number of difficulties in regard to this matter. It was not from any lack of sympathy with the objects of the Bill, because no one knew better than they how desirable it was to obtain a better supply of water for the Witwatersrand. They all knew the difficulties under which the Rand laboured for want of a proper and efficient water supply for the future. They were dealing with the question of the supply of water to various municipalities. In view of the Act of Union, which placed the supply of those public utilities in the hands of municipalities, who were in turn under the Provincial Council, it was very hard to see why they in that House were asked to deal with this matter. Then again, why should a Bill of this kind dealing with public health be before the House in the form of a private Bill? Surely it was a Bill for which the Government should be responsible and no one else. It was a Bill which dealt with half a million human beings on the Rand. Hon. members should realise from reading this Bill the difficulties which grew out of allowing public utilities to remain in private hands.

The history of the development of the Rand Water Board would show from first to last the difficulties which had been created simply by allowing these matters to remain in private hands. He did not believe that the House was entitled to perpetuate that system or extend the operations of the Rand Water Board. He would like to ask the hon. member for Germiston whether he thought this a fair proposition. He must know that from the beginning and at present the mines took the largest share of water from the Rand Water Board. In the future the mines would take the largest proportion to be supplied, and he asked was it fair to ask the municipalities to contribute on the £ for £ principle along with the mines? Surely those who received the largest benefit ought to be the largest contributors. He would like to know what were the arrangements made with certain other interested parties in this matter. What were the arrangements that had been made with the Victoria Falls Power Co. and Messrs. Lewis and Marks ? Surely they had had something to say in the matter, and yet there was no reference to it in the report. What they did find was that the Select Committee paid too much attention altogether to the idea of, should he say, smoothing the difficulties of the riparian owners anti the little difficulty in regard to the Kimberley Water Board, another private concern, instead of ascertaining the views of the people who were chiefly concerned, the municipalities on the Rand, who had not been consulted in this matter.

Continuing, Mr. Sampson said he had been told by a member of one of the municipal councils on the Rand that the Bill was practically being forced upon them, and that they dared not criticise it as they were threatened that if the Bill was not passed as it stood it would be withdrawn. He (Mr. Sampson) would like to know if the principles and details of the Bill had been placed before the municipalities of the reef who were going to be responsible for 46 per cent of the expenditure incurred? What he wanted to know was whether these municipalities had been consulted, because had there been a report from these bodies before the House he would have been content to have voted for the Bill. The difficulties of the position had been greatly accentuated by those expert engineers whose estimate of the Zwartkopjes scheme had fallen 75 per cent short of what was expected. The failure to obtain anything like the supply of water from the latter source had placed the Rand in a position of being without water, and practically compelling them to take whatever was offered. In this case no idea of what the price was going to be was given. The right of the mines to control the supply of water for the Rand ought, he thought, to be taken away. It was the place of the public bodies to supply industrial concerns with water, and not the other way about. He had no objection to the Railways joining in this scheme, but what guarantee had the ratepayers on the Rand that this scheme was not going to be enlarged in the future by these larger bodies to the detriment of the small consumers. He thought it was not too much to ask the House to review the position. He could assure hon. members that the Rand Water Board was highly unpopular and that the general desire was that the municipal authorities should have this matter in their own hands. The position might arise that the mines refused to take any water at all, in that case the whole of the standing charges would be thrown on the people. There was also the possibility that in times of scarcity the mines would be able to get the water they wanted while the people would have to be content with a short supply. An hon. member had objected to the Vaal River being looked upon us a general source of water supply for the Rand, but they were told that the normal flow of the river would not in any way be affected by the proposed scheme, and that riparian owners would get all the water they required.

said it was necessary that Johannesburg should be provided with water. There was a good deal of water in the Vaal River that ran unused to the sea. At the same time, they would have to be prudent in dealing with the Bill, as it would injure a portion of the population. Sufficient protection was provided for riparian owners below the dam, but those above were not sufficiently protected, and their vested rights would be affected. The public were afraid of that, as they remembered what had taken place at Klip River. Then the Bill affected agriculture, and that interest ought not to be injured. In the neighbourhood of Parijs large private irrigation works had been constructed at high cost, and those works should not be made useless. The Board should not have the right to make roads through the farms and gardens, and those whose rights were taken away ought to receive full compensation. The owners of riparian rights ought to be represented on the Water Court so that their interests might be properly safeguarded.

Some anxiety was caused by the provision in clause 17 prohibiting the defilement of the water. Would anyone be liable to punishment if he defiled the water of a tributary stream or spruit which ran into the Vaal? The Bill did not contain all the provisions that were required. The rights of owners should be interfered with as little as possible.

The proposed new dam would cover up four drifts, whilst five drifts and side-streams would be made useless. That would cause a good deal of time to be wasted, as the public would have to go a long way round, the provisions made in the Bill on those points being at present totally inadequate. It was impossible to build bridges for such small amounts as proposed, whilst ponts would not be sufficient, and they would also be troublesome. The owners of riparian rights would have to be protected in the Bill. They had at present the right to pump water, and that right would have to continue without interference from the Water Board or from the Water Courts. Unless the Bill were amended in these respects he would not be able to vote for it.

said that that private Bill was one of the most important which they would be called on to deal with. For years past the Rand had been threatened with a shortage of water, and he remembered how during recent years the Chamber of Mines and the various municipalities had urged on the Government the need for more water. It had become clear to the Government that more water would have to be obtained. It looked very much as if the present available supply was gradually diminishing in quantity. It was not difficult to conceive what might happen in a town like Johannesburg if there should be a scarcity of water. For the whole of the Rand it would be a terrible thing. The mines would have to close down, and that would result in injury to the whole population. Such a thing would have to be prevented. It was not a party question, and he intended to express his own opinion. He had seen and heard nothing as yet which convinced him that it was his duty to vote against the Bill. Although he supported the principle of the Bill he was not in agreement with all its provisions. It had already been pointed out that the Bill attacked private rights. Now the Bill had been introduced as a private measure, and in accordance with the Standing Orders had been referred to a Select Committee, before which evidence could be given by all those who were interested in the Bill. That evidence was now in the hands of hon. members. Some of the speaker’s constituents had written to him saying that their rights were affected by the Bill, but when he examined its terms carefully he found that the supposition was based on a misunderstanding. It was said that riparian rights were not fully protected, but in his view that was not the case. If that were the case, then the Bill would have to be amended in that spirit.

When they came to examine the terms of the Bill they found that at all times the normal flow of the river was to be left untouched, so it was impossible to allege that any person’s rights in respect of the normal flow were injured. The proposed dam would only treasure up the storm water, but not all the storm water—only a small percentage of it in fact—and not even the storing of that small proportion of the storm water was left to the sole discretion of the Rand Water Board. Satisfactory provisions were made on behalf of the lower riparian owners, and there was therefore no question of injuring vested interests.

The owners of ground adjoining the new dam, and who now had the right to water their cattle at the river, understand that they will afterwards have the right to take their cattle to the river below the dam. So far as the speaker could see, no one’s rights were affected by the Bill. If a man had the right at present to take his cattle to the river, he would retain that right, and if the relative provisions in the Bill on that point were not sufficiently clear, they could be made so in Committee. The new dam was to be constructed in his own constituency, and the people there thought—, though there was no reason for it—that their rights would be affected. Under the terms of the Bill even those rights which were not at present exercised would remain untouched. The existing rights and the manner in which expropriation was to take place were matters to be decided by the Water Court. Not a single right was to be taken away from its owner. They could discuss all those points in detail when they reached the Committee stage. The greatest of the objections raised was against the damming up of the storm water, and a deputation had even come to Cape Town to make representations on that point. The proposed dam could never impound all the storm water, however, nor did the Bill allow such to be done. A certain quantity of the storm water would have to be allowed to run free.

They had tried in many ways to solve the Johannesburg water question. Formerly there existed a number of concessions, which were afterwards bought out, and the present Water Board was created. Legislation had been passed which permitted the Board to pump ten million gallons of water per day from the dolomite formation and Carry it to Johannesburg. Then the pumping had been begun, and something happened which no free people ought to permit. Water was pumped away in large quantities, as a result of which the springs were dried up and many people had been impoverished. It was their duty to make their voices heard in that matter. When they committed a breach on the private rights of property owners, then they ought to pay compensation for it. If they took away rights compensation ought to be paid. The water had been pumped out of the valley of the Klip River. He had no sympathy with the man who sold his water rights for money, to the injury of his neighbours. He felt sympathy, however, for those who lived in the neighbourhood, and who by that act suffered the loss of their water and so became impoverished. The “eye” of the Klip River formed at that time a strong stream, but as a result of the pumping the supply of water had run out, and the result was that many families had been made poor. Ground which had formerly commanded high values was now dry. The Rand Water Board was now pumping nine million gallons a day from the dolomite. What were they going to do when the new dam was finished, which would enable them to draw twenty million gallons a day from the Vaal River? He supported the Bill in the hope that when the new dam was ready the Water Board would cease to pump water out of the dolomite formation, and the people who had been impoverished would be once more able to work their farms and make a living. If that were not done, then he foresaw the introduction of legislation compelling the Board to limit the degree of its pumping from the dolomite and give the water back again, or else to give the landowners complete compensation. Along the Klip River there were hundreds of families living who could not exist at present owing to the water being pumped away. They were even putting in more pumps for the purpose of taking more of the water. An end would have to be made to that.

agreed with those who had pointed out that it was necessary to be very careful in dealing with that Bill. He feared that the rights of landowners were being assailed. He was, of course, in favour of Johannesburg having as good a supply of water as possible, but he wanted that to be done without injuring the rights of other persons. He understood, according to clause 18, that the Board would have the exclusive right to dam up the river, whilst according to clause 17 an owner of cattle would not even have the right to water his cattle. He was not a lawyer but read the clauses in that spirit, and considered they were in conflict with the terms of the Irrigation Act. He pleaded in support of the interests of the Vereeniging Estates, and thought that everyone who was in favour of industries ought to help him and them in that. Agriculture was carried on thoroughly there, and the people there ought to be helped as much as possible. From the evidence which had been submitted it appeared quite clear that the rights of riparian owners were being attacked. He quoted from the evidence in support of his contention, and suggested that it was the duty of Parliament to see that such rights were protected. He hoped he was wrong in his deductions, and would be glad to be convinced that such rights were not to be interfered with. In that event he would have no objection to the Bill. The Vereeniging Estates had constructed a dam in the river at great expense for agricultural purposes, but now the Rand Water Board were to build another dam, and refused to supply the Vereeniging Estates with water. He thought that was most unfair, that an amendment in that direction was necessary, and feared that if it were not done many hon. members would not be able to support the Bill. He agreed with the Prime Minister that it was nothing more than fair and right to provide Johannesburg with a sufficient supply of water; but, on the other hand, it was their duty to see that no injustice was done to existing rights.

said that so far not a single member had declared himself to be a downright opponent to the Bill. Well, he was glad of that, and, personally, he intended to vote for the Bill. The supply of water to Johannesburg ought to have been improved a long time ago by the Government. It was fortunate that the Prime Minister supported the Bill, and the speaker agreed with what had been stated by the Minister in the matter of the Klip River. He could also understand and agree with what had been stated by the hon. member for Heidelberg, but the objections which he had mentioned did not weigh against the needs of Johannesburg. There was a shortage of water in Johannesburg every year and every year the supply had to be cut off. He was especially pleased to hear the Prime Minister plead for the rights of those who lived in the Klip River valley. If they obtained a supply of water from the Vaal River, they ought to put an end to the pumping out of the dolomite. He would support such a proposal. The pumping from the dolomite formation should be stopped. He intended to vote for the Bill, with the proviso that vested interests were to be protected. Was not there any chance to protect the inhabitants of the Klip River valley? Why should those people be continuously impoverished? Some of them had sold their water rights, with the result that the surrounding farmers had suffered. The Government should come to an agreement with the Rand Water Board in order to compensate the people who lived in that valley.

It was the prime duty of the Government to prevent injustice being perpetrated, and even if pumping were to cease, other help would also be necessary. The Rand Water Board had so broken up the underground channels that it was most doubtful whether the water would again return to the old springs. Finally, he intended to support the Bill, but in Committee amendments should, in his opinion, be introduced in order to help the people who lived in the Klip River valley.

thought there was something to say on behalf of the rights of a large community which had established those rights by virtue of the enhanced value they had placed on the land. No doubt it was true that a scheme of that kind did interfere with the private rights of owners to a certain extent. No supply of water on such a scale could fail to interfere with such rights. But this Bill gave everyone whose rights were threatened the privilege of appearing before the committee. The House had now the report of that committee before it, and if an owner of land, or any other person interested, came to that House and made out a case, but had not been before that committee, he did not think the House should show an excess of sympathy for such a person because the Government had set up machinery for inquiring into the whole question. He did not propose going into the question to any great length, because from the report he thought everything had been done to safeguard the rights of everyone concerned.

Proceeding, the hon. member said that at the present time Johannesburg and the Rand were dependent for their water supply on pumping from the dolomite formation. It was too great a risk for a community of that size to be dependent for their supply of water of which no one could form an estimate. Nobody knew when that underground supply would be exhausted. It had been urged therefore that an attempt should be made to find a supply of surface water, and when a scheme of that kind came before the House, the House should take a sympathetic view of the matter, and not allow private rights to stand unduly in the way, but if a man’s real rights were taken away he was, of course, entitled to compensation.

The hon. member for Commissioner-street had objected to the Bill because in his and his colleagues’ view the matter should be in the hands of the Provincial Council. Their confidence in the Council was not inexplicable. (Laughter.) He (Mr. Duncan) could quite see why they took a more sympathetic view of the Provincial Council at the present time than they did some months ago. But a Bill of that kind could not be properly considered by the Provincial Council, for it would necessarily amend and set aside certain provisions of the irrigation laws of the country. Moreover, a Bill of that kind which dealt with a river running between different Provinces could not be dealt with by a Council representing only one Province. It was a matter that interested the Orange Free State and the Cape Colony too. Were they going to hang up the scheme on the question of whether or not the Rand Water Board was the ideal means of controlling the water supply? Even if that House should take the view that the Water Board would be entirely a public concern, they should nevertheless pass the Bill, because it would not affect the ultimate constitution of the Board. The mining industry was the most important consumer on the Rand, and surely it stood to reason that the people living in the municipal area had been able to obtain their water supply more plentifully and at a much cheaper rate by having the mining industry going info a joint scheme than they would have done if that industry had been outside. As to contributing to the fixed charges, of course, if the mines ceased to produce gold, then naturally they would cease to contribute.

That is the point.

said that in that case there was no point in it. If the mines stopped, the municipalities could not go on much longer. But that Bill was drawn up on the assumption that the mining industry would be continued for some considerable time to come and that the present population would be more or less what it was at the present time. If that assumption was wrong, then they were not justified in framing such a scheme, and different considerations would apply; but they could not properly raise those objections against the Bill. The population was there now, and as far as they could see they would be there for a sufficient time to enable the fixed charges to be defrayed. The hon. member for Commissioner-street, objected to the Water Board because it was unpopular. That was rather a vague objection, and he (Mr. Duncan) did not understand that it was urged the Board had failed in its duty. The real reason the hon. member came forward as the mouthpiece of his party with that view was a certain resolution of the Provincial Council in the Transvaal. They had not told the House what other means was to be adopted to cope with the demands for the supply of water. Ultimate control by the municipal authorities might come, but it was not a matter which concerned the House at that time. Very few Bills had come before the House which had been more carefully considered than that Bill, and the hon. members on the cross-benches would be doing a poor service to the people they represented if they were going to delay the passing of that Bill. He hoped the Bill would pass and that the community which it was intended to benefit would get the consideration to which it was entitled.

said he was not going to oppose the second reading of the Bill, and he did not think it would serve any useful purpose to do so, because he understood that it had gained the concurrence of the Government, and he understood that the Prime Minister was prepared to support the measure. There were one or two matters, however, which he wished to bring to the notice of the House, because he thought it would serve a useful purpose if the House were placed in the possession of more facts than it had at present. He would like to know why the Bill appeared before the House in the form of a private measure? Why was it not a public Bill, and why was it not introduced by the Government and the Government saddled with the responsibility of placing it before Parliament and carrying it through? The Rand Water Board was established by Lord Milner and his Executive Council in 1903. Shortly after the Legislative Council was created. A Commission was appointed by the Crown Colony Government to deal with the water question, and in 1903 the Rand Water Board prepared a private Bill, under which they sought to obtain certain powers to expropriate private water rights and supply water to, amongst others, the mines, on certain conditions. When the Board submitted that Bill to Lord Milner’s Government, the Crown Colony Government took up the proper position, and said, “No, this Bill is not of a private nature, and we shall not allow you to introduce this as a private measure, but we shall take the responsibility of introducing it as a public Bill.” That was done. Since then the constitution of the Rand Water Board had been amended on five or six occasions, and on each occasion the Board approached the Transvaal Government, and the Government recognised that the Board was a public body, and that the burden of bringing in legislation for that body should be borne by the Government. Why had not that course been followed in this case ? He ventured to say that if that course had been followed on this occasion, a great deal of the opposition would never have arisen.

If it was necessary in 1903 to introduce such a measure as a public Bill, how much more necessary was it not at the present time, when it was sought to take water of a public character, to have a public Bill? They had heard the extraordinary doctrine of the Prime Minister that the Bill was introduced as a private measure in order to allow people who had objections to go into these objections more easily. Surely the Prime Minister was better acquainted with the Rules of the House, and he would advise him (the Prime Minister) to peruse those rules.

I wish you would study the Rules of the House.

quoted from a speech made in 1903 by the then Attorney-General of the Transvaal (Sir Richard Solomon), as to the reason why the Rand Water Board Bill was introduced as a public Bill. The case for a public Bill was Stronger than ever to-day. Here it was proposed to take water from a public stream which partly belonged to the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, and later on to the people of the Cape Province, and if there ever was a case where such a measure should form the subject of a public Bill, this was the case. That was perhaps the strongest objection he had to this measure. He wanted to refer to some of the extravagant demands made in the Bill. The hon. member for Germiston had said that he did not propose to go minutely into the past history of the Rand Water Board. He (Mr. Hull) could well understand that, because if he (Mr. Chaplin) had done so, he would have had a most interesting tale to tell the House. One of the extravagances from which the people of Johannesburg and the Witwatersrand area was still suffering was the extravagance in 1903-4, when the Board was created, and, secondly, when people with water concessions to sell were allowed to plunder—he used the word “plunder” advisedly—the public of Johannesburg and the Witwatersrand area to the tune of many hundreds of thousands of pounds. He had been reading that morning a report of the engineers who inquired into the water scheme previously offered for sale. They said, although the scheme was not absolutely essential for the purposes of the Rand Water Board, and was not calculated to supply the Rand with a large permanent supply of water, yet in order to gain the adhesion of these companies, who were the owners of the scheme, they recommended that something like £500,000 should be paid to them for the scheme. That was the Vierfontein scheme.

That extravagance still seemed to be in the minds of people to-day. He was not contending that it was not necessary to give the Rand a good water supply, but the House ought to consider very carefully whether the demands in the Bill were not extravagant demands. It was the duty of the Government to curtail these extravagant ideas. Mr. J. W. O’Hara, who represented the Municipality of Johannesburg, in giving evidence before the Select Committee, said he supported the scheme, and estimated that Johannesburg’s requirements in 1920 would be 7,000,000 gallons per day over and above what they were at present. Mr. O’Hara was asked: “Do you agree more or less with the estimated increase in the population?” He replied: “Yes. May I say how we arrived at it? We were asked to estimate what we should want in 1920, and, after considering it, we found it would be a very difficult problem, but this is the method we worked it out on. We took the proportion of increase in the population from 1904 to 1912, a period of eight years, and we said, if the increase was the same from 1912 to 1920, we should want a maximum of seven million gallons a day. That is the only way we could see of doing it. We could not find any other way.” Did the House (asked Mr. Hull) attach much credence to evidence of that kind? Would any hon. member dare to predict that the increase would be maintained proportionately? Was it not notorious that the population was shrinking ? What were the predictions of the hon. member for Germiston and his friends, who controlled the mining industry? They told the Economic Commission that some of the mines would very soon cease to exist. The effect of their evidence was not in the direction of any increase of population, but of a very considerable shrinkage. That being so, was the House going to say that it was necessary to make extravagant provisions, based on an increase of population similar to that which had taken place between 1904 and 1912? The mines themselves estimated that their requirements were going to be considerably increased when their representative gave evidence before the Select Committee, but that position was entirely inconsistent with their attitude before the Economic Commission.

Let him refer to another matter. The mines were gradually being worked out, and their requirements would be considerably reduced in the near future. He had a letter from one of the prominent engineers of the Rand—a man to whose opinions he attached great value—and this gentleman said he believed the figures given before the Select Committee with regard to the Rand’s future requirements were grossly extravagant. He said that the barrage would take about four years to complete. The evidence before the Economic Commission showed that in about six or seven years the greater part of the outcrop mines along the Central Rand would have been worked out, so that, after the barrage had been completed, many of the outcrop mines would have been exhausted. The mines which required water from outside were mainly those in the centre of the Rand, for the mines on the East and West Rand had enormous quantities of water, so much so that they sold water after providing for their own requirements. He did not intend to oppose the second reading, but it was the duty of the House to take these points into consideration.

With regard to the rights of riparian owners, if it were necessary, in the interests of a vast community like the Rand, containing a population of nearly 500,000, to have an increased supply of water, the private interests of people should be surrendered, subject, of course, to the payment of compensation. It was the opening up of the Rand which had made the Klip River farms so valuable. The Prime Minister told the House that he had satisfied himself that the rights of people along the barrage were not to be interfered with. But had he seen section 17 of this Bill, which imposed a penalty on anyone who polluted the water in the barrage or who caused directly or indirectly to be deposited any refuse calculated to cause pollution in the gathering ground? The gathering ground surely meant the catchment area, which extended for some 17,000 square miles. Wherever the country sloped down towards the Vaal River, was anyone to be prohibited from allowing any farm or house refuse being swept down into the river? That seemed to be an impossible provision. He thought that the members of the Committee would recognise the necessity of altering this clause. Another point was that one of the clauses said that the Board should have the sole and exclusive right to extract and use all water which might be stored in the barrage, whether or not such water should mingle or be left to mingle with any other water. He read that clause as meaning that the normal flow which flowed into the barrage together with any storm water which was left to mingle with it, as soon as it reached the barrage, should be the property of the Board, and nobody should be allowed to take any of that water without the authority of the Board except under the provisions of clause 13’ said that, the special Water Court which was to be established should determine the normal flow of the river, should determine also the quantity of water to which the owners of land riparian to the river and abutting on the storage works should be entitled, and also the manner in which the quantity of water to which each of such owners was entitled should be measured and the places to which it should be taken from or returned to the river How, in view of that, it could be said that the private rights of riparian owners were not being interfered with by this Bill he could not understand. He could see that very considerable injury would be done to the rights of private owners. The hon. member also referred to the position of owners whose land ran to mid-stream. In conclusion, he said he would like to see the second reading of this Bill taken, although he thought it would have been much better, in the interests of the Water Board itself, if the Bill had been introduced as a public measure. He trusted that even now the Government would take the points he had mentioned into consideration and see whether they could not be met.

said that the Prime Minister had stated what attitude the Government adopted with regard to this measure, but the hon. member who had just sat down had raised a few points which he (Mr. Malan) thought it was just as well for him to reply to at once. The first and main point was that this Bill should have been dealt with as a public Bill and not as a private Bill. The position was laid down in No. 282 of their Rules, and how far the Transvaal had the same Rules when Sir Richard Solomon introduced the measure which the hon. member had quoted he (Mr. Malan) did not know, but the Rule of this House was fairly clear on this point. He thought it was perfectly plain that the Bill before the House was for the interest and benefit of persons as distinct from matters of public policy, and for the hon. member for Barberton to go for his precedents to a time when they had Crown Colony Government in the Transvaal, when they had a nominated Council, he did not want to pass any reflection, but—

No; self-government.

I am speaking of 1904, when there was no self-government.

In 1909.

The Act of 1909 was a later Act. That was not when Sir Richard Solomon made the speech which the hon. member quoted. To go to a time when you had a nominated Council

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I said that not only had Crown Colony Government—

That is an explanation; it is not a point of order.

The hon. member is deliberately misquoting me.

The Minister may resume his speech. That is not a point of order.

said that at that time the rights of the people were in the hands of this nominated Council. What was the main object of the Rules of this House in regard to private Bills? It was not, as the hon. member for Commissioner-street seemed to suggest, that it was an easier way of getting a Bill through the House as a private Bill. Every private Bill had to stand the conflict of all the stages of a public Bill in this House. Every individual whose rights were affected by a scheme of this kind must have an opportunity of explaining his point of view and of putting it before a Select Committee, and unless a Select Committee of this House, sitting there as judges, in the first instance, were satisfied that private rights were sufficiently protected, the Bill could not come before this House —(hear, hear)—whereas, if the Government had to take it as a public Bill, it would ride rough shod over the rights of those private people. The proper authorities were consulted in connection with this matter, and they strongly took up the position that, as the main object of this Bill was for the purpose of acquiring rights over private property, expropriating rights etc., it was a proper subject for a private Bill and ought to go before a Select Committee before it could come before this House.

The member for Barberton (Mr. Hull) had said that this was another example of the extravagance of the people on the Rand; but the hon. member should know that the present water supply was a diminishing quantity, and as the mines went deeper they did not know when the water might disappear altogether. Under present circumstances, no one could afford to delay for a moment the augmentation of the present supply. The hon. member for Barberton had also gone into matters of past history as to why the Board took over certain rights belonging to the mining companies. He (the Minister of Mines) could not see what this had to do with the question. It was true he was not in the Transvaal at the time, and he had no doubt there were many questions of rights which had to be considered at that time, but unless similar questions were about to come before the House he failed to see what such references to the past had to do with the present case. Did the hon. member for Barberton suggest that there was some underhand dealing in the present scheme? If not, his dip into history has no point. With regard to the Klip River question, it was just because a private Bill was not introduced into the House at that time, and therefore because a Select Committee was not appointed to go into the whole question, that the people of that district were deprived of their rights. The question of giving relief to the people in the Klip River valley had, however, engaged the attention of the Government, but it was clear that the question could not be introduced into the present Bill. At the same time it was to be hoped that when the new scheme was in working order that some relief would be given to the farmers in the Klip River district by drawing a large measure of the Board’s supply from the Vaal River. With regard to the people of Vereeniging, who now came to ask that the wall should be raised so as to store ten extra millions of water per day, thereby increasing the cost by one-third, it would appear that either they had no case at all or that they had sat by and neglected the opportunity of putting their case before the Select Committee. In conclusion, he supported the second reading of the Bill.

said he was very much interested in what the Minister of Mines had told the House. The Minister had the virtue of frankness, and revealed more in a few sentences than some of his colleagues in several hours. It appeared that one of the reasons why the scheme had been brought forward was to bring relief to the farmers of Klip River. The Vierfontein Syndicate expropriation cost half a million pounds and in respect of that, what had been accomplished? Did it not prove the incompetence of the engineers in which the hon. member for Germiston had placed so much reliance? If it did not, nothing would The original estimate was 20,000,000 gallons per day for the mines and 19,000 000 tor the municipality, a total of 39,000,000 gallons per day between the two. This estimated requirement was put forward in 1903. The Board at present supplied 8,000,000 gallons. Now they were told the Board required 20,000,000 gallons per day despite the fact that its output at the present time was 8,000,000, and sometimes as low as 6,000,000 gallons per diem. Now it was found that there was not sufficient water and they had that scheme to relieve the Klip River farmers. The Rand Water Board was made up of representatives of private companies and Rand municipalities. It was one more proof of the danger of mixing up private interests, those of the mines or any other corporation, with the municipalities. If that scheme was an entirely municipal scheme there would have been no difficulty in bringing a Bill into the Provincial Council of the Transvaal. It was because the mines were mixed up in that scheme that it had been brought up in that House and that the amendment had been found out of order. The hon. member for Fordsburg had argued that against a change, because there was a mistake made in the first instance, and they had allowed private interests to have the control of the supply of water in the whole of the Witwatersrand. It was no use saying that the mines and municipalities had an equal say. They knew what kind of people had been representatives of the municipality on the Rand Water Board men who were interested either directly or indirectly in the mines on the Witwatersrand, and although they were perfectly honourable gentlemen, they naturally had a leaning to the mines. Consequently they might just as well have the water supply in the hands of the Chamber of Mines as in the hands of the members of the Water Board. The hon. member had said that there was no use trying to rectify it. He wanted to give them more money to waste than had been wasted in the past. And the sneer (he thought it was a sneer) of the hon. member for Fordsburg that the reason the hon. member for Commissioner street wanted it dealt with by the Provincial Council was because the Labour Party had a majority there was unjustified. He (Mr. Andrews) did not think that idea had animated his hon. friend at all. They on the cross benches stood on the firm basis of justice. It was a municipal matter and they did not consider whether there was a Labour majority or not. He agreed with the hon. member for Fordsburg that the mines and the municipality had a right to take a certain share of the water, but it did not say in the Bill that they shall. In the first few years of the Board’s existence the mines had refused absolutely to take as much as they said they originally bargained to take. There was no compulsion there. It was simply left to the mines to take it or leave it as it suited them.

Continuing, the hon. member said that the question had been very well discussed from the point of view of the riparian land-owners, but not much from the point of view of the general public, and in order that it should be dealt with from that point of view, he would move an amendment to omit all words after “that” and substitute, In the opinion of this House the supply of water to all consumers within the area of a municipality, whether private citzens, companies, or the Railway Administration, should be under the control of the local authority, and seeing that all matters relating to the government of the Municipalities concerned are placed by the South Africa Act under the Transvaal Provincial Council, this House considers that it should not now proceed to the second reading of the Bill, but that before this House extends the scope of the Rand Water Board, the Bill should be referred to the Provincial Council of the Transvaal for inquiry and report.”

Continuing, he said that the time had come when far from extending the powers of the Rand Water Board, it should be abolished, and that the mines should find their own supply of water. The hon. member for Germiston told the House that only one-seventh of the mines’ requirements were taken from the Water Board, and he seemed to wish the House to believe that it was a matter of very little concern to the mines. He (Mr. Andrews) found that the amount was over one-half of the amount of water pumped by the Rand Water Board. He thought that if the mines were able to find that one-seventh from some other source the municipalities would be able to worry along without this scheme. The Minister of Mines had told them how necessary it was that this water should be brought to Johannesburg at the earliest possible moment. But there was an occasion some short time ago when there was a shortage of water on the Rand, and the Government refused to allow water to be pumped from a shaft in the Western Rand Estates to meet the shortage. Did the Prime Minister talk about the necessity for haste then? It just showed how much sincerity was to be found in these remarks of the Minister of Mines. He seemed to make an attempt to show that members on the cross benches were careless when it came to the interests and well-being of the people on the Witwatersrand. He (Mr. Andrews) thought the Minister might have done something more practical on the occasion he had mentioned. He hoped his amendment would be seriously considered, and that an attempt would be made to get at the real feeling of the people most nearly concerned. He did not think any municipality on the Witwatersrand was in agreement with the principle laid down in the formation of the Rand Water Board and he did not think the Germiston people would be pleased with the remarks of their representative that afternoon. He thought the Municipality of Johannesburg would like to get away from this body, and join its sister municipalities in a purely municipal water supply.

said the Select Committee had done its work excellently. The committee had made a thorough inquiry into all aspects of the question before them, including that of hygiene on the Rand. No one could fail to see the necessity of the scheme The hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull) had argued that the scheme was unnecessary, yet he promised it his support. The position was quite clear. Johannesburg was the seat of an important industry, supporting a large population, and it was found necessary to provide an ample water supply. When the scheme was laid before the Government, it was made clear to the promoters that the rights of private individuals should be duly safeguarded; in fact, the Government reserved to itself the right to embark upon other schemes, absorbing the present scheme. Upon both points satisfactory arrangements had been arrived at. He moved the adjournment of the debate.

The motion was agreed to, and the debate was adjourned until to-morrow.