House of Assembly: Vol14 - MONDAY 18 May 1914
from inhabitants of Melville, Johannesburg, for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Vote.
from the widow of the late A. W. Ritchie, formerly in Johannesburg Police Force, for relief.
from H. J. McDonald, retired from police, for relief.
from inhabitants of Harrismith, for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Vote.
a similar petition from Uniondale.
a similar petition from Roodepoort.
from the Western Province Cinematograph Association and inhabitants of Johannesburg, in opposition to the proposed Customs duty on bioscope films.
from A. Wilson and others, for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Vote.
similar petitions from inhabitants of Green and Sea Point (two petitions).
a similar petition from Dewetsdorp.
from 1,505 white workers on the Witwatersrand, in opposition to the removal of the “colour bar ” from the Transvaal Mines, Works and Machinery Regulations.
from inhabitants of Cape Town, for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Vote (two petitions).
similar petitions from inhabitants of the Cape Peninsula (four petitions).
from A. J. T. Clark, attendant, Valkenberg Asylum, for condonation of a break in his service.
from inhabitants of Germiston, for legislation providing for the Direct Popular Vote.
from 3,282 white workers on the Witwatersrand, in opposition to the removal of the “colour bar” from the Transvaal Mines, Works and Machinery Regulations.
Annual Report Department of Mines and Industries, 1913 (Labour and Industries).
Reports and recommendations by the Council for Native Affairs, Natal, on matters referred to it by the Government (Act No. 1 of 1909 (Natal).
The adjourned debate was resumed on the motion by the Minister of Finance: “That the House go into Committee of supply on the Estimates of Expenditure to be incurred during the year ending 31st March, 1915, from the Consolidated Revenue and Railways and Harbour Funds, respectively.”
The following amendments had been moved, viz.:
By Mr. Andrews: To omit all the words after “That,” and to substitute “this House views with alarm the increase of poverty among large numbers of the population, the prevailing acute pressure of unemployment and the continued emigration of large numbers of white citizens from the Union. It is of opinion that one of the principal causes of these evils is the continued importation of cheap indentured Kafir labour and the general policy of basing South African industrial development on a quasi servile labour system, and it regrets that the Government has not seen fit to introduce legislation having for its object the reversal of the present pernicious tendencies.”
To omit all the words after “That,” and to substitute “the Estimates of Expenditure be referred back to the Government for revision and reduction with a view to avoiding the necessity of imposing any unnecessary taxation.”
To omit all the words after “That,” and to substitute “the Estimates of Expenditure and Revenue be referred to a Select Committee with instructions to report within one week as to the best method of bringing about an equalisation between Revenue and Expenditure for the year 1914-15; the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers and to consist of eleven members.”
said he did not think it could be fairly contended that they on that side of the House had taken up more than their fair share of the time which had been occupied by this debate. During the course of this debate they had deviated to some extent from the main subject which was before them, and he thought they had rather forgotten the important amendment which was moved at an early stage by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. He thought he need scarcely say that, because his hon. friend had made it quite plain himself, in speaking of unnecessary taxation, he did not mean to imply that they disapproved in principle of all the taxation which was now proposed, because that did not represent their views at all. They found fault with the system because they were not satisfied that such a large expenditure was necessary, and they were not fully satisfied that they were getting full value for their money. They included under “unnecessary taxation ” some of that taxation under which they were at present suffering, and more especially the taxes on food. As far as the land tax was concerned, they did not object to the principle of it; but what they did say was that it had not been spread sufficiently widely, and they were not saying so with any desire to indulge in any feeling of vindictiveness against people who, in their opinion, were not paying their sufficient share of taxation. He thought it was Lord Palmerston who had said that one of the most effective motives of taxation was the desire to do someone harm; but when they said that the incidence of this tax ought to be greater, they were not actuated by any desire to do anyone any harm. (Hear, hear.) What they wanted was to spread the incidence of taxation in what they believed a more equitable manner than was done at present, and they believed that the indirect effects would be good. They on his side of the House were not satisfied that there could be no reduction in the proposed expenditure, and he thought that speakers on his side had given cogent reasons for that belief. The Minister of Finance himself had admitted that his Estimates were not exact, and that he had brought them forward in a form which permitted of reduction being made. He did not want to labour that point, but if it was possible for the Minister himself to admit that a certain reduction could be made without harm, then it was probable that, if a little more effort had been made, a further reduction would be possible. He knew that with that Government, as with any other Government, any reduction of expenditure was not easy. Reduction, of course, was unpopular, for it meant economy, and economy was always unpopular. But now they had had it stated in that House, he believed by the hon. member for George Town (Mr. Andrews) or for Greyville (Mr. Boydell). that the more expenditure there was, the better they liked it, and that they could not see any reason for reduction anywhere. They had advanced a doctrine that anyone who had once entered the public service was to be there for life. No matter what such a man did, no matter how unnecessary his services became, he was there for life. And there was no doubt that that feeling existed to a very large extent throughout that country, but the fact remained that they were daily increasing their army of Civil Servants. They were now, as Bismarck had said, suffering from “the burden of clerkdom.” The Government was asked by this or that supporter to do something, and every time an official was required, and naturally additional assistance was required. A good deal of that, of course, was inevitable, but it did seem to him to tell against economy. (Hear, hear.) Then it should not be forgotten that the Civil Servants were a large political factor, that they had a large vote, and it was a tendency of modern Governments to take that very much into consideration. (Hear, hear.) The various matters which had been brought before the House that session, all put together, went to show that the Civil Service did not work very efficiently. For instance, they had had before them the report of the Civil Service Commission, which he did not wish to deal with at very great length as the question dealt with in the report of that Commission was being investigated by a Select Committee. But it was perfectly impossible for anyone to read the report of that Civil Service Commission without seeing that the Civil Service was not run as efficiently as it should be. It was perfectly certain that there was not that harmonious working between the Treasury and the Commission which there should be, and the result must be inefficiency and waste of public money. That sort of thing had a tendency to prevent them cutting their coat according to their cloth. (Hear, hear.) The Minister of Finance had admitted that something must be done to reduce the enormous expenditure; and, therefore, tiresome and inexpedient though it might be to ignore certain demands of political supporters, an effort must be made to carry out the public service in a less expensive manner.
If all the instances given were taken together, it must be clear that there was not that efficiency and economy which there should be. Let them take the Land Bank, for instance. It could not be denied that there had been in the affairs of the Land Bank an absence of control by the Government, and he thought they, as taxpayers, were entitled to object to a system of money being advanced at a rate which was lower than the country itself was paying for it, and he thought they were also entitled to object to the fact that so much of the funds of the Land Bank were advanced simply for the purpose of enabling the recipients to pay off mortgages and not for improvements. They had not heard much about the Railway Board that session, and the reason for that was no doubt that the attention of the House and of the country had been concentrated on recent unfortunate events. He did not think anyone could contend that the constitution of that Board was scientific or satisfactory, and it did not seem to him to carry that weight in dealing with railway questions that it ought to have. If they took the question of railway rates up-country, it did seem to him and those who came from the North that something ought to be done in that respect. (Hear, hear.) Nothing had been done to lessen the burden which up-country people had to bear, and he thought that something ought to be done in that respect. (Hear, hear.) It would be right if these matters wore more clearly defined by the Railway Board. The Minister of Railways and Harbours had said that the country was paying £90,000 for a certain class of white labour, which could be done by black labour, and that sum was put to railway working expenses. A far larger proportion than was right was paid by up-country people, and the money should come from the consolidated revenue fund and not from the ordinary working expenses of the railway, if that general policy was to be adopted by the Government. (Hear, hear.) There was another matter which showed a want of efficiency, and therefore increased expenditure. He referred to the illicit liquor traffic. The position there was getting worse every day—(hear, hear)—and he contended that this was owing to the absence of policy on the part of the Government. Young people were growing up without education and becoming enmeshed in that traffic, and therefore were becoming potential hooligans. This meant an enormous amount of crime, and expense to the country in prisons and police. Let them take another ease, namely the position in which they found the Mines Department at the time of the disturbances last July. Would anybody say that the state of affairs in that respect was satisfactory and that the shortcomings of that department did not lead to greatly increased expenditure? So they got all through a want of considered policy, and the result of that was things were allowed to drift, and when things were tackled it cost a great deal more than it ought to do. There was the case of higher education. Nobody would say that the position there was satisfactory or that there were any indications of a considered policy in that respect. He hoped it was not true that the Commission which had recently gone into this question was going to force down people’s throats a ready-made policy which would not prove satisfactory. The result of the delay in dealing with that matter was that the young men of this country were not getting the chance they ought.
What was the reason of it? He thought there was no doubt that it would be impossible to expect any Government to get everything in order in so short a time after Union. Any Government that came into office would be confronted by a very heavy task. But time was going on, and by this time they thought that many things should have been ready They had had examples of the policy of drift over and over again. They had had changes of portfolios in the Cabinet, and these were not made with any regard to efficiency, but with a view to political exigencies. (Hear, hear.) Dealing with the position of the Minister of Finance, he said that, personally, he did not think there was anything so very wrong in the Minister being in charge of a spending department and the Treasury, because he did not see any signs that the expenditure had been unreasonable under the Defence Act. But it was impossible for any person to carry on three departments at once, and the tendency must be to have less individual control. Some day, when the biography of the Minister was written, they would find, in addition to the ordinary two volumes, a third, which would contain the letters which the Minister had written to himself, and these he thought would provide most interesting reading. Why he pressed for efficiency was that owing to the peculiar circumstances of the country the cost of expenditure was spread over a limited population. Their object must be to increase the number of people in the country, and that could only be done by a proper scheme of land settlement. One hon. member had said that something must first be done for those in the country but nothing had been done up to the present, and it was necessary that action should be taken immediately. He agreed with the hon. member for Border when he said that a great deal of progress had been accomplished so far as agriculture was concerned. He (Mr. Chaplin) agreed with that.
But what they had to consider was the question of finding substitutes for sources of revenue that had yielded them most up to the present. He did not take a pessimistic view with regard to the lives of the mines, but it was impossible to ignore Estimates that had been put before the country by competent men. It pleased him to see that a somewhat liberal sum of money had been put down for the purpose of irrigation. He believed that the Irrigation Department was one of the best of Government departments, and he was confident that the schemes proposed would yield good results. But these things would take time to mature, and in order to bring these schemes to fruition they must have fresh capital. At present capital was not coming into this country, and some of the causes for this were not under the control of the Government or that House. There were other demands for capital which they could not help. To get capital they had got to show that capital was going to have a fair chance, and be allowed an adequate return, and when they heard speeches from the cross-benches of the iniquity of allowing money to go out in interest on loans and dividends to shareholders, then one began to despair, or rather one would if one did not know that commonsense would prevail. How could they get capital if they did not give a fair return? Nothing had done more to make capital shy of coming to this country than the measures of the hon. member for Barberton when he was in office, some of which got through the House and some of which failed. It was not the amount that the hon. member tried to levy, but the spirit in which his proposals were made. Dealing with the bewaarplaatsen question, he said he was very glad that the Government was going to settle this question once and for all, because it was not so much the losses of money which people minded, but the attitude of the Government as to whether they were going to treat capital fairly or not. If the Government carried out its proposals it would do a good stroke of business for itself, and would only be a measure of common justice.
Dealing with the hon. members on the cross-benches, he said that they were constantly crying for the moon. They ought to know that the country could not shuffle out of its burdens to the community. When they said that the mines should be compelled to do this, that and the other thing, they forgot the interest of the other people, the interests of the general community, and the interests of the men for whom they professed to speak. One encouraging thing about the situation was that since Union people in one vocation had begun to appreciate the difficulties of people in another vocation. Farmers had complained about being taught to do their business by people who were not competent to teach, but they had not paid. Those who were connected with the mining industry had also been taught their business, but the difference was that they had had to do the paying. People were beginning to appreciate these difficulties, and he thought that, through that House, the country would see the folly of some of the proposals put forward by hon. members on the cross-benches, and would see that reasonable methods were adopted. In this country, as in other countries, there had arisen a state of affairs which demanded that more consideration should be given to the legitimate demands of the working-class than had been the case in the past.
Do it.
said that, in dealing with hon. members on the cross benches, they had this position: If suggestions were made, these were considered to be insults; if concessions were made, the cross-benches declared that these were rights which had only been gained by extortion.
Quite right.
said that what hon. members on the cross-benches did was to go up and down the country preaching the gospel of discontent. For a time it got a good many supporters, but did not lead to anything satisfactory. They had had an example in that House. In connection with the Railway Service Bill, the Minister allowed certain concessions to men who had been thrown out of employment. An hon. member on the cross-benches said he thought these satisfactory. Three hours later, on the Parade, these hon. members were saying that these were no sort of concessions, and that they had only managed to extort what was their right That did not help things. Hon. members on the cross-benches must meet them half-way. The object of hon. members on the cross benches seemed to be to stir up trouble, make discontent, and thus justify their existence. He now came to the amendments. That of the hon. member for George Town (Mr. Andrews) referred to “the increase of poverty among large numbers of the population.” They all agreed that there was a large amount of poverty, but for a good deal of that the hon. member for George Town and his friends were decidedly responsible. (Cheers.) As for the remainder of the amendment, stripped of all verbiage, it meant that the hon. member for George Town was of opinion that steps should at once be taken to get rid of the indentured labour on mines. Whatever might be the ultimate solution of that question, he (Mr. Chaplin) defied any hon. member to go on the mines and preach that doctrine, because the obvious answer he would get was: “You are going to send away the unskilled labourers—how many more of us are you going to throw into the streets?” (Cheers.) Then there was the amendment of the hon. member for Uitenhage, with the object of which he (Mr. Chaplin) had a good deal of sympathy. But the Opposition tried to achieve the same end in offering suggestions and criticisms from that side of the House, but it was not right that the Government’s responsibility should be delegated to a Select Committee. We had too much of that already. (Cheers.) Government should take the responsibility. Therefore he could not vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Uitenhage. So they came back to the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger), which seemed to be very clear, and one which they conscientiously could support. There was, at any rate, a reasonable probability that the Estimates could be reduced. In the opinion of the Opposition, the Government was to blame if the Estimates could not be reduced, because in many respects the Government had not concentrated its attention on the problems before it. In conclusion, Mr. Chaplin appealed to those who wished to see the country economically and efficiently administered to give their support to the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. (Cheers.)
said he only proposed to speak on subjects which concerned his own Department. On the subject of lard settlement it had been alleged by the Leader of the Opposition that the Government was too slow in going about the work. The speaker was pleased to note that the hon. member for Border had spoken on the subject more intelligently as it was much easier to talk about providing people with ground than to do it. It would be ridiculous to give out farms right and left without first taking such measures as were necessary to make it possible for the people to make a living on them. He pointed out how difficult it had been for many farmers since the war to get their farms into working order again. With regard to the speech which he had delivered at Louis Trichardt, the Leader of the Opposition had tried to read more into it than was contained in it. The “red tape” was probably due in great part to the terms of the Act which had been passed by that House, as had been correctly pointed out by the hon. member for Bechuanaland. The Leader of the Opposition had quoted as an instance an applicant who had capital, but whose application was not accepted. In that matter the speaker had taken the advice of the Land Board at the Cape, which Board consisted of practical farmers, and they were of opinion that the applicant did not possess sufficient capital to work the land with success. The ease in Natal which had been referred to by the hon. member for Vryheid was slightly different, and in that case the speaker had felt called on to use his own judgment.
With reference to the poor white question, that also was a problem which could not easily be solved. It was not sufficient merely to take the people away from the towns and dump them down in a country district. With regard to the motion which had been brought before the Senate, and the amendment which had been moved to it, he explained that the Government were willing to accept the motion and the amendment, but the amendment had been negatived.
The poor white question was a very serious one and it was a matter of regret that hon. members tried to hold the Government responsible for the deplorable movement of poor whites to the towns, as they did not deserve to be blamed for that. A man who had formerly every chance to make a success on the land, had yet failed there, and then gone to the towns, could not easily be brought back again without risk of further misadventure. It would be necessary to treat every case on its merits, and in particular they would have to get hold of the young people. The Government proposed to do that and to place the young people on farms under the supervision of practical farmers, so that they would afterwards be in a position to make a living for themselves. A good deal had been done under the Colonial Governments for the support of the poor whites. In the Transvaal, for instance, they had helped by distributing cattle. He deplored the attack on the Prime Minister of the Transvaal which had been made by the hon. member for Frankfort, and deprecated the criticisms on this subject, which had been made at a certain meeting in the hon. member’s constituency. Those criticisms were incorrect and unjust. A motion had been introduced in the Parliament of the Free State with the same object, but the then leaders were opposed to it, and the result was that the proposal miscarried. So far as he (the speaker) was concerned, he had been in favour of the scheme, but as things stood at present he was not inclined now to recommend it, conditions having changed. Still, the Transvaal system had been in a large degree a success. It was true that some of the amounts had had to be written off, but the debts were covered by the increase of cattle. Generally speaking the cattle had increased materially in numbers. In Lydenburg, for example, they had increased by 78.7 per cent., Middelburg 69.3 per cent., Klerksdorp 84.8 per cent., Pretoria 63.2 per cent., Marico 109.3 per cent., Johannesburg 77.4 per cent., Boksburg 56.5 per cent., Wakkerstroom 195 per cent., Volksrust 132 per cent., and Rustenburg 76 per cent. The distribution of cattle to poor whites had therefore been a success.
Land Banks had been established in the Free State and Transvaal under the Colonial Governments, and in the former two labour colonies also had been established. After the war many persons had lost everything they had, and others who had lost all their living stock and their money, but still held their land. It was not the purpose in establishing the land banks to help the very poor man. They wanted to help the people who had mortgages on their farms, or who had no money with which to work their farms, and were thus unable to make any headway. The land bank was established for the purpose of lending money to landowners who required money in order to go ahead. Under the Crown Lands Settlement Act persons could be helped to get farms who had a little capital but not sufficient to buy them outright. In addition to those persons, there were others who possessed nothing, and for those persons the Church and the Government had established labour colonies, on which it was possible for them to make a living. It would be a long time yet before they would be able to see the advantage of those labour colonies. He (the Minister) was one of those who had been appointed, with others, for the purpose of finding a suitable farm in the Free State for the purpose of establishing a labour colony. They selected Kopjes. A labour colony was a benevolent institution which properly belonged to the Church, but the speaker supported the Government at that time because he conceived that they should at any rate get hold of the children, concentrate them there, and give them a proper training.
The Government wire doing all they possibly could to prevent complaints, but it was not the duty of the Department to give out doles. It was necessary to make the people feel that they had got to help themselves and not rely exclusively on the support of the Government. They must themselves do their utmost to get on. It was true that some of the settlers were behind with payment of interest and were asking for delay, but he was making it plain that such consideration would only be given were it proved to be necessary.
The hon. member for Fauresmith had complained about the Irrigation Department, and the speaker only hoped that had not been done with the object of misleading the people. It was quite unfair to say, as the hon. member had said, that the Department was provincial. No such Department existed in the Free State prior to the war. Since the Irrigation Act for the Union had been passed, very little had been done in the Free State, but the construction of waterworks was not a trifling matter. They had first to take a number of observations, which required time, in order to determine the effectiveness of any plan that was proposed. The Irrigation Act came into operation towards the end of 1912, and then everything had to be regulated. Surveys had taken place in the Free State before the Bill was dealt with, and were taken with a view to irrigation proposals. Advice had been given in connection with irrigation in the Free State on many occasions. The Department was certainly not provincial. The best way to carry on irrigation was by means of co-operation amongst the farmers, when it would be possible to construct cooperative waterworks. The Department gave every possible encouragement to such works. They had much difficulty at first in getting a river board for the Gamtoos River, as the riparian owners were afraid of the rates which would have to be levied, and it was found to be very difficult to get the two-thirds majority required by the terms of the law. But now they were busy with the fourth scheme on the Gamtoos. That was all due to co-operation. It was the practice for the district engineers to give advice to private farmers. In the Free State they had an engineer with four assistants. This was not considered to be enough, but, on the other hand, they were being urged to be economical. Advice was given in 1910-11 in the Free State on 27 occasions, in 1912-13 on 54 occasions, and in 1913-14 on 79 occasions. Surveys in regard to flood water were made on the Kaffir River, Riet River, and on the Modder River.
In 1911-12 surveys in the Free State were undertaken at a cost of £1,008, or one-fifth of the total amount that was spent prior to Union. In 1912-13 the amount was £850, or one-seventh of the whole; and in 1913-14 it was £1,893, or one-fifth; and in 1914-15 it was £3,300.
If they took into account the sizes of the four Provinces, they found that the Free State had obtained a larger share than it was entitled to. There were at present thirteen permanent and temporary engineers. Hydrographic surveys in the Free State had cost them £6,000, and works were in hand, both at Modder River and Kopjes. If it was shown by the surveys, that irrigation works were possible, then the farmers would be advised as speedily as possible to begin the work on a cooperative basis. But the surveys occupied a long time, because very numerous factors had to be taken into account. There were many districts in the Free State where the Department had acted with more energy than in other parts of the Union, for instance, at Fauresmith. The farmers were beginning to see more and more clearly the value of irrigation, and many of them came to the Irrigation Department for loans. The loans were small in the district of Fauresmith, because they only wished to set up windmills there. There were excellent opportunities there for the construction of dams, but it would be necessary for the farmers to act conjointly for such purposes.
In 1912-13 they had received 59 applications for loans to a collective amount of £18,440. Several of those applications had been refused, but where sufficient security was offered they wore always granted.
In 1913-14 there were 58 applications to a total amount of £21,023, of which £15,000 was granted. It seemed evident, therefore, that the farmers were waiting up. The water courts were formed under the Act of 1912, and the regulations came into operation during the following year. He hoped hon. members would do all they possibly could to help forward irrigation, as irrigation works were absolutely necessary before they could proceed in the direction of closer settlement. Personally, be and the hon. member for Fort Beaufort differed somewhat in regard to the question of settlement in dry districts, but he was glad to hear that the hon. member had since come over to his opinion. He was strongly in favour of dry land farming wherever it was possible to conserve the water, but feared that whilst its application was possible in the south, it could not be done in the north, In the south they had a regular rainfall, whilst in the north it was sometimes dry for years. It would not do, therefore, to have settlements in those dry districts.
The Government had been criticised because they had not given out sufficient Crown land, but he hoped that hon. members would now see that they had done as much in that direction as was possible. In the dry districts the Government were busy boring for water, as it was impossible to open up those areas for settlement until they had been so prepared. Even in the Transvaal a great deal of the Crown land was not suitable, but things were gradually getting better. The Government were advertising the ground which was considered suitable for these purposes, and tried to help the pioneers at first. Even the fever districts were gradually being rendered more habitable. It would be necessary, however, for the settlers to have certain ideals, failing which they would never achieve success. (Cheers).
said that while complaints had been made of extravagance on the one hand, other hon. members on the other hand had asked Government to spend more money, so it was very difficult for Government to know what to do. His 16 years’ experience of Parliamentary life was that hon. members might argue and put forth efforts to reduce the Estimates, but they had never been successful.
Why?
If the Government wants to get off with its honour unscathed it has to carry its Estimates, and the only thing it can do is to propose certain reductions in Committee of Supply. I hope the Government will reduce the Estimates in that way.
Give them a little stimulus to do so.
said they must go slowly. He admitted that progress had been made, but was not the expenditure increasing at a greater rate than our progress warranted? (Hear, hear.) The Government, however, had great difficulties to contend with, including the provision of funds for the Provincial Councils on the £ for £ principle. Then the expenditure on education had increased. At the same time Government should not go too fast with the Defence Department. He predicted when the Defence Force was established that its financial requirements would increase year by year. The representatives of the people should be able to justify the country’s expenditure, in which he thought economy should be exercised. (Hear, hear.) Unless that were done we should find ourselves in very great difficulties. (Hear, hear.) Before imposing any fresh taxation Government should be careful not to incur any unnecessary expenditure. He hoped that Government would take in good spirit any criticisms he made. (Hear, hear.) When Union was started there was a general idea abroad that taxation would be equalised as much as possible—(hear, hear)—but Government had failed in that respect. The public service was overstaffed. He felt very sore, however, that when Government tried to reduce the number of men they were not supported by hon. members, some of whom found fault with the Ministry if it tried to run the Railway Department and the Civil Service with economy so far as the number of men employed was concerned. He thought that if they had men unnecessarily in the service they would do a great deal of harm to the country and the individuals concerned. It was far better, to his mind, that they should have able men and good men and pay them well, than that they should keep men in the service who were not efficient or for whom there was not enough work to do. He did not propose to go into the details of the Budget, but he felt that if the Estimates had been reduced by 3 per cent. no injustice would have been done to any men in the departments, and there would have been a saving of nearly half-a-million to the country. Such a reduction would have been so slight in its effects as to be hardly noticed. That saving would have left them with a very small amount of deficiency to make up. There was one point that, he thought, he would have great difficulty in satisfactorily explaining to his constituents. He did not think there had been sufficient indication given by the Government as to the course they were going to take with regard to the cost of the railway strike. (Hear, hear.) This, he thought, was purely a railway matter. He did not suppose that Parliament would be asked to make good the cost if a bridge went down or a train fell over an embankment. He hoped the Minister of Railways would be able to give them some indication as to the course he intended to adopt in this matter. After all, South Africa was not a rich country It was a poor country, if they took away the gold and diamond mines. We had had drought and labour disturbances, and, although he was not a pessimist, he did not think the outlook was as bright as they would like to see it, and he therefore hoped that the Government would see the necessity of going slowly. (Hear, hear.)
With regard to the taxation proposals, he was sorry that the Minister of Finance had seen fit to take, as it were, such an enormous sack to go and collect a comparatively small amount. He was going to take some money at the ports, some money on income tax, and some money on land tax. He (Mr. Oosthuisen) did not think it was necessary for the Minister to put on all these taxes at the same time. He thought one, or at any rate two, of them would have been sufficient at a time. It was a bad policy to show your whole hand when you wanted money. (Laughter.) One had to be very careful in these matters. If the moneylenders in Europe, or wherever the Union got money from, saw that they were taxing all the country’s assets, he thought it would be worse for the country. He approved of the exemption of incomes below £1,000. He thought it was a very good principle that, as was the practice of the old Cape House during the continuance of the income tax, the Government should come to Parliament each year for authority to levy the tax. Referring to what was commonly called the “Black List,” Mr. Oosthuisen said that they were told that we imported a great many things that ought to be grown here. In this matter, he thought it was not the farmers alone who were to blame. The great thing that was wanted was co-operation, in which the distributors could render a good deal of help. Proceeding, Mr. Oosthuisen said that the distributors ought to come to the aid of the farmers. If an industry could be started in that country for canning green corn as it was canned in the U.S.A., it would be a good thing both for the farmer and for the consumer. This country was essentially one where people must unite and work together, and it was only in that way that they would make progress. It was no use blaming the farmer, because he could only produce such things as there was a market for. In that country they had very great distances to cover, and that was an enormous drawback. If they could concentrate their million white inhabitants, they could do much better than they were doing at present. It must not be thought that farmers did not have labour troubles, because they needed labour very much; but they had not had the trouble they had on the mines, nor had the farmers’ labourers cost the State so much as those on the Rand. Referring to protection, he said it was not such a bad thing as people tried to make out, instancing the case of meat, which, he said, had become cheaper as the result of protection. He asked where they would have been if they had not protected the ostrich. They had also splendid leather in that country and could they not have as good leather as that which was imported? He admitted that they could not manufacture all the special kinds of boots and shoes which were imported, but still a great deal more could be done in the way of manufacture of boots and shoes than had been done up to the present. In regard to the 3 per cent. preference, it was practically half a million bonus given to the British manufacturer, and what the country got back from it he did not know. (Dissent.) He thought that they had lost a golden opportunity in that respect, and that it would have been a good opportunity of settling the question of the naval contribution, because they could not get away from the position that that Imperial naval contribution would have to be dealt with If they contributed anything to the navy it should be, he considered, in such a way that they could see something of it—either an airship or a ship that went on the ocean. (Laughter.) The hon. member went on to refer to juvenile offenders, and thought it would be a good thing if they could get a useful training on board ship. The hon. member pointed out that a large number of agricultural implements and such things were imported from places other than England, and the farmer had to pay the full 15 per cent., or whatever the duty was. With regard to the income tax, he thought that was a very good thing, but nevertheless there was the principle underlying which was not so desirable, and they might find that next year if it did not bring in enough the Minister would bring down the exemption limit and would gradually get them all in one by one. He hoped when the hon. Minister brought in his proposals he would make some provision for the poor farmer, where he might have an increase in lambs, kids, and young ostriches, which might be taken as profit, but which he might lose through drought or disease. On the whole he thought the income tax was about the fairest tax that any Minister could have put upon the country, for although it would be a little troublesome it was only the man who could pay who would have to pay, and the others would go free.
In respect of the Land Tax, the hon. Minister said that one of the greatest evils was one person holding large tracts of land which they did not work or develop, but held for a rise in the land market. People who wanted to use the land could not get it, and those who had got it did not make use of it. If that was so, he (Mr. Oosthuisen) thought the tax was very necessary; not only with regard to the big men but to the small men also, for it often happened that the big man developed more than the little man. In taking that matter up the Minister should have given the Cape Colony which had three taxes connected with the land already in force. They were therefore well taxed with regard to land. If that Land Tax went into the Exchequer it would not be of much use in increasing the value of the land, but he thought the real object of the Government was to get more land on which to settle people. That was a laudable object, but the Government would not carry that out by dropping a man here and a man there. In his opinion the less the Government had to do with it the better, but they could do very useful work in helping others in their endeavours to keep people on the land and so avoiding their becoming a danger to the State. They would succeed far better in that direction than by trying to settle the people themselves. So far as the Cape was concerned, irrigation was the only way by which they could increase the productivity, for they were not so fortunate as the Transvaal, where they had a good rainfall and a good alluvial soil. As a matter of fact, he thought the Government were doing very well in their endeavours to settle people on the land. There were enormous works going on which were more or less aided by the Government, and in that way the Government could continue to do a great deal to get people on to the land. To do it themselves, however, would be too costly. Dealing with references made to New Zealand, there was no comparison between it and South Africa. South Africa was a peculiar country, and it had to work out its own salvation. At first he did not agree with the hon. member for Albany when he said that if the land were taxed it would become cheaper, but he found that the Indigency Commission took the same view. It would be a very serious thing if they lowered the value of the land, because their borrowed money was raised on it, and if they made the land too cheap they would have to pay off. He hoped the Government would not spend money in that direction, but rather indirectly encourage the landowners and farmers to employ people. After pointing out that out of 34 insolvencies last week 13 were of farmers, he said the difficulty was not to put people on the land, but to keep them there. He thought that the land tax was to meet their friends in the North, and it was only reasonable that the Government should try and meet them. Before they did that, however, the land tax should be equalised all over the Union. He was not against the land tax, but he thought it was a gross injustice to pick out certain citizens of the country because they were the possessors of a little more land than laid down by the Minister. He would point out to his hon. friends on that side of the House that if they adopted the principle of a land tax there was no reason why it should not be reduced to a £5,000 limit next year. Before the Government committed itself to this land tax scheme he thought a Commission or committee should investigate and find out how many people could live on the land in this country. In conclusion, Mr. Oosthuisen referred to the poor white problem. The people, he said, must be roused, and “We, the landowners, must take these people because they belong to us, because they are our own flesh and blood, and if we do not take them, what is to become of this country ”? It behoved the landowners to look after these people who must be shown that work was no shame. If the exodus from the land to the towns were allowed to continue and poor whites were permitted to come under bad influence, the House knew what the end of it would be.
said that in the opinion of some hon. members the effect of the imposition of a land tax would be the increased population of the country, and it was further argued that the tax would tend to increase the value of the farms. That was incorrect. The profit that the farmer was at present making on his capital did not exceed five per cent., and how, he asked, could he pay a tax as well?
Dear living was the result of the manner in which townspeople lived, because they wanted to buy everything through the medium of the trader. They neglected to go to the early morning market, and had the things brought to their houses, which made living dear.
The hon. member for Albany had shown them that he knew nothing about farming. Farming was not a business that could be run on paper, but an undertaking which required a good deal of capital.
He did not wish to attack the Minister of Lands for the manner in which the Scab Act had been applied, but still wished to make a few remarks with regard to the sheep expert. That person was allowed to farm with sheep, and in the speaker’s opinion that was a thing that ought to be objected to.
The hon. member for Barberton had brought his own taxation proposals before the House. The question of taxing the natives had been dealt with by the Prime Minister. The estate duties had been strongly opposed a couple of years ago by the country population, who did not wish to see them take the place of the succession duties. It would have very bad results if applied to the ostrich farming districts, and he intended to oppose it as long as he could.
He felt grateful to the Minister of Lands for the irrigation works which had been constructed at Douglas, though he thought that the Minister should have had bridges made in order to provide for the traffic that had been interrupted. As soon as the works were ready it should be their first thought to deal with the poor whites. Farmers would make a success of their work there, and would be able to grow produce in abundance. But they would not have a market available. A railway there was most necessary, and the line had been approved as far back as 1905.
Nothing had yet been done by way of irrigation along the Orange River. The Minister of Lands had admitted that the irrigation engineers had been devoting all their time to the Free State. The speaker had no objection to their working in the Free State, but thought that the other Provinces also ought to be given a chance.
During the recess he had discussed with the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs the question of a telephone to connect Belmont with Douglas. The proposal had been approved, but the Minister of Finance refused to grant the money. It was a wrong thing that the Minister of Finance should at the same time be Minister of Defence and Minister of the Interior, and the Prime Minister ought to make a change in that respect. The Minister of Finance cut down the expenditure of the Minister of Public Works, but who was going to cut down the expenditure of the Minister of Defence? It was necessary to have a Defence Force, but it was also desirable that the expenditure should be watched so that it should not be too high.
The speaker recently met the Minister of Railways and Harbours in the ladies’ waiting-room at Krankuil, and the Minister had stated that he did not want to improve the main lines, but preferred to build new ones. That was all right, but why were they spending so much money on renewing and relaying of lines?
How, he asked, had the Railway Board been created? Certainly, it acted in a most peculiar way. A railway doctor was wanted at Salt River, and a doctor who had been here for eleven years made application for the position, which, however, was given to a young doctor who had just arrived from Edinburgh. Railway doctors were appointed by subordinate clerks at the Cape Town railway station. He complained that the Minister had declined to interfere in the action of the sick fund committee, and that such refusal was unsatisfactory. The Minister ought, in the speaker’s opinion, to have gone into the matter, and to have appointed a doctor as a member of the committee.
They had spent £22,000 on the waterworks at De Aar, and yet there was not sufficient water. The railways were using most of the water, though if they put down their own additional wells there would be water in plenty. That would put an end to the water troubles at De Aar.
said they had reason to be satisfied with the speeches which had been delivered by the two Ministers. Perhaps, however, the country would not be so well satisfied with the deficit which they had got to provide for. The Minister of Railways and Harbours was in a better position than the other Minister, and was no longer bothered by the Minister of Finance for contributions to cover deficits.
The Minister of Finance now wished to provide for the expected deficit for the current year by the imposition of new taxes. The Railway Department was also short, owing to the reduction of railway rates, and to the increases in the amounts paid in the form of salaries and wages. He did not approve of the proposals which the Minister of Finance had laid before the House. He opposed them on principle, because he was a Protectionist. He felt that the Government could get all the money they wanted by increasing the Customs dues.
It was true the Minister of Finance was proposing an increase in the tariff, but he was not in favour of abolishing Imperial preference, and the public would in consequence have to suffer. Their imports amounted to £41,000,000, and if they put a duty on that of 1½ per cent. they would get a revenue of £600,000. With the produce of the bewaarplaatsen, and with reasonable economies the deficit ought to be covered.
The Dutch population maintained its position owing to their ownership of the land. If they lost that there would be a good many more poor whites, and he feared that the land tax would lead to loss of land.
Without protection, colonisation was in his opinion not possible. They must also take care that there were markets for the farmers. What, he asked, was South Africa before the discovery of the goldfields? It would be necessary to apply protection at the coast.
It would be a thousand pities if the potteries industry were to be allowed to perish owing to the lack of protection. They were already exporting all their minerals. It was quite possible to establish a diamond polishing industry in South Africa, so that the young people here could be trained in that work. Almost all their wool was being exported. Why was it not manufactured here? The wool factory at Ceres provided them with excellent blankets, and he thought that more ought to be done generally in order to afford protection to industries.
With regard to the question of land settlement, if they did not devote their attention first to providing markets, all their efforts were likely to be failures. They should follow the example of America. Protection was the right policy to follow, otherwise South Africa would never become what they would all so much like to see it.
It had been stated that the Government were spending too much money on Civil Servants, but he could not agree to that. Economy had been practised in some of the departments, for instance, in that of agriculture, where they had saved about £13,000. He was rather sorry for that, because it was exactly that department where more officials were required. Farming education required a larger and larger staff, and, therefore, more money. An institute such as that at Elsenburg was of the greatest value for the country.
The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had attacked the Government for what he alleged was excessive expenditure. Well, it was easy to talk like that, but very difficult to do anything in the direction that the hon. member wanted. The Ministers were all in favour of economy, but the fact was that from all sides they were receiving demands for more police, more magistrates, more justices of the peace, and more teachers. How in face of that were the Government to economise? It was not a bit of use saying that there were too many officials, or that their salaries were too high. Were the judges being paid too much? Whose blame was that? It was certainly not the fault of the Government. The Government had reduced the salaries of Ministers during the current year by £500 each, they were less in number, and they received collectively less than the total number of Ministers before Union.
He could not understand the amendment which had been proposed by the hon. member for Uitenhage, and the hon. member in question seemed to have no confidence in the Government. The speaker hoped that the Government would be able to appoint some more veterinary surgeons, as there were at least a dozen more required. They had to fight a number of different cattle diseases. They also wanted more engineers in connection with the irrigation schemes. He hoped also that the Government would be able to devote its attention to the railway line from Avontuur to Doorn River, and he would further like to see a direct railway connection between Port Elizabeth and Cape Town. There should also be a duty on spokes and made wheels, as there was sufficient wood here to manufacture those articles, in place of the 15 per cent. advalorem tax which was at present levied. In accordance with the regulations of the new Forest Act woodcutters were being saved about £800, owing to the trees being sold out of hand instead of by public auction. He was very pleased to see that, and he felt that he could not omit to point out the good things that the Government had done. There was always such a lot of complaining and pointing out of mistakes, that they forgot the good things that the Government was doing. (Hear, hear.)
Business was suspended at 6 p.m.
Business was resumed at 8 p.m.
who rose amid cheers, said he was sure he had the sympathy of the House in the difficulty with which he was confronted in having to reply to a debate which had lasted for many weeks—(hear, hear)—and in which he believed about 70 hon. members of that House had taken part, and in which every imaginable subject important or unimportant had been gone into and discussed. (Hear, hear.) He hoped hon. members would forgive him if he entered his protest against the procedure which was gradually being adopted in these Budget debates. He felt very strongly on that question. There was a tendency more and more for the Budget debate, which should be concerned with financial matters and matters of large policy in connection with the finances, gradually to degenerate into a sort of medley of all possible subjects, and the result was that people got weary and hon. members got tired, and the Press became pessimistic, and, in the end, it became impossible to muster up any sort of interest in the proceedings connected with the debate. He hoped it would be possible in future years to return to the original idea of the Budget debate—(hear, hear)—a discussion in which the financial problems of the country were discussed and questions of large policy which bore on the finances of the country were dealt with; but if this sort of debate continued he could only see that they should pass another rule making it necessary for members only to deal with the finances of the country in a Budget debate. Then, also, there was a tendency in that House, in the Budget debates, to speak at too great length. Perhaps he was a sinner himself; but he had taken some trouble to refer to the time reports of the debates in the House of Commons in the “Times,” and compared them with the speeches made in that House, and hon. members would be surprised to find that the length to which ordinary members of that House (the Union House) vented their eloquence was far beyond the limits of what was allowed and what took place in the House of Commons.
In that debate he did not think that hon. members who had a great message to deliver to the House had done it in less than an hour, an hour and a half, on two hours. Some latitude might he allowed to Ministers because of the importance of their positions, and because they were supposed to refer to so many topics, but the ordinary member should limit his speech, otherwise the rule passed during that session would have to be supplemented by another rule. The Budget debate this time had covered a large number of subjects. He would confine himself to the financial problems. First he would come to the speech of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, took, on that occasion, the same line as he took the previous year. Last year he took the three years before Union and the three years after Union, and by comparing the total figures showed how the general expenditure and the expenditure on railway administration had run up during those six years. On this occasion he had the comparative summary of the expenditure on the general public service from 1904 to the present time, and he based his argument on this statement, on the financial experience of those ten years, to show that he was right last year, and that the expenditure of the country had been mounting up at a tremendous rate. He thought he was dealing fairly with the hon. member when he made the issue this: Whilst since Union expenditure had been increasing at a fairly rapid rate, the principal revenue producing asset of this country was of a wasting character, and, therefore, in the ordinary course of things they must only expect to move towards some catastrophe of capitalism. To prove that he went into the retrenchment carried out from 1904 to 1909 and showed that during that period Governments were economical in the Union, and especially in the old Cape Colony there had been an enormous reduction of the expenditure.
He said that during that period from 1904 to 1909 the two Governments, who were in powder in the Cape, reduced the expenditure by over four millions per annum. He went on to show that these reductions in the expenditure of the country had been neutralised by a great rise in the expenditure since Union, so that the more than four millions which had been reduced had been made up by increases of expenditure since Union. In order to gauge the value of that argument he (the speaker) went into the question of the reductions in expenditure, which were effected prior to Union, in order to see what these reductions were, and whether they would be justified by the circumstances of the country in the year that had followed Union. He had a summary of those figures before him. He found that the reduction in the railway expenditure during that period amounted to two and a half million. That was not savings effected. That was only expenditure deferred because the railways of the Cape were brought into line at the end of that period, and just prior to Union it became necessary to reverse entirely the policy which had been carried on, and to spend after Union the so-called savings prior to Union. Hon. members knew the position of the railway system of the Cape at Union. (Hear, hear.) The permanent way was neglected and was in a dangerous condition.
Where?
Hon. members know. Relaying had to be done almost on an extravagant scale.
Why?
That was due to the permanent way getting into such a bad state of repair prior to Union
Have there been more accidents?
I am glad that the public did not see the report of the railway engineers as to the state of the permanent way in the Cape Colony, and that state of affairs was only remedied by practically spending the money that had been saved on the railway.
Continuing, he said that hon. members asked why this expenditure, and why this relaying? If they went into the expert reports of the engineers they would find that the railway lapsed into such a condition that it was absolutely necessary to reverse the whole policy and spend this money. This was given as an example which they ought to follow. He was afraid that if they followed that example there would be a very dire state of affairs. The next saving, on police and defence, amounted to £600,000. He would like to know from hon. members were they to copy this also? If there was one cry that came from all parts of the country, and which had been repeatedly heard in that House, it was that the country was under policed (Hear, hear.) From every part of the country, and this notwithstanding the fact that since Union they had made up all these retrenchments and reductions which had been effected prior to Union, came the cry. Reductions had been restored, police increased in fairly large numbers, and yet there came that cry from every part, that the country was under policed, and that crime was on the increase, and that there were not sufficient officers to safeguard places in the country. He would take the next item, which was public works, and included roads, buildings and bridges, on which there was a saving of £670,000. Of course, this had to be made good since. Everybody knew that. If the hon. member looked at the increases since Union he would find that they were simply services deferred. School buildings had had to be put up all over.
interjected a remark.
Oh, no, no, no. The hon. member must not interrupt.
said he did not want to labour the point. There was a saving of £200,000 on posts and telegraphs. Hon. members knew that if there was one service that was continually extending in that country, and which should extend, because it was revenue-producing, it was posts and telegraphs. Surely they were not asked to retrench in regard to posts and telegraphs? It would hit the country very hard, and it would serve no object. Then there was a reduction on forestry, irrigation and agriculture of £100,000. Was that a policy which they should be called upon to follow?
It was done in a more effective manner.
said he could assure the House that the work done, so far as forestry, irrigation and agriculture were concerned, vastly exceeded in importance what was done prior to Union. He did not think any hon. member would dispute that. One of the warmest debates had been in relation to salaries of teachers, which, in the opinion of many hon. members, had not reached the level they should. (Cheers.) These various reductions amounted to £4,287,000, and we had to recover this lost ground.
Was there anything in the state of the country since Union to justify an application of a policy like this? Since 1909 the external trade had increased from 78 millions to 109 millions. Figures like that showed a very large expansion had been going on in the development of South Africa, and how it was possible to keep the administration down by sheer force in the way the hon. member proposed passed his (General Smuts’) comprehension. If they looked again at the internal trade, as reflected by the railways, they would see that there had been a very large expansion. He did not think there was anything in the state of the country to justify the application of a policy such as was proposed here before Union. When we got Union the country was at a deadlock. Here in the old Cape Colony they had to cut to the bone, and that policy of retrenchment was carried on, not only in the Cape, but in the other three colonies. Ever since Responsible Government was granted to the Transvaal a policy of retrenchment was carried through very drastically; the same policy was carried out in the Free State and Natal, and when Union came every hon. member would agree with him that the country was, as regards its public service and requirements, at bedrock. Then after Union we had this expansion. We had a time of prosperity, which might have reached its zenith just now, and surely the public service had to reflect this enormous change. His hon. friend said that one of the main arguments that was used at the time of Union was that Union would mean economy. Well, of course, that argument was used, and it was perfectly correct, because everyone could understand that in the abstract it was cheaper and more economical to run South Africa under one Government and Administration than under four separate Governments and Administrations. It must be so in the nature of things, but it was impossible after Union to remain on the bedrock in which Union found South Africa, and the developments which had taken place since had had the result of increasing public expenditure, and that could not be avoided. So that the argument that it would be more economical to run South Africa under one Government was really not misleading. Supposing there had been no Union and that we had today four different colonies and Administrations, what would the expenditure upon the public service be? (Cheers.) That would be a proper comparison.
Much less.
That is a hypothetical argument. Every colony would have repaired the losses, retrenchments and reductions it had made in time of great stress and trouble. The depression which preceded Union, went on General Smuts, had been one of the greatest blessings in disguise we had ever had But for that great depression and the fear which it induced in the minds of certain public men in this country we would never have seen Union. These years brought this great good to South Africa.
As he explained in his Budget statement, we could not remain where we were—there was this enormous expansion going on. There was the Post Office growing in expenditure and also in revenue. We had to make up this lost leeway incurred before Union, and in addition we had to make certain new departures in regard to irrigation and so on. These new factors must be taken into consideration in making a comparison between the years preceding Union and the years following Union. But he did not wish to be understood as arguing in the least against the principle of economy. He most strongly believed that economy in the public administration was one of the first things we ought to strive for. (Hear, hear.) But whilst laying that down in the abstract we must at the same time bear in mind the modifying facts in relation to the circumstances of the country. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) A principle of economy improperly applied might be one of the worst services they could do to South Africa but the principle was perfectly sound. His trouble had been that he had found the principle urged only in the abstract in Budget debates, but when they came to the facts they heard quite a different story. Hon. members had been most eloquent in the House on the necessity of economy, but those same members were found at his office. (Loud laughter.) He was not going to mention names. (Renewed laughter.)
The gentlemen sitting behind you.
The public is entitled to know that this is a fact. (Laughter.) I am urged to increase the salaries of magistrates, police and to do other little things which I know are necessary. One has to bear in mind the full facts of the case. Continuing, General Smuts said the hon. member for Victoria West used a somewhat different argument. He stated that at any rate the expenditure showed too rapid an increase on the figures of last year. (Hear, hear.) The actual expenditure last year was £16,481,000, and he said that from this expenditure they had to deduct the extraordinary expenditure due to strikes, amounting to about £300,000, and if they did that they would see a difference between the actual ordinary expenditure of last year and the estimated expenditure for this year of £637,000. That was quite correct. The right hon. member’s main argument was that this year the increase in expenditure was too large. He (General Smuts) wanted to meet that position also. He had estimated for a saving in regard to this estimated expenditure of £150,000. He had been taken to task for budgeting so badly. It was quite inevitable, however, when you had a large total that there would be savings on the large votes and they might estimate as carefully as they could but they could not get over that difficulty. Last year, however, he made a suggestion which would have got over that difficulty. He proposed in regard to large votes like those for Prisons and Police that they should make a saving at the end of that vote. Men died or disappeared and they could not be replaced immediately, and in that way it was known that the whole of the vote could not be spent, but there were difficulties in the way and his proposal was ruled out of order.
They had to estimate as carefully as possible, but, however carefully they estimated, they would find that on these large votes savings would be effected, in any case. They estimated that the saving would be £150,000 this year. It might be more. He would only say, in reference to the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, that he took this amendment in the larger sense, and, although he dared say the Estimates would not go back to the Government for reconsideration on this particular occasion as a result of this debate, yet they would go back to the Government for the whole of this financial year, to be reconsidered carefully in every detail from day to day and from month to month, to see what savings could be effected on these votes, so that the hon. member’s laudable intention would be carried out. (Laughter.) After this explanation, the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, perhaps would feel inclined to withdraw his amendment. (Renewed laughter.) From this apparent increased expenditure which had been referred to, they had to deduct this anticipated saving, so that they would be left with about £487,000, which he had to explain. Now a very large part of this increase undoubtedly was due to defence, £284,000. He knew there were many hon. members in this House who felt uneasy about this matter. They feared that, perhaps, the matter had been overdone, and that it might be necessary to forego some of the expansions in the Defence Department.
Let him just call the attention of hon. members to what he said two years ago, when the Defence Act was passed, as to the probable increase of expenditure which would eventually result from that Act. He then stated that the probable increase to the Defence vote of the country as a result of the new system would be about half a million. He wished to point out to hon. members that even now he was well within the half-million which he then stated to the House. The development of defence had been very considerably retarded last year. But for the strike, which absorbed a lot of that vote, there would have been a very large saving in connection with the Defence vote. They had taken over part of the police of the country, which had been embodied in the S.A. Mounted Riflemen, and they found very great difficulty last year in getting recruits for this force. The result was that they failed to get the recruits for the S.A. Mounted Riflemen who were absolutely necessary, and they were working shorthanded by about 500 or 600 men the whole of last year. That led to an apparent saving of almost £100,000. Then there were a number of other developments in connection with the Defence Department which it was impossible to carry out. There was now this large increase, not on the estimated expenditure of last year, but on the actual expenditure. As he had stated, he was still well within the figure which he mentioned to the House two years ago as the probable limit to which, they would go.
There had been a good deal of criticism in this House, he might say, against the dual position which he occupied as Minister of Finance and Minister of Defence at the same time. (Hear, hear.) Apparently that was a perfectly sound criticism, and, if he were in ignorance of the real facts, he would himself be first to urge that criticism. (Laughter.) If he might be permitted to say so, he thought that the country had to a large extent gained from his occupying these positions. (Renewed laughter.) There was no doubt, as hon. members who were connected with large businesses would know, that new developments were inclined to be expensive and on an extravagant scale, but his experience and his knowledge of defence matters had been such that he had, with all this special information at his disposal in his capacity as Minister of Finance, been a check on the Minister of Defence. (Laughter.) If hon. members wished to hear the real truth about the matter, they should take the evidence of the Commandant-General, the secretary of the Defence Department, and of the Inspector-General, to find out what a check he had been on expenditure in that Department, simply because of his special knowledge. Many things which the Minister of Finance would have been obliged to pass in the ordinary course when put before him he had been able to veto because of the positions that he held. The hon. member for Uitenhage, after a strong attack upon him, had put on the paper a blocking motion which prevented him from discussing the matter further.
The Minister of Finance went on to say that there were several other increases which, he thought, he might for a moment refer to. The greatest was in regard to Defence—as he had explained. A great increase of expenditure for last year was in connection with the Provincial Administrations. They had an increase there of £115,000. He had heard a great deal of criticism in this House against the Provincial system and the lavish expenditure of the Provincial authorities. He did not agree that that criticism was well-founded. He was sure that, but for the Financial Relations Act and the provision that these people had to find for themselves £ for £, the Union Exchequer would have been called upon to a much larger extent than it had been.
Of course it would.
So that the Financial Relations Act, which has come in for a good deal of criticism on this occasion, has really effected an improvement, and I am sure that the fact that the Administrators and their Committees have now to find to a large extent their own financial means has operated as a very considerable check upon expenditure in the Provinces.
Proceeding, the Minister of Finance said that he very much regretted a remark which fell from the hon. member for Uitenhage when he referred to the “slipshod finance”—he thought that was the term used—of the Administrator of the Cape Province. He (General Smuts) thought there was nothing to justify that remark. (Ministerial cheers.) There seemed to be a tendency of certain gentlemen, hon. members of this House, to gird at the Administrator of the Cape Province—(hear, hear)—and he thought it was due to one of our most capable public servants to recognise that be had been doing his duty very well under very difficult circumstances and to say that his work should not be referred to in such terms by hon. members in this House. The Administrator had stated that there might be, as a contingency in his Budget, a deficit of £75,000 if the rate of increase of children attending school were maintained. (“No.”) He (the Administrator) took it that it was most improbable that that rate would be maintained and that, therefore, this deficit of £75,000 was improbable, and need not be provided for. That was what the hon. member for Uitenhage referred to when he spoke of “slipshod finance.” He (Gen. Smuts) thought that was unfair and that it was due to the Administrator of the Cape that he should be protected in this House against such observations. Now the next item of increase was public debt, £100,000. That they could not reduce. The next item of increase was police, £63,000. Let him tell hon. members how this increase was arrived at. He went over the reports of the Commissioner of Police with that officer for the whole Union. They had the reports from the various districts. They went through the whole list of recommendations by the subordinate officers. They weeded out this list and finally arrived at what seemed to them to be the necessary increase. After having rejected what they thought unnecessary demands they came to a figure of necessary increase of about £120,000 or £125,000. That was the necessary increase, and that necessary increase they halved, and they put on the Estimates only this figure of £63,000.
He would tell hon. members that the increase of the amount in regard to police was not a matter which had been put on the Estimates simply because the Police Department had asked for it, it had been checked in every detail and only where it had been justified had that increase been put on. If there was one circumstance clearly standing out from the events of last year it was this: that the police force in the country, not only in the rural districts, but also in the large industrial centres, had to be increased in order to maintain law and order. (Hear, hear.) Then the next increase was posts and telegraphs, £55,000, but that was in connection with a revenue producing department, and the revenue would be in correspondence with it. Then he came to asylums, and as a result of increased State activities there were more people in the asylums—(laughter)—and he might mention one sad fact, which was that in that country half the lepers were still at large, and were not in asylums—mostly natives, of course, and in the native areas—and that showed there was a great deal of work still to be done, and as a result of police activities and the humane side of public work, they found that increased asylum accommodation was necessary. They must not cavil at that, and he was sure that that increase was justifiable. The last increase was in connection with irrigation, and the Irrigation Department, in connection with its activities, and a large increase in the scope of its work, which would entail increased expenditure. These increases which he had mentioned totalled £350,000, apart from Defence.
What about prisons?
said that that was on the same footing as the asylums, and there was no doubt that owing to more activity on the part of the police and better work being done, more people were taken to gaol. (Laughter.) He thought that still more people ought to be brought into gaol. (Continued laughter.)
Martial law!
No, no, I hope we shall never see Martial Law again in this country, and if hon. members on the cross-benches behave as they have behaved for the last two months I don’t think we shall see Martial Law again in this country. (Laughter.) Proceeding, he said that, of course, there were new departures in regard to reformatories, industrial schools, and so on, which, his hon. friends would see, were responsible for that fresh expenditure. However, he hoped that his hon. friend the Minister of Justice who, he knew, was working like a Titan in his department, would take some steps to see that reductions were made where possible. He was sure they were now putting people into gaol who were not really criminals. (Laughter.) There was a tendency nowadays to overwhelm the public with penalties. (Hear, hear.) People were sent to gaol perhaps when an offence had been committed for which a money payment should have atoned, and he hoped his hon. friend the Minister of Justice would so amend the criminal law that session still—if hon. members would assist him—so that it might be possible to keep these people out of gaol and give them the option of paying a fine and time to pay their fine. (Hear, hear.) He thought the House would agree with him that they were justified in that increased expenditure which he had referred to. He was sure the Estimates had been sifted very carefully; of course, they could be sifted still more carefully in actual practice, and he promised the House that that would be done. The hon. member for George (Mr. Currey) had urged that they could avoid that increased taxation which was proposed by cutting down 4½ per cent. or 5 per cent. all round. Well, of course, it was very difficult to do that.
He quite admitted that there were occasions such as they had before Union, where the State was justified in Cutting down to the bone, but he did not think they had; reached that occasion now, and the application of a policy such as his hon. friend had urged would be accompanied by hardships, not only to the public services, concerned, but also to the public. Let them take the police, the prisons, and the posts and telegraphs, which accounted for about 70 per cent. of the personnel of the service, not counting the railway service. Therefore, if they should apply their principle of cutting down by 4½ per cent. and apply that to the 23,000 men in the police, prison service, and Posts and Telegraph Department, they had at once very seriously to curtail their postal, police, and prison services; and he did not think that the time had come for them to deal on that basis with the public services. Nothing had happened to justify such a policy. That being so, nothing was left but to consider these financial proposals on their merits. The hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hull) had produced an alternative Budget. The hon. member was a cautious man, as a rule, but that time, he thought, his caution had forsaken him, and now he had exposed himself to the same sort of attack to which he (General Smuts) had exposed himself by introducing that Budget. The hon. Minister next made some reference to the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Fichardt), which was inaudible in the Press Gallery. Proceeding, he said that his hon. friend had said that he had underestimated revenue. It had been curious to him (General Smuts) to notice what the views of hon. members were on both sides of the House on the question as to whether he had been optimistic or pessimistic in his Estimates. On the other side of the House he had been criticised for being optimistic, and on his side of the House he had been uniformly criticised for being too pessimistic, except by the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Vintcent); and the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Fremantle) had been very strong on that point. A more perplexing situation than they were facing at present would be difficult to conceive, and under those circumstances he had budgeted for the revenue he had done, but he agreed that there were very strong arguments on both sides of the House. (Laughter.)
There was a great deal to be said for the view that there were symptoms that his Estimates of revenue might not be realised. On the whole, however, he thought that probably he was correct. His hon. friend in his alternative Budget had been more hopeful. On the question of native taxation he (Mr. Hull) had been very strong that they should equalise that before they came to other sources of taxation. He (General Smuts) did not want to repeat the arguments which had been used by the Prime Minister, and which were very cogent, as to the impolicy of doing what had been suggested. One did not know what was moving in the native mind, but there were indications which were disquieting. A system of taxation which however fair and equitable, meant a disquieting effect on the native would not have been politic at all. His hon. friend had been running a very grave risk in his proposal and had said that the native individual, on the average, now paid 1s. 3d. in the Cape. If the mistake in the hon. member’s addition had not been made, the new tax would have been 5s., and not 4s. That would have had a most serious effect. He agreed with the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Mentz) that it was very impolitic also when they had a deficit in that country, and the wind had to be raised, that they should fall back on the natives, who were not properly represented in the House. Then his hon. friend had suggested an estate duty, where he was to a large extent at one with him. That was one of the taxes which could be equalised in that country, and the estate duty of the Transvaal did not work well with the others, and it would have been far better to have the system which the hon. member had almost carried through in his day. He (General Smuts) had considered the matter carefully, and had come to the conclusion, after due consideration, that it was far better to tax incomes than capital. (Hear, hear.) The time might be coming when it would be necessary to tax capital—he hoped it was not too near, and an estate duty, of course, was taxing capital. He thought, however, it was better to tax large incomes than to tax capital, and that was why he had postponed the estate duty; and it might be that his hon. friend (Mr. Hull), in happier times, might be able to carry his proposals. (Laughter.) Then there was the curious way in which his hon. friend had proposed to deal with the deficit. For them in these days of peace and quiet and prosperity he had suggested that they should borrow money to pay their deficit with. He thought that would be a terrible thing to do. He need not go into the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Boshof. The South Africa Act said for what the railways would be responsible, and to carry out the suggestion of the hon. member for Barberton it would be necessary to reverse the policy laid down in the South Africa Act to call for a further contribution from the railways. Proceeding, the hon. Minister said he did not think those suggestions were a possible alternative. The time for expedients and makeshifts was passed. If they were to deal with their financial system, let them deal with it properly. It would not do to go on juggling from year to year. That second or unauthorised Budget did not find favour. So the hon. member for Uitenhage came forward with his proposals of despair—to lock up the experts of the House for a week. (Laughter.) Like other hon. members of that House, he (the Minister of Finance) had a great respect and veneration for the financial pundit; but on that matter they had already tried him and found him wanting. It was unnecessary to refer him (the Minister) to the practice of the old Republics. He knew enough of the practice of one of them, and his experience was that committees were not of much use in connection with the finance of the country. They had had their committees for over three years in connection with that Parliament, and what was the result? The Public Accounts Committee, which called itself the strongest committee of that House, had dealt with the Budget three years. What were their recommendations? In 1911-12 they recommended reduction of the expenditure to the amount of £750. (Laughter.) In 1913-14 the recommendation was for a reduction of £3,250, and the next year, 1913-14, they recommended a total reduction of £1,600.
But the Government had the majority.
said he did not think hon. members were justified in expecting any good from deliberations of a committee. He was sure that there would be much wisdom exchanged, but the suggestions which came before the House would be of very small value indeed, and therefore he did not think they need trouble themselves very much regarding that proposal.
Another way had been suggested of dealing with that question by the hon. member for Victoria West, who said, “Why did he not deal with the preference? That would mean five or six hundred thousand pounds per annum. Why not withdraw that from the rich merchants and use it for the debts?” He Minister) did not think there were many people in this country who thought that that arrangement which was come to many years ago was an ideal one. It was a one-sided arrangement. The expectation which was originally formed that reciprocity would be established had not been realised—(hear, hear) and the result was that many thinking people in this country had come to the conclusion that it was not a good system.
But it existed, and had been in existence for some years; it was one question to start something which was inadvisable, and it was quite a different matter, once having established it, to pull it to pieces again. He thought hon. members would agree with him that, if preference was to go, it should go after full deliberation through the machinery which had been devised for dealing with matters of that kind. There was an Imperial Conference which meets every four years to discuss matters of that kind, and before any action was taken in South Africa, they should await discussion in the Imperial Conference, though it was not necessary for them to be bound by any decision come to. That was the proper course to adopt, and he would be sorry to see any other course adopted. If a change was to be made in regard to that matter it should be connected with another matter, that of Naval defence. It was rather when they came to the question of Naval defence that they should go into that question of preference, and it would be a mistake to reverse that policy at the present time simply to supply their financial deficiency.
The hon. member for Rustenburg had also made a suggestion that diamonds should be taxed. The hon. member would not have made that suggestion if he knew how delicate the diamond position was today.
Do not be so pessimistic.
said he was not pessimistic at all regarding the matter, but he was speaking from a knowledge of the facts. Hon. members knew that even at the present time a conference was about to meet in London, which was being attended by the principal diamond producers of the Union and of German West Africa, to deliberate and see whether it was not possible to affect some stability in the price of diamonds. A very serious fall had recently taken place, and if some means were not devised to stop what was an apparent tendency, they might soon find themselves in great difficulties. He was very much afraid that if they were to adopt the advice of the hon. member for Rustenburg they would be finding themselves very much regretting their action. They had a considerable revenue as part owners and from taxation in respect of diamonds, and they should leave that matter alone altogether.
Proceeding, the hon. Minister said he had dealt with the question of expenditure, and now he came to the other side of the argument of his hon. friend, that the principal revenue-producing asset in this country was of a wasting character. There was a great deal of force in that argument, but they must appreciate it properly before they could understand each other. That argument had been used constantly, and was doing no good to this country. (Cheers.) It was one of the effects which hampered the development of this country. (Hear, hear.) It was not perfectly correct. Reservations had to be made. He mentioned that to show that there was another side to the question. Hon. members would remember last year that the hon. member for Yeoville, as the principal representative of the mining industry in that House, said that the mining industry would continue to flourish well into the next century. He (the Minister) was astonished some months ago by a statement made in London regarding some evidence produced before the Economic Commission that the mining industry would continue on the present basis but a short number of years—five or six years—and by 1950 it would have gone down to the extent of a half. That was a shock to most people, especially to himself and to hon. members of that House. But his astonishment was very great when he saw in the London financial papers that that statement was called into question by the mining houses themselves. This statement was supposed to be evidence given on their behalf before the Economic Commission for a certain purpose, but as soon as they saw the effect in the money market they made reservations.
The facts were briefly these—that that evidence which was given before the Economic Commission referred only to the present producing mines and did not refer to very large areas which were not being worked. The future of the mining industry was largely on the East Rand, where there were very large areas which were a continuation of the main reef series. Those areas belonged very largely to the State, he believed four-fifths belonged to the State. If they bad belonged to private people companies would have been formed to work mines, but they belonged to the State, and the State had laid down terms and conditions as to the working of those areas, and it claimed a very large percentage from them. If those conditions were too onerous nobody would be likely to come forward to develop them. There were thousands of other claims further east. Hon. members would understand that the day would come when those areas would be worked.
When?
Well, they are on the main reef. In time to come, be continued, those areas would be worked and the State would get from them more than they got from the present producing mines. All that had to be taken into consideration when people speculated as to the life of the mines. The evidence that had been given before the Economic Commission referred only to the present producing mines, and he did not view the prospect of the mining industry with alarm. (Cheers.) He was sure that the areas he had referred to would be worked in the future—he hoped it would be possible to make a start in time to overtake the wastage that would be going on in the producing mines. All that talk about wasting assets led to some evil results. (Hear, hear.) It had been said by several members that as they had 2½ millions of revenue from the mines, and that as the mines were a wasting asset, they should put that money into a consolidated revenue fund in order that they might establish other assets. In the abstract that looked very fine, but the Finance Minister had other troubles to deal with. They saw by the South Africa Act how necessary it was to cease to use the railways as a revenue producing machine. What would be the result, then, if they carried out that brilliant idea of the hon. member. Supposing the 2½ millions went into a developing fund, and they carried out the brilliant ideas of the hon. member for Potchefstroom, another three millions would be taken out of ordinary revenue for which taxation would have to be imposed.
What about economy?
As I have said, if the hon. member’s brilliant suggestions are given effect to you must be prepared for fresh taxation. I do not think those ideas would work out in practice. Proceeding, he said that the rate at which they were redeeming their debt was unprecedented during the years that they were borrowing. The hon. member for Uitenhage had quoted Canada; that country with a debt of seventy millions had a sinking fund of £270,000, South Africa with a debt of £125,000,000 had a sinking fund of £653,000, which comparatively was very much more than that of Canada. Again, it must be remembered that for some years Canada had had enormous surpluses which had permitted her to pay larger amounts for redemption. That was not the ordinary arrangement they had for the redemption of debt. He (General Smuts) had wanted to make a few remarks with regard to the new taxation proposals which had been so much criticised in that House, but he thought he would reserve them till a later stage.
You will have an easier time then.
said he did not think he would trouble the House any longer. With regard to the amendments there was the amendment of the hon. member for George Town, which appeared every year. He recalled the occasion when the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell) had had to explain why the July strike had failed. He (General Smuts) had then been interested to see how the Government was making some diabolical plot to send the natives away from the mines, and they had been assured that if they did so it would result in more capitalism. What was then the value of the hon. member’s arguments with regard to native labour? He did think that the hon. member at that time was expressing his true mind. He must know that the finishing of the indentured labour system would bring about a cataclysm such as they had never seen on the Rand before. (Cheers.)
rose to reply amid cheers.
With leave of the House.
He hoped it would not be misconstrued when he said he thought that the small amount of criticism which had been levelled at the Railway Budget had been due to the soundness of the Railway Administration. Perhaps the outstanding criticism in the course of the whole debate had been, as in the case of the Budget of his hon. friend the Minister of Finance, the criticism that expenditure was increasing improperly, out of all proportion to the revenue, and that it was much too large. With regard to that matter there had been a good many points raised, and he thought the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was one who attacked him on this ground, also the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg and the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, drew attention to the number of men per 100 miles that they were employing on the railway. This was the view he took, if he (the Minister) was not mistaken, last year. It was a matter which ought to have undoubtedly the attention of that House and the country, and certainly it had the attention of the Railway Administration. His (the Minister’s) trouble was that while certain sections of the House pressed him for reductions, they knew perfectly well that the only way they could reduce expenditure was by reducing the number of the staff. There was no other way of substantially reducing expenditure, because salaries and wages were by far and away the bulk of the expenditure incurred by the Railway Administration. Let him get to business. Let him suggest that he would touch the hair of the head of a single man and what was the result? There were objections. These objections came not from one side of the House, but objections were raised from various quarters of the House, from hon. members who posed as financial economists and attacked him because their expenditure was too great, and yet, as soon as he tried to reduce expenditure he was met by that sort of argument which was used by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort to do what he did in the Cape by keeping on all the men and making an arrangement to pay them less. No solution could be found in that direction.
The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, pointed to their expenditure as having been increased by £517,000. That was quite true, but £217,000 was represented by an automatic increase given in salaries and wages to the staff according to the regulations framed under the Railways and Harbours Service Act. He did not grudge it.
It is long overdue.
said that left £300,000 over, and of that £262,000 was accounted for by an increased contribution to the depreciation fund, to which they had that year contributed much more than in any previous year before or during Union. That left £38,000 to meet the additional expenditure on new lines, additional traffic and so on. So it was not such a terrible thing as the hon. member made out. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg had alluded to their proportion of costs on the railway which he said had gone up to 74 per cent. and that it had been increased. He (the Minister) said that the cost of working the railways had not increased since 1909; on the contrary, it had decreased. He thought his hon. friend the member for Cape Town, Central had not studied the little green book which he had given him. If he had studied that book he would have found that the reason why the working expenditure had gone up since 1909 was that the railway expenditure was being charged with a number of special burdens which it had not had to bear before. It had sacrificed revenue to a considerable amount. There had been increased contributions to the depreciation fund of £726,000. The amount of £681,000 had gone in increments to the staff since Union, and the increased expenditure on relaying had amounted to £231,000. This was because the Act of Union forced on the railway working expenditure burdens which it had not to bear before. If they had not given away the revenue, if they had not contributed to this extent to the depreciation fund, if they had not been faced with the cost of relaying and regrading, the bulk of which was done on the Cape main line, the cost of the administrative machinery instead of having increased in cost had decreased. It had gone down, and if these special factors had been eliminated instead of the revenue having risen by only 8 per cent. it would have risen by 31 per cent. The amount of expenditure to earn £1 of revenue had been reduce from 10s. 9d. in 1909 to 10s. 8d., or broadly speaking, from 54 per cent. to 53 per cent.
Hon. members had failed to realise the full effect and true meaning of the figures set forth in the Green-book to which he had alluded. Some criticism was directed on what he had said with regard to depreciation. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort had called attention to the fact that he (Mr. Burton) had taken off £100,000 from the depreciation fund. But he (Mr. Burton) would not be at all surprised, in view of the fact that the Chief Mechanical Engineer thought that 25 years instead of 20 years should be taken as the life of rolling stock, if the amount for depreciation had not been reduced. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan) had expressed grave apprehension with regard to his “tinkering with depreciation.” The hon. member was quite right in theory, but the more the Government did in allowing for depreciation the less it would be able to do in regard to reduction of railway rates to the interior. They could not have it both ways. He knew his hon. friend was a stickler for the right thing, and he knew he would rather have depreciation set aside at its proper value than a single penny in reduction of rates. His hon. friend would like him to do both, but at present he (Mr. Burton) could not see his way to doing that. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg, North (Mr. Orr), had called attention to what he had called a most revolutionary change—the disappearance of our magnificent surplus. Of course it had disappeared; they could not help that; it was the fault of the Act of Union. The hon. member had suggested that more should be paid into the betterment fund, but they paid into that fund according to their means and according to the amount of their surplus revenue. If they had not money to apply to it they could not do so. It was not intended that betterment should be contributed to on a basis that would involve additional taxation for that purpose. The hon. member also went into the question of railway depreciation not taken into account before Union. He (Mr. Burton) would not go into that question now, but he would lay on the Table a statement showing what the position was. The statement showed an estimated shortage of approximately 4½ millions.
Then inevitably they came to their old friend the financial results on the working of the Cape lines, while their old friends the branch lines were brought in on every occasion. That matter was gone into very thoroughly last year, and he was not going to detain the House on the subject now. They all had a slight provincial tinge, even the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Laughter.) They could not help a certain amount of appreciation for their own Province, but he hoped he would not be regarded as being unduly provincial, for the time had come for them to look upon South Africa as a whole, and to regard the South African Railways as an institution affecting the whole country, and to regard the running of the railways, not from the point of view whether they would affect advantageously one part of the country or another. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the losses on the Cape lines, he would point out that the bulk of the traffic carried on the Cape main lines was very low-rated traffic. The Cape main lines had the smallest proportion of the whole of the Union of the high-rated traffic, which brought in such excellent profits on the other lines. The Cape Province supplied the Union with foodstuffs, such as grain, fruit, and cattle, on which the rates were extremely low, and the people who benefited by these low rates were the people who consumed the foodstuffs. There was another thing which should not be forgotten, and that was that, to some extent, the position on the Cape main lines was affected by the fact that there was a very much lighter and smaller type of engine used on the Cape lines than on the other lines, and that made an appreciable difference to the working costs, as it meant increased engine charges and so on. A large amount had been involved by relaying and regrading the Cape Western main line, this being necessary in order to put it on a proper level as compared with the rest of the Union. Nearly £100,000 had had to be spent on this work. The bulk of the additional interest was saddled practically on the Cape lines. The total amount of money contributed by the Cape Government prior to Union was a little over £5,000,000, and 3½ per cent. on that amounted to £183,000, which was placed as a burden on the working of the Cape lines. Taking all these matters into consideration, it would be found that the Cape lines, instead of having been run at a loss, were really run at a small profit. He might point out to the hon. member for Durban, Berea, that the earnings on the Cape lines since Union had increased by no less than £600,000.
He now came to the branch lines. They had heard the usual complaints from various parts as to the losses on the branch lines. They had been told by the hon. member for Kimberley that there had been an amount of no less than £300,000 loss on these branch lines. It was impossible to expect, taking the economic factor into account, that the branch lines could be made to pay in their first years. A very great authority on railway matters in England had recently written to him about the branch lines in France, stating that, from inquiries which had been made on the spot, it was shown that the gross value of their new traffic contributed to the main lines, which would not otherwise have been contributed, by the branch lines, amounted to 146 per cent. of the total receipts actually earned on those lines. That might seem paradoxical. The line between the Premier Mine and Pretoria, taken between those two points, did not pay, but it brought to the main line an immense volume of traffic, the full benefit of which was all enjoyed by the main line. The hon. member for Kimberley had complained about the cost of these lines. He would like to point out to the hon. member that, instead of doing as they did here, and charging the interest on the capital required for branch lines to loan fund, regarding them as capital and taking them out of loan, in many countries, and notably in India, the older lines not only paid the loss on the working of the new lines, but they were also made to pay the interest on the capital cost of those new lines while they were being constructed.
He would say one word to his hon. friend the member for Fordsburg with regard to this matter. He had stated that they had expended from £5,000 to £6,000 per mile on construction. He wished to tell the hon. member that that was not the case. It might have been so some years ago, but, at all events, in 1911 the average cost per mile was £4,700, and in his own Bill of last year the average was £3,400 per mile. Every effort had been made—and he hoped they could be able to save money even on those Estimates—to build these new lines at the cheapest figure, consistent with safety and efficiency. (Hear, hear.) Then again they tended, he thought, to saddle the branch lines with more than their fair share of cost. He thought they would find, on going into the matter, that there was imposed upon them more than their fair share of the gross expenses, and this was on a purely theoretical basis. General charges were put on the branch lines of all sorts. They were charged with a proportion of the General Manager’s Office expenses, this proportion being increased according as the receipts of the branch lines increased. Then there were the calculations of train mileage, which, he thought, also operated unfairly. He would take as an illustration the Sea Point line. The cost of the Sea Point line since 1911, i.e., the amount with which it was charged before it began to show any signs of profit, had increased since 1911, on permanent way by £1,300, traffic expenses by £1,500, general charges by £650, and the capital cost by £44,000. It had got to earn so much more in order to be able to show what it was doing. The House might be surprised to hear that not a single train or coach or locomotive had been employed on that line more than was employed in 1912 or 1913. There was no more expenditure actually on the line, but the fact remained that this was the system adopted by the department. Proceeding, Mr. Burton said he thought that the scale on which the branch lines made their contributions would also bear revision. As to what the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Duncan) had said about what the inland portions of the Union had to pay in regard to railway rates, he would like to say that many parts of the Cape Province were also inland parts of the Union, although that was sometimes overlooked. The hon. member referred to preferential rates. At this stage Mr. Burton was inaudible, and could not be followed in the Press Gallery. He was understood to say that if they began de novo, he thought they would all agree that the principle of preferential rates on the railways was not a sound one; but, without going into detail, he thought that if the South African farmer gave up preferential rates in favour of protection at the ports, he would rue that day. The policy of the Railway Administration had been to diminish them as far as they possibly could. It was difficult to see how they could get them off without injuring others. His hon. friend the hon. member for Fordsburg had asked, “who paid,” when he had referred to the more even distribution of the competitive traffic. There was no doubt that the distribution between the Union ports was still capable of adjustment. The hon. member for Durban. Berea (Mr. Henderson), he thought, would agree with him that the distribution was capable of adjustment when Natal should have 34 per cent. of that traffic, and the Cape ports only 14 per cent., but the hon. member for Fordsburg’s point had been that it was the inland people who had to pay, and he had said that the Delagoa Bay rates had been “loaded.” Since Union, however, the rates from Delagoa Bay had been substantially reduced. He had not loaded them; they had been reduced. The agreement had been made by his hon. friend, he thought, or, at any rate, by the Government of which he had been a member.
No.
Well, I thought it was. Proceeding, he said he believed it was right to say that they had not been increased in a single case. A redistribution had been made by making a still greater reduction from other ports. The position of his hon. friend was that he got his boots cheaper from Delagoa Bay than he got them before Union, and bad an opportunity of getting them still cheaper from the other ports— (laughter)—and under those circumstances, he did not think he could complain. As to the hon. member for Pretoria District, North (Sir T. M. Cullinan) he was evidently under the impression that at present they were taking their grain 300 miles further than was necessary, and that the right policy was that all flour for up-country should go from Port Elizabeth, and that the consumer would be in a better position in that case. The hon. member was mistaken in thinking that the grain did travel in the direction he said it did. Of all the quantities, carried from these ports forwarded to the Witwatersrand, imported grain was nil from Cape Town, flour and even bran was nil, from Port Elizabeth also nil, and 200 bags of imported flour. From East London nil, from Durban only 7.
said he knew that.
said he must have misunderstood the hon. member then. He thought that had been his point. The fact of the matter was, he continued, that all that stuff took the easiest and cheapest route, and went via Delagoa Bay. The figures showed as clearly as possible that the huge bulk of that grain did not travel over their route at all, but travelled over the Delagoa Bay line.
That is only for Johannesburg.
said that during 1913 there was imported into the Union, via the various ports, an average of 30 thousand tons of sugar, 9,000 tons were imported via Delagoa Bay, mostly Mozambique sugar, and it was not too much to expect that the sugar fields of South Africa would soon yield within a few tons of what the country required. The question of Indwe coal had been raised. That was a matter in which the Union Government was not responsible. For years and years the Cape Government agreed to take coal from these mines on such terms as to allow a population to grow up there, and it would have been wrong for him to have cut those things; seeing it was a matter that had gone on for years he thought it best to give them time to make their arrangements. There had been criticism from the cross-benches regarding the Budget. The first criticism connected with railway matters came from the hon. member for Roodepoort, who made an attack on the ground that justice had not been done to one railway official.
He has been reinstated now.
said he was glad that was so. Proceeding, he said that the hon. member had said that he had travelled on the railways for 16 years and had never been treated with disrespect or discourtesy by railway servants. He (the Minister) thought that the public had reason to be well satisfied—(hear, hear)—but the hon. member had evidently forgotten that he had a grievance on one occasion.
I said only once.
The hon. member had evidently had his memory refreshed. Proceeding, the hon. Minister said he had his attention called to a serious complaint made by the hon. member against one of the guards. It appeared that the guard had gone the length of putting his fingers to his nose, which was very wrong. (Laughter.) The hon. member was very much upset about that and had warned the Railway Administration that he was a trained boxer and it might have been worse for the guard if they had come to close quarters. (Laughter.) Regarding the criticisms of the hon. member for Durban, Greyville (Mr. Boydell), as to the time taken for rolling stock from oversea to be delivered in this country, the Minister was understood to say that the hon. member had not quite got the meaning of the report of the Board, which meant that the work was executed in quicker time than it took to get material to this country. In regard to a similar matter, he was amused when he heard the view taken by people connected with the same party as the hon. members on the cross-benches. He referred to the treatment of South African furniture by the Johannesburg Town Council.
Not made in South Africa.
Made in Cape Town. The Minister was surprised to hear from an hon. member that that was the same gentleman who had the casting vote of the Provincial Council. Mr. Day was the chairman of the special committee responsible for the recommendations about furniture. He eliminated South African articles on the ground that it had probably been made in Cape Town. Was not Cape Town then a part of the Union? Continuing, the Minister said he seemed to have heard the name of Mr. J. J. Ware. Mr. Ware was reported to have said that that furniture was not good enough for a second-hand fowlhouse. He said, “I did not say locally made furniture was not fit for a secondhand fowlhouse; I said the furniture was not locally made furniture, it was made at the coast.”
To a great extent that was necessary if they wished to bring contentment to the staff, but the country exactly understood the position.
Pay them properly.
(continuing) said that the matter had been referred to the Commission of Inquiry now sitting. The only economy which had been suggested by the Labour members was to increase expenditure—(hear, hear)—a serious thing which might have serious consequences. The Railway Administration had been charged with having gone out of its way in order to bring about the victimisation of its employees. Every sensible man must have expected that after a railway strike a certain number of men would not be employed.
The ringleaders?
Yes. Continuing, he said that the Labour members had said that victimisation had taken place. Let him at once say that he had infinitely more respect for the man who had gone out on strike and had burnt his boats than for the man who had persuaded him to do it. How could he allow a man who had counselled those men to go out on strike to re-join the railway service? He wished to say once more that if every time a railway servant was dismissed or retired from the service there was to be a debate in that House the administration of the railway service would become an impossibility. If there were anything unlawful or highly improper or wrong in the manner of discharging that man, then that matter should be ventilated, but certainly not a question merely of dismissal. He would give them a few instances of what had been described as victimisation. An hon. Labour member had raised the question of the dismissal of three firemen at Durban. He inquired into the causes of that and had found that five firemen were discharged—one man was discharged for being late on duty and drunk, the second for refusing duty and being drunk, and so on. Let him refer to another case of victimisation—the case of the man who had lost his eye and who instead of being reinstated had been discharged. It had been said that the administration had taken that opportunity of getting rid of his services. It was a fact about the Labour members that they had only to get at the facts to make their case crumble to pieces. The case of the man in question, a man named Kemp, was this —he received an injury to his eye in 1908; in 1909 he received £100 from the Government on the understanding that no further claim against the department would be entertained.
That is not the man at all.
I should like his name and address and I will secure the particulars.
There was the case of a shunter who was killed in the Pretoria yard. He (the Minister) sent the widow a cheque for about £400. The cheque was contemptuously returned by the Amalgamated Society of Railway and Harbour Servants as not being sufficient. The widow was advised to sue the Government for £3,000. The Court found against her, that the Government was not liable, and no doubt hon. members on the cross-benches would supply the £400.
On a point of order, sir.
Will the hon. member take his seat?
On a point of order, sir.
What is the point?
Is the hon. member in order in speaking at all?
I asked for the leave of the House. The hon. member will resume his seat.
We did not hear you then.
I am sorry that the hon. member is uncomfortable. (Laughter.) I am not going to torture him more than I can help. Continuing, he said that there were complaints that men were being victimised at Port Elizabeth, and that two checkers had been specially selected for victimisation. Their cases had not been disposed of; but he would point out that a number of men at that centre had been dealt with in the way of re-organisation in the course of the last few weeks. He defied anybody to say that it was possible to bring the four services into one and put it on a satisfactory basis without some reductions. They were only doing their duty to the country, though he would say that he did not like the task.
What about the 82?
I don’t know what the hon. member refers to.
The 82 victimised servants.
If the hon. member will give me the details I will go into those cases. (Laughter.) A man is victimised if you don’t find work for him. Men can gaily go on strike one day, but they are victimised if you don’t find work for them on the next.
What about Chapman?
then went on to refer to some remarks of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg with regard to the relations between the Administrator and the staff, and the terms on which the Administrator proposed to deal with the men’s Union. Hon. members knew the terms on which the Government proposed to deal with the Society. The terms which he communicated to Mr. Poutsma—the then secretary—remained to-day exactly what they were then. If the conditions, which were most reasonable and moderate were agreed to, then the Railway Department would recognise the Society.
He hoped that what he did would be accepted as being well and sincerely meant by the men. It was impossible for any Administration in welding together four different services into one united organic whole to do so without changing the organisation, in the course of which many redundant men must necessarily go. He had for some time past acted on this principle that the utmost endeavour should be made to try and meet the position by utilising the comparatively large amount of wastage which went on, but they could not use that altogether. For instance, if they appointed one man and retrenched ten there was a great outcry, but they could not help appointing new men. No service of the magnitude of the railways could remain elastic and efficient without making new appointments, but he had said that the new appointments must be kept down to the lowest possible limit consistent with efficiency. He was trying to carry that principle out, and he hoped that the task difficult and unpleasant enough as it was, would not be made more so by unfair criticism. There was no desire on his part to turn out a single man that need not be turned out, but the practice of retrenching redundant men was carried out by every business concern throughout the whole world. He hoped in future the policy which he had outlined, and which was being adopted as far as possible by the Administration would convince the railway men that the Administration was not its enemy, but was honestly endeavouring to place the relations between the officials and the men on a much more satisfactory basis. (Cheers.)
said that all the amendments would depend upon whether the words after “That ” in the original motion, as moved by the Minister of Finance, were omitted, and he would, therefore, put the question that all the words after “That,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.
The question was then put, and the “Ayes” were declared to have it.
called for a division, which was taken with the following result:
Ayes—57.
Alberts, Johannes Joachim
Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.
Bosman, Hendrik Johannes
Botha, Louis
Burton, Henry
Clayton, Walter Frederick
Cronje, Frederik Reinhardt
Cullinan, Thomas Major
Currey, Henry Latham
De Beer, Michiel Johannes
De Jager, Andries Lourens
De Waal, Hendrik
De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus
Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm
Geldenhuys, Lourens
Griffin, William Henry
Grobler, Evert Nicolaas
Heatlie, Charles Beeton
Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus
Kuhn, Pieter Gysbert
Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert
Leuchars, George
Louw, George Albertyn
Maasdorp, Gysbert Henry
Malan, Francois Stephanus
Marais, Johannes Henoch
Marais, Pieter Gerhardus
Meyer, Izaak Johannes
Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus
Neethling, Andrew Murray
Neser, Johannes Adriaan
Nicholson, Richard Granville
Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero
Orr, Thomas
Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael
Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik
Silburn, Percy Arthur
Smuts, Jan Christiaan
Smuts, Tobias
Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus
Steytler, George Louis
Theron, Hendrik Schalk
Theron, Petrus Jacobus George
Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.
Van der Walt, Jacobus
Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem
Van Heerden, Hercules Christian
Venter, Jan Abraham
Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus
Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius
Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus
Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus
Watt, Thomas
Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem
Wiltshire Henry
H. Mentz and H. C. Becker, tellers.
Noes—41.
Andrews, William Henry
Baxter, William Duncan
Blaine, George
Boydell, Thomas
Brown, Daniel Maclaren
Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy
Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page
Crewe, Charles Preston
Duncan, Patrick
Fichardt, Charles Gustav
Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen
Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel
Haggar, Charles Henry
Henderson, James
Henwood, Charlie
Hull, Henry Charles
Jagger, John William
Macaulay, Donald
MacNeillie, James Campbell
Madeley, Walter Bayley
Maginess, Thomas
Meyler, Hugh Mowbray
Nathan, Emile
Oliver, Henry Alfred
Robinson, Charles Phineas
Runciman, William
Sampson, Henry William
Searle, James
Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus
Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus
Smartt, Thomas William
Struben, Charles Frederick William
Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly
Van Niekerk, Christian Andries
Walton, Edgar Harris
Watkins, Arnold Hirst
Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand
Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller
Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey
H. A. Wyndham and J. Hewat, tellers.
The question was accordingly affirmed, and the amendments proposed by Mr. Andrews, Mr. Jagger, and Mr. Fremantle, dropped.
The original motion was agreed to.
moved that the House do now resolve itself into Committee, and that Mr. Speaker leave the chair.
Agreed to.
On Vote No. 1, “H.E. the Governor-General,” £22,512,
moved that progress be reported, and leave asked to sit again.
This was agreed to.
Progress was reported, and leave obtained to sit again on Wednesday.
SECOND READING.
moved the second reading of the Cape Liquor Licensing Courts (Constitution) Amendment Bill, and in doing so said that before Union and before the unification of the Cape Municipalities, there were four different municipalities, each of which had a member on the Licensing Court. A similar state of affairs existed also at Kimberley. The object of the Bill was to provide that for the future those municipalities should have the same representation as they had before unification. Thus the Cape Municipality, instead of having only one representative on the Licensing Court, would have four, and so on.
The motion was agreed to.
The Bill was read a second time, and Wednesday was set down for the committee stage.
moved the adjournment of the House.
The motion was withdrawn.
explained that he wanted to move the second reading of the Natal Public Health Acts (Re-enactment and Amendment Bill), which, he said, was a little Bill, consisting of a couple of clauses, and was very urgent indeed.
withdrew his motion for the adjournment, on the understanding that the House would adjourn after the Bill was read a second time.
was understood to say he congratulated the Minister on the use he was making of the odd minutes.
said the House was waiting for the hon. Minister to move the second reading. (Laughter.)
promptly moved the second reading, which was agreed to.
The Bill was read a second time, and Wednesday was set down for the committee stage.
The House adjourned at