from residents of the Cape Division, for removal of the “colour bar ” from the Transvaal Mines, Works and Machinery Regulations.

from G. H. B. Fraser, for condonation of a break in his service.

from Susan M. Wooding, for condonation of a break in her service.

from landowners and farmers in Alexandria, Bathurst, Albany, Peddie, and East London, for construction of a railway from Alexandria to a point on the Graham’s Town-Port Alfred line (four petitions).

similar petition from landowners and farmers in Alexandria and Bathurst.

from C. W. Moss, who retired from the Natal Civil Service owing to an accident received whilst on duty for relief.

from Sarah Crosbie formerly in Railway Department, for relief.

said he would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he was prepared to make a statement with regard to the details of his proposed Customs and Excise changes and also the income tax proposals.

I shall give notice to-morrow.

Will they be laid on the Table to-morrow?

Yes.

(on behalf of the Minister of Lands) moved in line 34 to omit all the words after “mentioned” to the end of the clause.

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 2, Interpretation of terms,

moved that the sub-sections be taken seriatim.

moved that the clause stand over. It contained, he said a number of definitions, and the nature of the definitions would depend on the adoption or otherwise of certain of the amendments on the paper.

It was agreed that the clause should stand over.

On new clause 3, Power to construct dams in Vaal River and to store and take away water,

moved in line 31, before “section,” to insert “sub-section (1) of.”

moved in lines 16 and 17 to omit “according to the plans, levels, and specifications contained in the deposited plans ” and to substitute “as described in the second schedule to this Act.”

How shall we stand now? We have allowed clause 2 to stand over, and the plans will be defined there. It seems to me that it would have been better to let this clause also stand over.

said he feared that if the clause stood over there would be considerable confusion with regard to the amendments.

Mr. Chaplin’s amendment was agreed to.

Mr. Van der Merwe’s amendment was agreed to.

(on behalf of Mr. W. W. J. J. Bezuidenhout, Heidelberg) moved to add at the end of the clause the following new sub-section: (2) For the benefit of the owners of land riparian to that portion of the Vaal River and its tributaries within the storage area of the Board’s works who may be awarded permits to impound and store water under the provisions of section 4, the Board shall so construct the barrage or dam that there can be impounded and stored behind it, in addition to the maximum quantity of water specified in sub-section (1) of this section, a quantity of water equal to 288,000,000 cubic feet: the Minister shall determine to what extent the height of the barrage or dam, and the level of the water, shall be raised to enable such additional quantity of water to be impounded and stored behind the barrage or dam. The hon. member said that the amendment aimed at building the walls of dams somewhat higher, so that there should be more water in the dam. He hoped the hon. member in charge of the Bill would accept the amendment, because although the rights of riparian owners had been guaranteed, there was a danger of future rights of riparian owners being interfered with.

supported the amendment, and pointed out that the interests of the general public would not in any way be interfered with by the amendment. Future rights ought also to be protected in the Bill. If the dam were built feet higher, the riparian owners would afterwards be able to obtain a share of the water.

said he wished to know how much more land would be placed under water as a result of the amendment? The owners of the land along the dam should be consulted as to their views before this larger scheme was carried out. He did not altogether understand the amendment.

agreed with this view, and asked whether people living near the dam would have their land submerged ? How much extra ground would be put under water owing to the increase in the height of the dam wall ?

asked for more information, and wished to know who was to pay the additional cost of the scheme? They had got to be careful in a matter of that sort, and riparian rights had to be protected. All these things should have been settled in the Select Committee.

said that in moving the second reading he stated that further protection might be required by riparian owners. The Board would not be prejudiced by the amendment, to which it had no objection. The Board did not think that any damage would be done to anyone.

said he just wished to point out that the Director of Irrigation had been consulted as to the new proposals. These proposals had been carefully gone into, and the Director of Irrigation had stated that he could see no objection to the amendment being agreed to.

said that the Minister’s assurance partially satisfied him. At the same time he would like an assurance that the rights of riparian owners would not be interfered with.

was understood to say that the riparian owners would benefit from the amendment, and would have to pay their pro rata share in the increased cost.

said he desired to plead the cause of the lower riparian owners, especially those in the Free State, who, as a result of this scheme, might be robbed of their total water supply. In years of drought people there might suffer greatly, because he feared all the water would be taken by the Rand. What would become of a little place like Parys, for instance, which was entirely dependent on the Vaal River? The districts of Boshof and Hoopstad had drafted plans for obtaining water from the river by means of a canal, and he feared that the enlarged dam would take all the water. Johannesburg was like the ocean, and never got enough.

replying to the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Van Niekerk), said he feared that if that attitude were taken up by every hon. member, they would never have any irrigation schemes in this country. He wished to point out that what they were building was a barrage, and not an ordinary dam. If hon. members read the evidence which had been taken by the Select Committee, they would see that even the greatest experts saw no harm in the scheme. The normal flow would always run through, and lower riparian owners would always get their share. He for one wished that they had more schemes of this kind. There was not the slightest reason for fear on account of schemes which the Government might at some future date decide to undertake.

said he hoped that the Committee would not pass the amendment as it was printed. It was a most novel proposition, but he would let that pass, as the Minister had said that the Government was satisfied. The point was that the Committee was asked to give power to store 288 million cubic feet of water for the benefit of those riparian owners whose land abutted on the storage works of the company. There was no evidence to show that these people were entitled to this amount of water, and there was no evidence to show that they were not depriving some of the lower proprietors of their rights. The Minister shook his head, but where was his evidence? What right had the Committee, before the Water Court had decided, to say, without any evidence, that it would give this amount of water to the upper riparian proprietors? It was clear that the riparian owners near the storage works should have their rights preserved. Before the Committee gave power to this Water Board to raise these works, the Court should determine how much water these people were entitled to receive. The moment that was ascertained, the works could be raised. He objected to giving the power to take certain water without knowing how much ought to be taken. He moved that “288,000,000 cubic feet” be deleted, and the following words inserted: “The amount of water to which the Water Court, under the Act of 1912, shall decide that the owners of land riparian to the portion of the Vaal River and its tributaries within the storage area of the Board’s works are entitled.”

was understood to point out that the riparian owners, under the Irrigation Act, were not restricted in their use of the surface water. If the hon. member would look at clause 13, he would see that the rights of the riparian owners would be declared by the Water Court. That was with regard to the normal flow.

said that he was not talking about the normal flow or the rights of riparian owners under the Act of 1912. What he objected to was any quantity of water being mentioned.

said the last speaker (Sir Henry Juta) undoubtedly had great technical knowledge, yet he did not agree with him. (Laughter.) His experience had taught him that the more water they stored the better. It would be absolutely impossible to catch all the flood water. It should be recognised that Johannesburg, an asset of the Union, required water, and if it did not get that water, the Union would suffer. And now that they tried to develop the country, a so-called authority like the hon. member for Boshof said: “No, you will interfere with the rights of riparian owners.” The dam might be built a hundred feet high, but they would not stop the flood water. If, however, the amendment was accepted, riparian owners, in times of drought, would greatly benefit. The more dams they built, the better they would feed the river. This had been clearly proved at Oudtshoorn. As to Sir H. Juta’s amendment, it struck him (the speaker) that he always had a wrong feeling towards upper riparian owners. The water which the Water Board was wishing to store was at present simply running to waste. Because flood-water had never before been stored, that was no reason why it should never be done in future.

said he had the greatest confidence in the Director of Irrigation, who had stated that the increase in the size of the wall would do no injury to the owners of riparian rights. Two Ministers had said the same thing. All he, however, wished to do was to look after the interests of riparian owners. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn had clearly shown that he was not acquainted with the part of the country concerned. What was asked here was a considerable enlargement of the dam, with the result that so much more land was submerged, and riparian owners with or against their will were made shareholders in this scheme. All he now asked was that these riparian owners should be duly consulted. It was not right to alter the scheme at that stage.

said there would be no extra water taken from the river above that prescribed by the Board, and in such cases only water would be allowed to be taken during the time of overflow when 20,000,000 gallons might be stored. The greatest safeguard lower riparian owners had was the fact that they could not take more than 20,000,000 gallons from the river in any one day, and that represented about one hundredth part of the flow of the river.

said the lower riparian owners were in sympathy with the view that not one drop of water should run down to the sea without being used. He agreed with the hon. member for the Cape Town, Harbour, division (Sir H. H. Juta), that the figures should be left out of the clause. The member for Oudtshoorn appeared to suggest that the lower riparian owners were adopting the attitude that although they could not use this water they would not allow others to do so. That was not the case. The point which exercised the minds of the lower riparian owners was that the Zeekoe-gats should be filled up, and he thought these people should have the right of securing the necessary amount for their primary use.

said he understood that if the barrage was made much bigger it would do no harm to anybody. Every owner could come forward and make an application. He had been rather afraid of the clause, but it now seemed to him quite reasonable, and he would support it.

said that, as far as he could see, no injury was being done by the clause, and he attached considerable weight to what had been said by the Director of Irrigation. If the Director said that no property would suffer then he would certainly follow him. As far as he was concerned, he was perfectly satisfied to withdraw the amendment.

said that the matter had already been referred to a Select Committee, which had had experts before them. He had been instructed by the Kimberley Water Works as to the position, but as the Bill came out of the Select Committee they had been prepared to withdraw from their position. As a fresh position had now been created he was in something of a difficulty. He did not see how the proposed amendments were going to affect the Kimberley water supply. It would not be the Johannesburg consumers who would be affected, but it would be the riparian owners, and he did not see how the matter was going to affect Kimberley. He was not in a position to oppose the Bill. The tributaries of the Vaal River were being entirely dried by reason of irrigation works.

said the new dam would have little influence on the Kimberley Waterworks, as the distance was too great.

said he was pleased the Rand Water Board was agreeable to accept the amendment. He would have been pleased to have agreed to build the walls fifty feet higher. He did not think the point raised by Mr. Wilcocks presented insurmountable difficulties. If property was damaged, compensation would be paid. He thought the Rand Water Board had set them an excellent example by bringing forward this scheme. How could Kimberley object to not getting water to which it was not entitled ? The lower owners would still get plenty of flood-water for their irrigation works.

said he had not intended to enter into this dispute between lower and upper riparian owners, but he had noticed in the discussion a complete absence of solicitude for the rights of the general public. It seemed to him that landowners were considered, but the public who had to pay for this particular addition to the work had not been mentioned. He understood that if this dam wall were raised it was going to cost some money. Who was going to provide that money? Would the sum mentioned in the Bill be sufficient? The hon. member for Germiston seemed quite willing to accept these extraordinary and important amendments without explaining to the Committee what they would involve. He noticed from the following amendment on the paper that some owners were to pay a proportion of the cost of the new works but there was an important proviso to the amendment as follows: “Provided that no such pro rata contribution shall be payable by an owner in respect of the quantity of water which can be stored in storage works which, being in existence at the commencement of this Act, have been submerged by the storage works of the Board.” It seemed to him that the matter was becoming very complicated by the inclusion of additional parties, and he must say that he was in a position of some perplexity.

said that the position of the Board in this matter was perfectly clear. The Board had been faced all along with the position that if they damaged existing rights they would either have to pay compensation or they would naturally be faced with the position that hon. members in this House would say that existing rights had not been respected. The Board had closely examined the proposals which had been put forward and, as far as he knew, the people concerned would have liked to put forward proposals which would have been more sweeping, but the Board had intimated that these were the utmost limits of what they could agree to. The Board, as had been said, were in the position of trustees and, therefore, in all these matters they had to consider how they could best deal with such difficulties as arose. The Board could not have come to this House and expected to get a Bill through which interfered with existing rights. That he thought was perfectly clear. It was with that knowledge in his mind that, in moving the second reading, he said he thought it likely that further provision would have to be made for the rights of the riparian owners abutting on the proposed works. As far as the law of the matter was concerned as between such luminaries as his hon. friend, of course he was a child in the matter. (Laughter.) What they had to look at was to see that the Board in its desire to meet what might be called the just demands of people who were riparian owners was not going further than it should and was not going to waste the money of the public. The hon. member for George Town had quite correctly quoted the sub-section with regard to the contributions by riparian owners. The whole estimated extra expense was not large.

What is the extra expense?

I understand it is about £12,000 or £15,000. Continuing, he said that the Board, knowing that, as far as they could see they would be reimbursed as the riparian owners were awarded their share by the Water Court, he thought that that was probably the best way of meeting their demands. Sooner than give rise to an objection of injustice which might cause the members of this House to refuse their sanction to the Bill and thinking that these proposals were fair and reasonable, the Board had agreed among themselves to bear this expense, knowing that in all probability they would get it refunded.

said that if, as he understood, the riparian owners who were concerned were really in the main manufacturing and industrial riparian owners in Vereeniging, it was difficult to understand why these things should not have been threshed out in Select Committee

said that all the hon. member for Oudtshoorn had said was known to school children in Standard I. They all knew that the more dams they had the more water they would have. (Laughter.) The raising of the wall of the barrage, Mr. Van Niekerk went on to say, had nothing to do with Johannesburg, which would get its water whether the amendment was accepted or not. They could not get away from the fact that the lower riparian owners, though they might not perish from thirst, would get less water as the result of the raising of the walls of the dam. At certain times of the year certain parts were short of water as it was, and he feared they would suffer even greater disadvantages in the future. There were more waterworks along the banks of the Vaal River than they perhaps thought. Christiana, Warrenton, and the north of Boshof were dependent on that river.

said the hon. member for Boshof need not fear that the lower riparian owners would suffer as a result of the raising of the wall of the dam. To his mind, riparian owners could only benefit from the building of more dams. It was in the interests of land-owners that as much water as possible was dammed up and stored.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Alberts was agreed to and the new clause as amended was adopted.

New clause 4,

moved the following new clause (to follow new clause 3 proposed by the Select Committee): 4. (1) The storage accommodation for the additional quantity of water referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3, shall be reserved by the Board for the benefit of the owners of land riparian to that portion of the Vaal River and its tributaries within the storage area of the Board’s works who may be awarded permits to impound and store water therein in terms of this section.

(2) Each owner of land riparian to that portion of the Vaal River and its tributaries within the storage area of the Board’s works, may from time to time make application to the Water Court in terms of the Irrigation and Conservation of Waters Act, 1912, for a permit to impound and store at any one time in the storage accommodation to be reserved by the Board under sub-section (1) of this section, such volume of water not exceeding his proportionate share of the quantity which can be impounded and stored therein as the said Court may determine, and such Court shall have jurisdiction to determine such volume.

(3) Each such owner as is referred to in sub-section (2) of this section, shall contribute pro rata to the extent of the storage accommodation awarded to him by such Water Court, such an amount towards the costs incurred by the Board in providing the additional storage accommodation referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3, as such Water Court may determine provided that no such pro rata contribution shall be payable by an owner in respect of that quantity of water which can be stored in storage works which, being in existence at the commencement of this Act, have been submerged by the storage works of the Board.

(4) Each such owner as is referred to in sub-section (2) of this section, who obtains a permit to impound and store water in the storage accommodation to be reserved by the Board, shall contribute in the same proportion as his storage rights bear to the storage rights of the Board towards the cost incurred by the Board in maintaining the barrage and in constructing and maintaining such gauging or other apparatus as may have been constructed by the Board under this Act.

(5) Notwithstanding any award made under this section, the sole control and management of the barrage and of all works and apparatus constructed under the powers conferred by this Act shall, save as is expressly otherwise provided in this Act, be vested in the Board, and no person shall by reason of any such award have any claim against the Board in respect of any loss of water from any cause whatever. In the event of any loss of impounded water the amounts of water to be drawn respectively by the Board and by any person entitled under an award made under this section from the balance (if any) remaining, shall be reduced accordingly pro rata to the amount of water stored by the Board and any such person respectively at the time of such loss.

said he would like some information with regard to the proviso to the 3rd subsection. Why should certain storage works in existence at the commencement of the Act coming into force not have to pay their pro rata contribution, for he could not see anything which prevented them from getting compensation. He did not suppose that the Committee was going to allow the owners of these works to have compensation, and at the same time not to pay their pro rata share of the costs of work.

said it was laid down that a pro rata contribution should not be payable by an owner in respect of that quantity of water which could be stored in existing storage works which would be submerged. The reason the Board offered no objection was that otherwise it would have to pay compensation, and this was the cheapest way out of it.

said that if they understood that this was an equivalent to compensation for any submerging of works, it would be necessary to have a clause making it clear that the owners should not be entitled to compensation for works or land submerged

said here they were going so far as to say that, when existing works were submerged and the owner thereof made use of water from the barrage, he should not be entitled to compensation. How could they take away rights in this way? He could not understand Parliament going so far as to say to a person: “Your irrigation works will be submerged by a larger one, but you will have no claim to compensation.”

said the point raised had nothing to do with compensation. The section said that if a riparian owner wished to use the water, he had to pay his pro rata share.

The new clause was adopted.

On clause 5, Power to acquire land in connection with works,

moved, on behalf of the hon. member for Heidelberg, to add at the end of the clause: “Provided further that, for the purposes of this Act, no stone, clay, gravel, or other material shall, except with the consent of the owner, be taken from any cultivated lands or gardens or from any place within a radius of 200 yards from any building upon any land.”

said he would like a little more information with regard to this point.

said that the object of the amendment was just to protect neighbours, and see that their right of ownership was not invaded.

The amendment was agreed to, and the clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 7, Power to deviate laterally from position of works, etc., as shown in plans,

said he thought the deviation too great, for unless they had the permission of riparian proprietors, serious damage might be done by submerging land. He moved to omit “3 ” at the end of the clause, and insert “1.”

said that this was for the general works, and not for the barrage. By altering the figure it would affect the levels of other works. The Board could not store more than a certain amount of water.

said that in another place he raised objection, and the same explanation was given. But he read the section differently, and took it to include the barrage. It was true the storage capacity was fixed in the Bill, but was that fixed definitely ?

asked what the intention of the Select Committee had been—a deviation in height or to the side?

in reply, said the deviation of the barrage in length by a few feet would make no difference. If the deviation was in height, however, the difference might be very considerable.

said the wall might be twenty feet high, but the Board would not be allowed to put a greater amount of water behind the wall than would submerge the area permitted by the Bill. The safeguard given by the Bill was that they were not going to raise the wall of the barrage one inch higher than was needed, and the clause was not put in as referring to the barrage, but to other parts of the works.

said his hon. friend was stretching a point. The barrage could be raised three feet under that clause if at any time it was thought necessary. He believed the calculations connected with the works were reliable, but mistakes were not impossible in an affair of that magnitude. Was not the margin mentioned in the clause made in order to allow for errors? In any case it gave power to raise the wall and in that event more ground would be submerged.

pointed out that deviation could only be made with the consent of the owner.

expressed the opinion that the fears of the hon. member for Fauresmith were unfounded. The hon. member for Albany had made the matter quite clear

withdrew his amendment and clause 7, as amended by the Select Committee, was agreed to.

On clause 8, Compensation for land or rights over land acquired otherwise than by agreement,

moved to add the following new sub-section at the end of the clause: (5) Notwithstanding that the Board has exercised any powers of this section by acquiring any land abutting on the Vaal River or its tributaries an owner from whom such land has been acquired shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, continue to have a Tight of access to such river and tributaries in a reasonable manner for the purpose of exercising any such existing rights as are referred to in paragraph (a) of section 18 or any of his rights to the primary secondary and tertiary uses defined in section 11 of the Irrigation and Conservation of Waters Act, 1912.

said he could not see what was intended by the new sub-section, as the right of access was given in the new clause which was to follow clause 18.

said the idea was that clause 18 sufficiently covered the right, but certain parties interested were of contrary opinion. It was therefore decided to make the matter more explicit by the addition of a new sub-section.

was understood to ask the Minister of Lands to explain the meaning of the clause. If a farm were divided by a tributary, the width of which was increased, what was the owner to do?

surmised that the reason for the new subsection was that where a portion of riparian land was expropriated the remainder would cease to have riparian rights. He proposed to make the point clear by omitting in the third line of the proposed amendment, after the word “shall,” the words “subject to the provisions of this Act,” and in the fourth line, after “access,” to add the words, “in manner provided by this Act,” and then to omit the rest of the subsection after “tributaries,” in line 5.

was not sure whether the amendment would not take away the force of the clause.

said that it was not quite clear if the amendments were agreed to whether it would not be contrary to sub-section (2) of the new clause which the Minister had on the paper to follow clause 18.

The amendment proposed by Sir Henry Juta was agreed to

The amendment, as thus amended, was also agreed to.

said he wished to add the following new sub-section: (6) Provided that where any owner in sub-section (3) of section four referred to shall be exempt from paying any such pro rata contribution as therein is referred to he shall not be entitled to any compensation whatever by reason of the submersion of the storage works or in respect of land or other property submerged by reason of the additional storage accommodation in sub-section (2) of section three referred to.

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was adopted.

On clause 13, “Provision for determining the normal flow of the river and the shares of riparian owners.”

moved in sub-section (1), paragraph (b), lines 67 and 68, to omit “the said river, and abutting on the storage works of the Board ” and to substitute

“that portion of the Vaal River and its tributaries within the storage area of the Board’s works.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Clause 13, as amended, was adopted.

On new clause 17, “Penalty for pollution of water,” a new clause was proposed by the Select Committee.

moved on behalf of Mr. Bezuidenhout, to add at the end of the clause: “Provided further that if the pollution or likelihood of pollution is the natural result of the proximity to the storage works of any building, kraal or other structure which was in existence at the time of the passing of this Act the owner of the land upon which such building, kraal or other structure is situated shall be exempt from all liability under this section.” Speaking to the amendment, Mr. Alberts said that the intention of the amendment was to give compensation to the owner of a dip or kraal, which as the result of the new scheme might have to be moved.

said he hoped the hon. member would not press the amendment. Although they were anxious to do everything to reserve the rights of owners, hon. members would see that the proviso went too far, they had to consider the large population depending upon the water.

said by the amendment it was clear that notwithstanding there was pollution, it had to be allowed to pass unchallenged. Surely that was unreasonable in connection with a big water scheme upon which the health of a large population was dependent.

was understood to say that if the Board would compensate the owners he did not think his hon. friend would press the amendment.

said the words “any buildings ” widened the thing very much. There was no particular objection to kraals. The hon. member would be well advised to confine his amendment to cattle kraals.

hoped the Committee would not agree to the amendment. The Bill was intended to provide water for the people of Johannesburg, and according to that clause it did not matter how much pollution might go into the water. The people polluting could shrug their shoulders and say, “We do not care.” Had the hon. member brought in some clause dealing with compensation that would have been another matter altogether, but he wanted to perpetuate a system of pollution which existed at the present time That would be making a farce of the water supply.

said that if they compensated a man for the removal of a kraal they should compensate him for a building costing £200 or £300, such as for a dip.

said he would not press his amendment, but thought that an owner was entitled to be compensated if he were celled on to remove his existing works.

said it was necessary to pay attention to the interests not only of the Town Council of Johannesburg and the Water Board, but also to the farmer.

hoped the amendment would be confined to kraals.

said that “buildings” meant stables or barns, and not valuable buildings.

proposed that consideration of the matter should stand over. He said that it was impossible, he should imagine, for any committee to accept an amendment as that which had been proposed.

This was agreed to, and clause 17 stood over.

On clause 18, Rights to impounded water,

moved (as an amendment to the amendment proposed by the Select Committee) in line 63, after “Act ” to insert “and to the due exercise by any owner of the rights conferred by permit under section 4.”

This was agreed to. Clause 18, as amended, was agreed to.

New clause 19,

moved a new clause (to follow clause 18): 19 (1) Save as is specially provided in sub-section (2) of this section nothing in this Act contained shall be construed so as to deprive any owner of land riparian to that portion of the Vaal River and its tributaries within the storage area of the Board’s works, of such access to the Board’s storage works as is necessary to enable him to exercise his rights to the primary, secondary, and tertiary uses of water as defined in section 11 of the Irrigation and Conservation of Waters Act, 1912. (2) The Board may exclude any person from having access to its storage works at any point upstream within one thousand feet of the barrage or dam on both banks of the said river and its tributaries, or from having access to any point on a bank of the river which is within three hundred feet of the point where water is lawfully abstracted by the Board or within three hundred feet of the point on the opposite bank of the river immediately opposite the point of abstraction.

The new clause was agreed to.

On old clause 19, Where offences may be prosecuted,

moved (as an amendment to the amendment proposed by the Select Committee) in line 22, after “jurisdiction” to insert “to impose the maximum penalty allowed under this Act.”

moved in line 21, after “committed,” to omit “and.”

These amendments were agreed to.

Old clause 19, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 20, Act not to prevent exercise by Governor-General of powers under the Irrigation and Conservation of Waters Act, 1912,

moved, as an amendment, in paragraph (b), line 42, after “Board” to insert “and any person entitled under a permit granted under section 4 ”: in line 44, after “it” to insert “or he”: and in line 45, after “it ” to insert “or he.” In paragraph (c), line 52, to omit from “enable” to the end of the paragraph and to substitute “allow the rights conferred by the second proviso hereof to be duly exercised by the Board and by all other persons entitled there to.”

This was agreed to. Clause 20, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 24, Definition of fixed charges,

moved, as an amendment, in paragraph (a), lines 49 to 52, to negative the amendment proposed by the Select Committee. In paragraph (b), line 54, to omit “(c)” and to substitute “(b).” In paragraph (c), line 57, to omit “(a).”

asked whether the Chairman of the Select Committee objected to the amendment

replied in the negative.

The amendments were agreed to. Clause 24, as amended, was agreed to.

Clause 26 was verbally amended.

On clause 35,

said it appeared from that clause that they were preventing any local authority within the limits of supply from extending its water supply. It seemed that there was a serious limitation of the rights of local authorities. He thought the House was dealing with that matter altogether too hastily. He did not know whether the effect of the clause would be to prevent the Municipality of Johannesburg from extending its sources of supply, and he hoped that that was not the case.

said that the evidence given before the Select Committee showed that the only municipality that would be affected was the Municipality of Krugersdorp. There they had a small water scheme of their own. The Mayor of Krugersdorp, in his evidence, had said he was perfectly satisfied with that clause.

said he understood that the Rand Water Board was a very unpopular body on the Witwatersrand. In the opinion of the Labour Party the proper authority was the local authority—the municipality. By the proposed clause they would be tying down the local authority—the municipality would be compelled to buy their supply of water from the Water Board. He would, vote against the clause, and would propose that it be deleted.

The hon. member may vote against the clause.

said the clause would not prevent municipalities from obtaining water from schemes outside that of the Water Board. It would not prevent municipalities from going in for more extensive water supply schemes.

pointed out that the report of the Select Committee showed that the Mayor of Krugersdorp, when asked whether he was satisfied with the provisions included in the clause, replied “Yes.”

said he did not think that the Mayor of Krugersdorp was entitled to speak for the whole of Krugersdorp. The clause was a one-sided arrangement, and that was the objection to it.

said that the hon. member for Commissioner-street, in the course of the second reading debate, said that the witnesses from the municipalities were not properly authorised. He (Mr. Duncan) would point out that before the Select Committee the Mayor of Krugersdorp said he was specially authorised by the Council to speak on its behalf.

The clause was agreed to.

New clause 38,

moved the following clause 38 (in lieu of new clause proposed by the Select Committee): Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed as exempting the Board from any liability which would otherwise attach to it in respect of any damage caused by any unlawful act of the Board or its servants, or by any negligence on the part of the Board or its servants, in the exercise of the powers conferred upon the Board by this Act.

moved as an amendment before the word “nothing,” “save as is provided in sub-section (5), section 4, in regard to the loss of impounded water.”

The amendments were agreed to and the clause as amended adopted.

On clause 39,

moved a new clause to the following effect:

“That the fair wage clause of the Johannesburg Municipality be applied to all work done in the carrying out of the provisions of this Act.” He said he hoped that white men would do the work, and that they would be paid the standard rate of wage.

I regret to say I cannot accept the amendment. It refers to a practice of the Johannesburg Municipality. In its present form it is out of order.

said that he did not see any objection to the proposal if made on the report stage.

hoped that the mover would see that the amendment did not apply only to white workers, but to all skilled men, whether white or coloured.

There is nothing before the Committee

New clause 39,

moved the following new clause 39: Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed as derogating from any powers or rights exercisable by the Railway Administration under Ordinance No. 20 of 1903 of the Transvaal, or under Ordinance No. 46 of 1903 of the Orange Free State.

The new clause was agreed to.

On clause 39,

On the Short Title, this Act may be cited for all purposes as the Rand Water Board Supplementary Water Supply (Private) Act, 1914, and shall read as one with the Statutes and the Statutes with this Act may be cited comprehensively as the Rand Water Board Statutes, 1903-1914,

moved the insertion after the word “statutes” of the words, “which shall be deemed to be Statutes of the Union Parliament.”

Is it within our competence to say that Statutes passed by another Parliament are Statutes of the Union Parliament?

said they were dealing with an Act passed by the Union Parliament. The amendment would safeguard the Rand Water Board to some extent.

asked what would be the use of these words which introduced great ambiguity. It was an absurdity to say that Acts passed by other Parliaments were passed by the Union Parliament. The ambiguity might be made use of for quite another purpose in a Court of Law.

said he could not understand the hon. member’s argument. It was said in other Acts that officials appointed under an old Act should be deemed to be appointed under the new Act. It was done in half a dozen Statutes.

It was a most difficult legal question and it was much better to make it quite clear that if the Rand Water Board wanted an alteration in its powers it should come to the Union Parliament.

said that, if that were the object it might be achieved by saying that the statutes should be read as one with this Act. The mere fact that they now said that certain Acts should be deemed to have been passed by the Union Parliament would not make them otherwise than Acts which were passed by the late Colonial Legislature. He quite agreed that this was a matter which had not been delegated to the Provinces.

said it was quite clear that they could not have two bodies legislating upon the same subject. They could not have this Parliament having the right to legislate in regard to this matter and another body legislating upon it at the same time. Would it not be better, he asked, to simply say that they re-enacted these Acts?

said it seemed to him that they were all aiming at the same thing. The only question seemed to be one of wording. It was not said in this amendment that these Acts should be deemed to have been passed by the Union Parliament, but that they were deemed to be adopted by the Union Parliament. Whatever the wording was, the effect would be the same.

The amendment was agreed to.

Clause 39, as amended, was agreed to.

On the second schedule,

moved the following amendments: To omit the first paragraph and to substitute “The principal works of the Board authorised by this Act shall be as follows:—.” In the second paragraph, line 2, to omit “23 feet 3 inches,” and to substitute “25 feet.” (As an amendment to the amendment proposed by the Select Committee.) In the third paragraph, line 1, to omit “11,833,000,000” and to substitute “13,633,000,000.” In the third paragraph, line 2, to omit “equal to a supply of” and to substitute “of which the Board may take.” (As an amendment to the amendment proposed by the Select Committee.) In the third paragraph, line 3, to omit “3,142,000,000” and to substitute “3,382,000,000.” In the third paragraph, line 4, to omit “38.3” and to substitute “39;” in line 5, to omit “2.5” and to substitute “2.7;” in line 6, to omit “2.7” and to substitute “2.9;” in the same line, to omit “7.2” and to substitute “7.4;” and in line 7, to omit “3.1” and to substitute “3.3.”

asked on what ground the hon. member had proposed his amendment?

replied that if the wall was higher the water could go higher. In case the water were not needed, no harm would be done

said that was just what he objected to. All the specifications were upset and an injustice would be done to riparian owners, to whom no notice of change of plans had been given.

The amendments were agreed to.

The schedule as amended was agreed to.

On clause 2, Interpretation of terms,

on behalf of Mr. W. W. J. J. Bezuidenhout (Heidelberg), moved, after sub-section (7), to insert the following new sub-sections: (8) “Barrage or dam” shall mean the barrage or dam described in the second schedule to this Act; (9) “The works of the Board” shall mean the works described in the second schedule to this Act.

The amendment was agreed to.

moved, on behalf of Mr. W. W. J. J. Bezuidenhout, in sub-section (9), line 65, after “riparian owner,” to insert “riparian land.”

The amendment was agreed to, and clause 2 as amended was agreed to.

On clause 17, which was standing over,

withdrew the amendment which he had previously moved, and moved to add at the end of the clause: Provided further that if pollution or likelihood of pollution is due to the proximity to the storage works of any building, kraal or other structure which was in existence at the time of the passing of this Act the owner of the land shall be compensated if the said pollution cannot be otherwise reasonably remedied than by removal of the said building, kraal or other structure.

Agreed to.

The new clause as amended was agreed to.

On the Preamble,

on behalf of Mr. Bezuidenhout, moved in lines 47 and 48 of the Preamble, to omit “riparian owners of land abutting on the storage works of the Board,” and to substitute “the owners of land riparian to that portion of the Vaal River and its tributaries within the storage area of the Board’s works. ”

The amendment was agreed to.

further moved, on behalf of Mr. Bezuidenhout, in line 4, page 4, of the Preamble, after “Act” to insert “save and except such water as from time to time shall be stored or impounded for or on behalf of riparian owners. ”

The amendment was agreed to.

The Preamble of the Bill, as amended, was agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments, the consideration of which were set down for Monday next.

moved in clause 2 (as an amendment to the amendment proposed in Committee of the Whole House): In new subjection (2), line 31, to insert at the beginning of the subsection: “Subject to the provisions of the last preceding section;” and in lines 32 and 33, to omit “or charged by such other person aforesaid” and to substitute “by any person.”

The amendment was agreed to.

The new sub-section as amended was adopted.

On clause 6,

moved on clause 6 (as an amendment to the amendment proposed in Committee of the Whole House): In line 22, to omit “a” and to substitute “such.”

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause as amended was adopted.

On clause 14,

moved on clause 14 (as an amendment to the amendment proposed in Committee of the Whole House): In line 18, to omit “principal or his agent, as the case may be,” and to substitute “person to whom such letter was addressed.”

The amendment was adopted.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 15,

moved, in clause 15, in line 25, after the word “contractor,” to insert “or principal.”

said he had gone into that matter very fully with his advisers, and he found that by adopting the amendment the intention of the clause would be very materially interfered with. The clause would give the workman of a sub-contractor the Tight to attach the moneys of the first contractor. The hon. member wished to give the workmen of the sub-contractor the right to attach moneys for wages in the hands of both principal and contractor. If they mixed up the original contractor with the principal it would bring about a great deal of confusion. What the hon. member wanted doing ought to be done by a separate clause.

said the hon. member had not made his legal difficulty clear to the House. The Bill would be of limited use to the workman unless a man working for a sub-contractor was also to be protected. A contractor may not be an employer of labour at all, and in such cases as the Bill stood the men would have no protection at all.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

urged that his amendment was necessary in order to give effect to the Bill. He hoped that the Minister would give serious consideration to the matter.

said that the matter should have much longer consideration from the House than had been given it.

supported the amendment.

withdrew his amendment.

On clause 1,

said he did not propose to move his amendment, as the Minister had promised to introduce a better one in the Senate.

On clause 17,

moved, in lines 45 to 50, to omit the definition of “Wages” and to substitute the following new definition: “Wages” shall mean the net amount due to a workman by a contractor for work performed by that workman, after deducting any amount due by that workman to that contractor in respect of benefits received by that workman. The Minister said it would be recollected that, when the Bill was in Committee, there was a clause inserted for the weekly payment of wages unless there were an agreement to the contrary. The original clause defining wages referred to wages being payable either daily, weekly, monthly, or according to time, etc. That was slightly out of keeping with the amendment which they accepted in Committee, and it had been pointed out to him that contractors’ workmen very often undertook voluntarily to allow employers to deduct from their wages rent, or hire of a tent, sometimes the contribution towards a sick fund, or, it might be, a proportion of medical expenses. It had been pointed out to him on behalf of contractors, especially railway contractors, that, unless these deductions were provided for the clause which provided that the entire amount of wages due and payable to any workman should be paid to him at intervals of not more than one week, unless there were an agreement to the contrary, it was quite apparent, might act so as to interfere with existing contracts and existing customs which worked very well, and the General Manager of Railways pointed this out as a serious difficulty which might arise unless the Bill were altered. If the amendment were accepted it would provide that wages should mean the net amount of wages paid by a contractor to his workmen, and from that there should be deducted any amount due in respect of benefits received by the workman. This definition would also have the further advantage of confining the weekly payment of wages to the case of workmen who were engaged working for contractors. It had been pointed out, he thought with a great deal of justice, that the clause as it stood would to some extent revolutionise the general practice throughout the country, especially in farming operations, and he thought that, as they were protecting workmen employed by contractors, they ought to confine the weekly payment of wages to that class of workmen. The amendment was made principally on account of the workmen themselves who entered into these agreements.

said that the amendment did not stipulate that the workmen should admit the amount. They did not want to give power to the contractor to deduct any amount he liked or any amount he might claim. He suggested that, after the words “deducting any amount,” they should insert “admitted to be” before “due by that workman.”

said he had been reading this definition very carefully, and he would suggest to the Minister the deletion of all the words after “workman ” in the second line. They used the words “the net amount.” What did that mean but the wages due by the employer to the workman? He moved the deletion of all the words after “workman ” in the second line.

said it seemed to him that the best thing would be to withdraw this clause altogether.

Mr. Nathan’s amendment was declared to be negatived.

The new definition moved by the Minister was agreed to.

moved to add at the end of the definition “wages,” “but shall not include remuneration earned under any contract for effecting improvements on a farm.” He urged that the clause as it stood was unworkable, so far as farms were concerned. He had received a telegram from his constituents at Kenhardt, stating that at a public meeting it was decided to ask him to use his best endeavours to obtain an amendment of the Bill, so that contracts in connection with improvements on farms would not fall within its provisions. The hon. member went on to say that if the clause were passed, it would be found that the poor man would be the sufferer. In the making of a well, for instance, the poor man usually contracted for the job, and he engaged all kinds of odd hands, and the acceptance of the clause in its present form was bound to lead to difficulties. He felt bound to carry his objection to the point of dividing the House on it.

said he thought the hon. member had misunderstood or had not read the Bill. The farmer was amply protected by clause 8, which stated that the principal upon whom any order or orders shall have been served under this Act shall not be liable to pay thereunder an amount or amounts in the aggregate exceeding the sum which is actually due and owing by him to the contractor at the time of the service of the order or orders upon him. The amendment was therefore totally unnecessary for the protection of the farmer.

On the amendment being put, that the words stand part of the clause, the “Noes” were declared to have it.

called for a division, with the following result:

Ayes—10.

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolphus P.

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

P. G. Kuhn and C. A. van Niekerk tellers.

Noes—66.

Alberts Johannes Joachim

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Bekker, Stephanus

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Crewe, Charles Prestor.

Cronje, Frederick Reinhardt

Currey, Henry Latham

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Geldenhuys Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Haggar, Charles Henry

Harris, David

Heatlie, Charles Beetoa

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Jagger, John William

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Juta, Henry Hubert

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Louw, George Albertyn

Maasdorp, Gysbet Henry

Macaulay, Donald

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Nathan, Emile

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Neser, Johannes Adriaan

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Reynolds, Frank Umhlali

Robinson, Charles Phineas

Sampson, Henry William

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Smartt, Thomas William

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Van der Walt Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Whitaker, George

Wiltshire, Henry

H. C. Becker and J. Hewat, tellers.

The amendment was therefore negatived.

was proceeding to move an amendment, when Mr. Speaker pointed out that as notice had not been given, the hon. member was out of order in moving a new amendment.

The Bill was set down for third reading on Monday next.

in moving the second reading of the Workmen’s Compensation Bill, said its object was to consolidate and extend throughout the Union the Workmen’s Compensation Acts at present in force. He thought it was proper that he should say something about the common law and statutory law of South Africa. Under the Roman-Dutch law, which was their common law, the workman could claim against his employer if he could prove negligence against his employer, or a fellow-workman, and in this respect the law of South Africa was much more favourable to workmen than the law in England, because there the employer was not responsible for compensation for accidents brought about by a fellow-workman. In South Africa, as in England, workmen also could not claim against an employer if there was proof of contributory negligence. A workman had great difficulty in instituting a case at common law owing to the cost of bringing an action, and in this respect an attempt was made to put workmen under better conditions by passing what was called an Employers’ Liability Act. Such an Act was passed in England in 1880, at the Cape in 1886, and in Natal in 1896. The workman, however, had still to prove negligence, and there was no machinery set up whereby he could claim the assistance of the law in an inexpensive manner. The result was that Employers’ Liability Acts, although well intentioned, did not either in the Old Country or in this country result in the benefit of the workmen. The next step was to pass the Workmen’s Compensation Acts, and that was done in Great Britain in 1897. The Cape passed a similar Act in 1905 and the Transvaal in 1907. It was felt to be only just that, where a workman was injured in the course of his employment, he ought to get a reasonable but limited compensation from his employer. It was felt also that, as such work was performed for the benefit of the employer, he was the proper person to saddle with the responsibility, and it was felt, too, that the existing state of the law and procedure had, if justice was to be done, to be simplified and made less costly.

Hear, hear.

said that the only thing the workman had to prove was that the accident occurred in the course of his employment, and it rested with the employer to prove that the workman was guilty of serious and wilful misconduct.

A very poor provision.

The hon. member might think so, but others considered it reasonable. Continuing, the Minister said the Bill would not apply to persons whose salaries exceeded £500 per annum or to persons who were employed to perform work of a casual nature and not in connection with the employer’s trade, as in the case of a man called in to do an odd job.

Who does he go to?

Order, the hon. member must address the House.

said with regard to outworkers, people who took material to make up in their own homes, they would have no claim under the Act, and persons who contracted or subcontracted and engaged others to work for them would have no claim; those contractors just in the same way as the man who himself undertook work had no claim. Of course, the man working for a contractor might have a claim against the person who employed him—viz., the contractor. The last exemption mentioned in clause 2, where persons whose right to compensation was governed by the Native Labour Regulations Act passed by that Parliament three years ago, those were natives employed on the mines and the like, and for whom a scale of compensation was recently passed by the House.

Why not?

continuing, said that it was provided in the New Zealand Act that a fixed amount of compensation should be paid for specific injuries. It would be absurd to pay a man who was earning large wages the same compensation as they would pay a man who was earning much smaller wages. Take the case of the man who had lost a leg—if he was a plasterer he would be unable to carry on his trade, but if he were a compositor he would still be able to carry on his work. It might interest the House to know the number of claims that had been made in the Cape and the Transvaal under the existing legislation. In the principal towns of the Cape, during the two years 1912-13, the total number of inquiries held was 37, and the total number of cases tried was 33. In addition there had been a number of cases which had evidently been settled out of Court In the Transvaal it appeared that the number of cases was very much greater, there having been 76 cases tried under one section of the Act. During the whole period no fewer than 1,460 workmen and their employers had amicably come to terms and agreed to register under the Act. The Bill provided that action might be taken by the employee against the employer, either under the common law or under the statute, but not under both. The reason was this, that if in some cases negligence could be proved, and the employee had the right to proceed against his employer, he might recover a larger sum at common law. The workman had to submit to medical examination. In the event of a magistrate deciding to give temporary compensation to a workman, there might be a further examination at which the magistrate would have the power to call in the assistance of medical men. The Bill provided that a claimant might be represented by a representative of his registered Trade Union, or by a representative of his family, or by an attorney. A representative of the Trade Union might conduct the case on his behalf. One of the most important clauses was that which dealt with the right of either party to appeal from the decision of the magistrate to the Supreme Court. A matter of serious and wilful misconduct could be appealed on.

was pleased that the Government had at last, under the strong pressure brought to bear upon it from that side of the House— (ironical Labour laughter and cheers)—seen fit to bring in a consolidating measure of such great importance to the country. The corresponding Act in the Transvaal had, perhaps, been of more use than any other Act which might be mentioned, and he was glad the Minister had seen fit to take it as a model for the Bill now before the House. With regard to other consolidating measures, the mercantile community had been entirely neglected. There was no insolvency law the Companies’ Act and the Surveyors’ Bill, banking and insurance laws had still to be consolidated. He thought the present measure would meet with the approval of a majority of the House. There were several points in the Transvaal Act which he desired to bring to the notice of the Minister. Under this measure a workman would have the right to proceed under the common law, or this particular Bill, for damages, and would be entitled to claim and receive a very much larger amount under the common law, if the injury was due to the negligence of the employer, then he could have claimed under the Bill. That Bill laid down that if workmen elected to proceed under it, they would be debarred from proceeding under common law. He did not want a man because he had received a sum of money from an employer or because he had signed some document before a magistrate, should, be considered to have made an election. The issuing of a summons should be an election, for then he would have had an opportunity of taking legal advice. That was a point that the Minister should take into consideration.

The hon. member went on to urge the case of the policemen, who were not within the scope of the measure. The policeman’s work was, in his opinion, often more dangerous than that of a railway or harbour employee, and his wife and family were just as much entitled to live as the wives and families of other workers. In July last policemen were very much knocked about in Johannesburg, and when he asked the Government whether they were going to make any compensation he was told that the medical expenses had been paid or they would get leave of absence. He had en deavoured in the past to do his best for the policemen, and he would continue to do so in future. There was an extraordinary little clause in the Bill, sub-section 2. According to that it seemed that if he hired a motor-car from a stand temporarily) or a friend lent him his car for the afternoon the motor-man would be considered to be in his employ, and if there was an accident he would be liable. That was how he interpreted the section; and in section 5, it appeared to him that if a gentleman was coming to South Africa with a valet and the valet got injured on the ship, he would have no right to claim for compensation. There was another point; through his representations the Wages Lien Bill was altered so that the magistrate might extend the time within which an action must be instituted. Under the Bill before the House the action must be proceeded with within six months, and he submitted that under that Bill the presiding magistrate should have power to extend the time, provided the delay was not due to the workman’s neglect and that the employer was not prejudiced thereby. In the Transvaal there was a provision whereby a presiding magistrate might state a special case for the opinion of a superior Court, and he thought a similar provision should be made in that Bill. With regard to appeals there was an important innovation which enlarged upon the provisions of the Transvaal Act. It was very much easier for the employer to appeal because he had the funds, and he did not think it was right that there should be an extension of that particular provision because the poor workman may be prejudiced. Personally, he thought they should safeguard the workers as was intended in the Act of the Transvaal. He had endeavoured to find out why a white man or native working for a farmer should be in a worse position than a worker in the town. For instance, if a man employed on a farm had an accident while training a horse, he had no claim, but if the injury was received by a workman in town, he would get damages. Why should there be any difference between him and the man who was employed in the town? He hoped the Bill would have a speedy passage.

said that provision for workmen’s compensation was not new. It had been in vogue in Germany and Austria for a hundred years. It was freely recognised when the first Act of that kind was passed in England in 1897 that workmen’s compensation was not going to be a great loss to the employers, for they made provision for accidents of that kind, and the liability was carried to the consumer. It was really the consumer who paid compensation to workmen in most cases.

He could not understand why there was nothing in the Bill providing for a workman’s right to sue under the common law after he had instituted proceedings under the Bill. If a man failed in an action under this Act, or received inadequate compensation, he saw no reason why he should not proceed under the common law. That right was conceded in the Swedish Law, the English Employer’s Liability Act, and the Act in Natal. There was a schedule to the English Act of 1907 in which occupational disease were dealt with. They found that by order of the Government some 18 additional diseases were included in 1907. When they looked through this Act they found that there was a large number of diseases in this country which could be included under the heading of occupational diseases. They found the same thing provided for in the law of New Zealand. Provision there was made for men who were incapacitated from employment by diseases contracted in the course of their work. It was for those reasons that the Labour Party wished to see a schedule of occupational diseases of that description included in the Act. He did not see why a schedule of fixed amounts for injuries should not be drawn up on similar lines to that included in the New Zealand Act. There was no reason why a separate schedule should not be drawn up in South Africa, although it would be necessary to have a separate schedule for each of the general trades. The loss of a finger in some trades would not mean any loss to the workmans earning capacity, while in others it would amount to permanent disablement. With regard to coloured persons, he was glad to see coloured men included in the provisions of the Bill. (Hear, hear.)

He was glad to note that the Government had seen fit at last to include coloured people and natives under this Bill. He did not attach any blame to the Government for what he was now going to refer to, but he found some fault with the definition of “dependants” in clause 41. His difficulty was that a dependant had to prove that she was wholly or partially dependent upon the workman at the time of his disablement. That must lead to very unnecessary hardship, for instance, in case a woman had been deserted by her husband and had not received support from him, or in case a woman had received no wages from her husband during the time he had been away. He found that nearly all the Compensation Acts of the world suffered in the same regard. He hoped that when the Bill went to Select Committee special attention would be given to this matter, with a view of affording relief in the cases he had mentioned He also wanted to object to the fact that this Bill did not apply to domestic servants or those engaged in agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or any employment on a farm or connected with farming operations. He understood that the Minister intended to amend the words “unless such employment be at or about any engine driven or machine worked by mechanical power.” He hoped it would be amended by striking out the whole clause and allowing this Bill to go forward and apply to all workmen. In this House there was a certain class of people who were always asking, under legislation of this kind, to be exempted from the laws of the country. He desired to protest most strongly, against this. He also noticed that they were losing a little in regard to the amount of compensation payable, looking at the Bill from a Transvaal point of view. The weekly payment was to be fixed at a maximum of 30s., whereas under the Transvaal law they were allowed to receive 50 per cent of the wages earned, and the average wage in the Transvaal might fairly be taken at £1 a day for all occupations of a skilled nature. He submitted that 30s. a week was far too low, considering the high cost of living in the Transvaal. By the insertion of certain words in the clauses the benefits of this Bill were considerably toned down. Differentiation was made between payments with regard to those who were dependent and those who were partially dependent. That was a differentiation that he did not think the workmen of the Transvaal would thank the Minister for. Then again, to prove total permanent incapacity, a workman had to prove his inability to obtain employment of any nature whatsoever. That was the test he had not been put to previously. This was practically an impossible clause. For death a workman was to be paid two years’ wages or £500. That was on the lines of the Transvaal Act.

In New Zealand the compensation was based upon 156 times the weekly wage. In Belgium the dependants of the workman are allowed 75 francs for funeral expenses and a life pension equal to 30 per cent of the workman’s, wages. The English law of compensation was also based upon three years’ wages. Here, as he had said, a two-years’ computation had been adopted. He would like to draw attention to the definitions of workmen. He noticed that outworkers were omitted. These men usually filled dangerous occupations, and were as a rule the most necessitous, and if they were not to be included in this Bill where was relief for them to come from? This Bill would also exclude tailors and others who performed work outside. Nor ought the Government to have excluded the police or the military from the benefits of this Bill. What was going to induce the police to take the risks which in the ordinary course of their duty they were called upon to do, unless they knew they would be entitled to compensation in the event of injury? The policeman, in the face of such danger, would be likely to turn down another street, and he (Mr. Sampson) did not see who could blame him. He thought of all other people these two classes ought to be included. Then again, he did not see the reason why men in receipt of £500 per annum should be excluded from the Bill. It is true that they were likely to have saved money, but in the event of injury they would be as badly off as the man who was earning £200 per annum. They would probably be prevented from earning anything more. Then, again, why should it be required that the officer of a Trade Union to appear in a court under the Act should require to be the member of a registered Trade Union? Was this to be considered one of the benefits of registration? He also noticed that the number of grounds for appeal had been very much increased, which he thought was very unwise to include in the Bill. In clause 25 there were also new grounds for precluding compensation to workmen which did not exist before They would find that if this clause and other like clauses were put into force the Act would be discredited by the workmen, who would resort to the common law in preference to this particular Act. There were powers in the Act to frame different regulations in different Provinces and he did not see why that should be so in a common Bill designed for the whole of the Union of South Africa. Speaking on behalf of the hon. members on the cross-benches, he said they were glad the hon. Minister had placed the Bill before the House, and had recognised the necessity of taking it to Select Committee. That Select Committee should be allowed to take evidence as well as consider the general grounds of the Bill.

said there was too much of appeals in the Bill, first of all the magistrate, then to the Provincial Courts, and still a further appeal. Some appeal might be made from the magistrate’s ruling, but it would be a wise thing to stop there. Proceeding, he said he could not understand why the Government should mix up a gratuity or pension due to a Civil Servant with compensation for an accident paid on entirely a different ground. He understood that was to be altered, but the hon. Minister had not given the House an assurance that that principle would not be pushed through. The two principles had nothing to do with others, and could not be maintained for a moment. With regard to the liabilities of sub-contractors, again the agriculturalist was exempted. The ordinary employer under that clause remained liable, and he failed to see why the principle should apply to one and not to the others. It was not justice. An employee should not be in a worse position if he happened to be doing work on a farm than if he was working in the town.

said that nowadays workmen’s compensation was part of the employers’ business and all careful employers made proper provision for it was there any logical reason why they should exclude the police from the provisions of a Compensation Act? He thought that the police and the Civil Service were as much entitled to compensation as anyone else. The Imperial Parliament had at last passed legislation with regard to the agricultural labourer, yet for years and years the agricultural labourer in England had been prevented from obtaining redress. The Minister referred to the Cape Act, but not to the reason for the exclusion of the agricultural labourer from that measure. In order to protect the workman, in the Cape Act of 1905 it was provided that they could not appeal except the magistrate had found for or against gross carelessness. The Minister had now opened the door to all sorts of appeals. One thing that would have to be considered in Select Committee was whether that was not going to be a much greater hardship upon the workman than to his advantage. In regard to industrial diseases, he did not see any difficulties in that matter at all. If a man contracted a disease in the course of his employment and as a distinct and direct result of that employment, he did not see why he should not be entitled to compensation as if he had put his hand into a machine and injured it. He thought it was only fair that occupational diseases should be treated on the same basis as injuries resulting from machinery. He did not see why there should be the £500 limit, as regarded persons who might receive compensation. The basis of the whole Bill was compensation for injury received in the course of employment, not the amount of salary. In regard to “dependants,” they could not alter the meaning of the word “dependant. If they wanted to make provision for the other cases which had been referred to, they had to do away with the word “dependant.” That was a Bill which aimed at providing uniform compensation throughout the Union for workmen. He congratulated the Government on having taken out the colour bar which had so often appeared in Transvaal Acts. He was pleased to support the second reading of this Bill.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

said he would like to get through the second reading, although he had no desire to keep members late, still they had a great amount of business on the morrow, and under the circumstances he hoped the House would pass the second reading.

thought the Minister was not quite fair. He had introduced a Bill and had spoken for over an hour. But there were other members who also held views and he had given one hour amongst the lot of them. If the Minister was determined he had better take a division at once.

amid laughter, pointed out that the order paper for to-morrow, which had been referred to, made no mention of any business. He thought the Minister should agree to an adjournment.

In view of what has been said, I am not disposed to insist on the second reading taking place to-night.

The motion was agreed to.

The debate was then adjourned until tomorrow.