from Professor C. van der Merwe, Victoria College, for condonation of a break in his service.

from Krugersdorp, for remission of Repatriation Debts (two petitions).

from M. B. Walker, teacher, for condonation of a break in her service.

from W. R. Short, retired from Railway Department owing to ill-health, for increase of pension.

from W. A. McMurray, Stationmaster at Claremont, for condonation of certain breaks in his service.

Regulations regarding quarantine and the prevention of infection (Cape).

gave notice that to-morrow he would move for leave to introduce two Bills providing for the construction of irrigation works in the Cape Province and the Transvaal.

What about the Free State?

moved that on and after Friday, the 12th instant, the House suspend business at 6 o’clock p.m. and resume at 8 o’clock p.m. on Fridays.

The motion was agreed to.

moved: That on and after Tuesday, the 16th instant, Tuesday be an Order Day, Government business to have precedence, such precedence, however, for the 16th instant, to have effect only after the notices of questions and of motions on the Order Paper for that day have been disposed of.

said there would be no possibility no matter how urgent the position might be—the Government having practically taken the whole five sitting days of the week for Government business—for any member to put a question to the Government on matters of urgent public importance. Hon. members should be given an opportunity of asking questions. He moved to add as a rider, “and for and after Tuesday, the 23rd instant only after notices of questions on the Order Paper have been disposed of.”

I agree to that.

said he could not agree with what had been going on. It seemed that hon. members opposite who could attend to their business every day wished to keep other members away from their business. Under the Rules of the House matters of urgent public importance could always be brought before Parliament, and he objected to the session being thus further prolonged.

said the Government was taking every available minute of time to the end of the session. Hon. members had a right to ask Government what work it was going to proceed with, although he knew the Prime Minister would possibly say that that was tedious repetition of questions. Not a day passed without a Bill being thrown at them, and it was perfectly impossible for members to sit five days and nights a week and transact the business of the country properly if the session were going to last a long time. There was a Bill not yet before the House in which hon. members on the cross-benches were very much interested. A Select Committee had been sitting investigating miners’ phthisis, and they wanted an undertaking that a Bill would be brought in as a result of the Select Committee’s deliberations. This was a very urgent matter, much more so than Irrigation Bills.

said that the practice of bringing in new Bills at this late hour of the session was wrong. Hon. members were repeatedly receiving protests from Natal that Bills were introduced without the people there having an opportunity of knowing what they contained.

said that the Government proposed introducing a Bill this session in regard to the question of miners’ phthisis, and he appealed to hon. members on the cross-benches to curtail their speeches, as the Government was sincerely desirous to get the question of miners’ phthisis properly settled this session.

said he understood that the Prime Minister made the usual accusation against members on the cross-benches.

No, I didn’t.

He evidently feared that we should waste the time of the House. I can give him an undertaking that we shall continue as we have gone on in the past, and discuss matters which we think of public interest, whether hon. members over there think we are wasting the time of the House or otherwise.

asked whether it was necessary, if they wished to save time, that the answers to questions should be read?

No; that is an amendment to the Rules of the House.

The motion and rider were agreed to.

moved that Mr. Neser, the Chairman of Committees, he granted leave of absence from Friday, the 5th June (inclusive), for the remainder of the present session, and that Mr. Mentz be appointed to act in his stead during such absence.

seconded.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the remaining paragraphs be considered seriatim.

Agreed to.

Resolution No. 4, paragraph (c), was considered, and was in the following terms: “(c) That for the purpose of estimating the amount of Customs duty prescribed by the tariff as printed on pages 691 to 701 of the “Votes and Proceedings,” whenever levied on goods ad valorem, and for the purpose of the declaration and oaths which may be at any time required by law or regulation in relation to the question of such duty, the value, for duty purposes, of those goods shall be taken to be the true current value for home consumption in the open market for similar goods in the principal markets of the country from which, and at the time at which, the goods were imported, including carriage to the port of shipment and the cost of packing and packages; provided that in no case shall the value for duty, as in this paragraph defined, be less than the cost of the goods to the importer at the port of shipment.”

moved in line 9, after “packages,” to insert “but not including agent’s commission, provided that it does not exceed 5 per cent.”

moved to omit all the words after “true current value” to “packages,” for the purpose of inserting “at the place of purchase bought in the ordinary manner from the manufacturer or supplier.” He said that the proposal contained in the Minister’s motion meant a considerable alteration from what had been the case hitherto, and he thought there was no doubt that it was utterly impossible to carry it out. As a matter of fact a large quantity of goods that came to this country were made specially for consumption in South Africa. Continuing, he said that the present proposal would be more difficult to carry out than the system at the present. He would draw the Minister’s attention to sewing machines and typewriters, where there was really no wholesale price. The proposal was impossible, and would only give rise to a lot of irritation on the part of the importers and trouble to the Customs authorities. If the Customs authorities disputed a price, they raised the price without the authority of the House—this had happened more than once—and charged duty on the advanced price. Why should the merchants be at the mercy of the Customs officers, who were always looking out for more revenue? Even when a merchant was prepared to swear to a price, the higher price was fixed, and the duty had to be paid on that price. If the Customs authorities were not satisfied, why could they not send officers to the different offices to inspect the books?

said that this provision if it was carried through was going to place the South African importer at a great disadvantage. Instead of going direct to the manufacturer as they had been in the habit of doing they would have to pay the higher price. If this was carried it meant that many of the importers from whom they got their supplies would find many of the markets closed to them. They would not have the advantages of other people who were able to go to the spot and pay the price the manufacturer asked. The result of the proposal would be that the price of goods would be raised and the consumer was going to pay the additional charges. There was no good at all in the proposal.

said that this was an extremely important proposal, and showed the tendency of late years on the part of the Customs authorities. The definition with regard to the true current value of goods had been strengthened up during the last few years, and he pointed out that the value of a good many things could not be calculated, because there was no open market. The business in some of these goods was confined to one firm. In the sense of this definition there was no open market for those goods unless the retail price was taken. There was a great danger of the Customs authorities interpreting this definition of an open market as a retail price, and to some extent that had been done already. He took the case of typewriters, and pointed out that the Customs had not levied the duty on the invoice price, but on a price that approximated to the retail price. This was a preposterous thing. This proposal was an entirely different step to any that had been taken in connection with Customs laws. The duty was to be levied not on the price the importer paid to the manufacturer, but on all the charges that were made until the goods got on board the steamer. It was going to hit not only the merchants here, but the inland makers in Great Britain. He was informed that on heavy goods it would amount to a very considerable sum. He took the case of pipes, and said that these were manufactured in Birmingham, Barrow and Birkenhead, the latter two places being near the coast. There would not only be a disadvantage on the inland maker, but on the merchants here. It was putting Great Britain against Germany, because in Germany the railways were owned by the State, and there was a system of subsidies and reduced railway rates prevailing.

supported the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. The man who lived inland was handicapped as against the man who lived nearer the coast. Was it fair and reasonable to make a man pay duty on an article on which he did not get a cent?

said it was quite correct what the hon. member had said—but packing and the like was added to the net cost. He could speak from experience, and he could not see much in the contention of the hon. member.

said that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) did not realise that Customs duties were a tax, and must be fairly levied. Every man must pay the same tax on the same article. Why, if he imported a single typewriter should he have to pay more on it than a man who imported a dozen typewriters? (Hear, hear.) If they were going to take it out of the hands of the Customs authorities to say what was the real value of these articles they were going to open the door to all kinds of fraud. The hon. member moved, as an amendment, in line 8, to delete the words “including carriage to the port of shipment.” (The hon. member was inaudible on several occasions.)

said that, whatever the point of view might be, it meant one thing, and that was an addition to the cost of the article in the end. No matter how they arranged that duty, it added to the cost of the article concerned. If they wanted more duty on a particular article, let them say so. He was pained and amazed at the speech of his hon. friend the member for Port Elizabeth, Central. He (Mr. Quinn) was not guided by hon. members on the front benches on his side —(Ministerial cheers)—on commercial matters—(laughter)—except by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. Packing and packing cases were very often useless to the importer.

The consumer pays it.

I have said that all along. Don’t hide these charges away in an underhand manner, as the Minister proposes to do.

who was also inaudible at times, was understood to say that he regretted that the Minister did not have some commercial experience. If that clause was allowed to stand, it would lead not only to a certain amount of dissatisfaction and irritation, but to a certain amount of fraud. He did not find in the Customs laws of other countries a clause such as that. It was the consumer who had to pay in the end. It was a great advantage to make that thing as simple and as clear as possible. He did not see how the Minister could represent the matter in any other way. He hoped the Minister would accept the amendment because it would facilitate the working of the Customs, and he was sure it would give great satisfaction to the business community generally.

said that the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, had twitted him with not having commercial knowledge. In his experience as a lawyer he had come across many of those cases from which he had gained experience. He knew many specific cases. He was sure that if his hon. friend the member for Cape Town, Central, was so eager to carry his own point of view, that he did not make any serious effort to grapple with the problem. If hon. members would look at sections (c) and (d) they would find that they had the same object. In section (c) they were trying to protect the Customs, and in section (d) they were trying to protect the manufacturer, but there was the same object in both cases. Section (c) provided that they had to fix the ad valorem duty on a certain value. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, said let it be the price mentioned on the invoice. If they did that they would be entirely in the hands of the importer and the seller. It might be that the price was a bogus one and the invoice a bogus one, and they would have no standpoint to go by. Customs officials might know that that was not the price of the article, but the law would lay down that that was the basis and that was why they said that the basis should be the value for home consumption in the home market. They could not take the standard fixed by the seller and the purchaser, they must have some objective to go by. The standard was ascertainable when they found out what was the price of the article in the principal exporting countries. The hon. member would see that the same question was dealt with in the dumping clause. In clause (d) they went a long way to achieve the object of clause (c). The hon. member did not seem to follow him yet. (Laughter.) They had the same object in view in both the clauses, and if section (c) was carried they went a long way to assist the manufacturer. The manufacturer would know that the article would be taxed on the ordinary price in the principal market. If the definition were carried they would go a long way to doing away with the necessity for the dumping clause. That was point one of the section. The next point was that there should be taken as a basis of value not only the current price in the principal markets but also the tariff to the port of shipment. That provision was necessary because they had no knowledge of what were the railway charges and rates abroad. To such an extent had that question been pushed that now merchants did not take the price at the seaport town—they wanted an invoice made out so as to show what the railway tariff was from the manufacturing towns. Say that an article came from Hamburg and was manufactured at Nuremburg, the invoice here did not reflect the true position. How were the Customs officers to know what the railway rates were in Germany and America? If they were to get to a fair basis they must include the cost of carriage to the port of shipment. He (the Minister) took the price at the port of shipment. The usual place where the purchase took place was at the seaport town, and the invoice they got here did not analyse the whole business. With regard to the cost of packing, packing was often of very great importance. It was asked what was the principle? The principle was this—that they wanted to get to a basis which was ascertainable and fair, and they knew that from the invoices they would only have to deduct the cost of shipment to South Africa, South Africa was not the only country that did that, and he read the definition in the Australian law. The basis which was suggested was a perfectly fair one. They should not include the market price on the basis of the actual transaction, but the actual price in the principal markets. The hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, had said that articles were manufactured only for export to South Africa. There would be a clause dealing with that matter in the Bill. Discretion was given to the Commissioner to put a fair price on the article when it arrived here. Section (c) was perfectly fair as it stood. He had thought it only fair to meet the case of the smaller importer. If the Committee accepted this they could discuss clause D on its merits. (Laughter.)

said he also had had some legal experience, perhaps more than the Minister of Finance had, and he (Sir Henry) failed to see how the Minister was going to remedy the evil of the false invoice— (hear, hear)—and also to simplify matters by his new definition. (Hear, hear.) Whenever a point was made by the Minister of Finance against the merchants there was a great concourse of concatenations from hon. members opposite. (Laughter.) They seemed to forget that they had to pay.

We know that.

One can only come to the conclusion that they laughed because they thought that a point was being scored against the merchants.

The importers.

said the difference between this proposed clause and the one under the Cape law was the addition of the carriage, and there was a change from the place of purchase to the principal markets. Under the Cape law which now prevailed importers had to pay on the values in the open market at the place of purchase. The Minister stated that there was no check on fraudulent invoices, but one could say this for the credit of the country that fraudulent invoices were very rare. (Cheers.) He did not think that even the experience of the Minister of Finance had shown him that it was at all a common occurrence; it did occasionally happen among certain branches of trade and among certain persons, but it was rare. The test was the price in the open market. It did not matter if a man imported on a bogus invoice, for the Customs officials could always ask what was the ordinary price in the open market at the place the goods were purchased. The Minister now proposed that the test should be the price in the principal markets. What was the meaning of that? Let them take an article manufactured at fourteen or fifteen different places in England; which were the principal markets? They would have to have an inquiry to find out, and there would be a more complicated system than if they merely asked what was the price in the open market at the place where the goods were bought. The Minister had answered himself in arguing as to the carriage of the goods.

If the Customs did not know what the railway rates were, and they did not know what the rebate was, how in the world were they going to say whether a telegram was a bogus one, or what the duty should be on the goods? If the Customs of this country were going to deal with the various railway rates throughout Europe and America, and the secret rebates and all the rest of it, he did not see how they were going to arrive at the duty. The Minister himself said they could not arrive at it. Then what was the use of complicating the whole matter by adding on the amount of carriage, etc.? He would urge upon the Minister to abide by the old law, because in the open market they valued the goods as they were sold ordinarily in normal quantities at the place where they were bought. He thought this would be an infinitely simpler method for the mercantile community, and that it would not lead to so much taxation upon the public.

said that, judging from the terms of the Minister’s reply, he was evidently influenced in framing this clause by a suspicion that there had been a great deal of rascality in the past, and that there might be in the future. He agreed with the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, that the cases of bogus invoices being produced were very few and far between. He would point out to the Minister that if this clause were adopted, and invoices had to be accompanied by certificates, the prices would be those charged for Home consumption. If that were so, he did not think it would be any further check on dishonesty than they would have if ordinary prices were charged, because, as a matter of fact, most importers, he thought, received original invoices, which were sent by reputable firms, commission houses in London, and very few of these would be parties to any dishonesty. As regarded the original invoices, there was just as much chance of supplying bogus invoices with a certificate as without a certificate. His objection to the system of certificates was that, first of all, they placed the exporters of goods to a great deal of trouble. In the second place, there might be a mistake, a clerical error, in the certificate, and importers here were placed to a great deal of inconvenience and irritation, and, although the Customs official was absolutely certain of the bona fides of the parties concerned, the importer was made to pay, in spite of the fact that it was quite apparent that a mistake had been made With regard to the question of demanding duty on the cost of the case, there were some instances in which the value of the case was included in the price of the articles, and he therefore had no objection to duty being payable on cases when charged. With regard to carriage, that was a new departure, and he certainly was not in favour of it.

said he did not know whether the Minister claimed to have any knowledge of commerical affairs, or the officials who had posted him in this matter. Let them take the case the Minister had mentioned in regard to carriage in Hamburg. What took place in Hamburg and other large centres was that there were a large number of export merchants, agents of the manufacturers in South Germany. Orders were sent to Hamburg, to the agents, and goods were cent to Hamburg to be shipped in the usual way. The importer purchased from the agent in Hamburg. With regard to carriage, the Minister had stated that he could not tell the carriage. Was he going to be able to tell the carriage any better when duty had to be paid upon it?

His hon. friend said that he was going to do away with fraud by this method. He might inform him that he was not going to do away with fraud. He agreed with the hon. member for Riversdale, that there were not as many cases of fraud as the Minister seemed to believe. (Hear, hear.) The biggest protection against fraud in Customs was a low tariff. If they wanted fraud, they should go to America, as the tariff was before the recent reduction. There they had a lot to gain from fraud. When they had a low Customs tariff there was not much to be gained, and there was far less fraud. Were large importers going to place themselves in the hands of their clerks, because that was what it meant if they indulged in fraud of this kind? The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, had said that every article must pay the same. Suppose his hon. friend imported a suit of bespoke clothing from Great Britain. The Minister expected to get a large increase, £40,000, from this tax. If a man imported a suit of clothes it came out at the retail price, but when they imported large quantities, those goods came out at a lower price. The only logical conclusion of his hon. friend’s contention was that all stuff should pay on the retail price. He agreed with those hon. members who said that they were going to increase fraud by this method, Everybody knew that if they were going to put higher Customs duties on, those duties would have to be paid by the consumer.

His objection to this proposal was that it would place so much power in the hands of officials. (Hear, hear.) There was friction now, but there would be far more in the future. If his hon. friend wanted an increased duty, why did he not put on an extra one per cent. or half per cent., and then they would know where they were? The whole tendency was to put them more and more into the hands of officials. He had had a case brought to his notice this very morning, where certain goods came in at 3 per cent. duty. The Customs charged 3 per cent. on the goods and 15 per cent. on the packing case. This was what they laid themselves open to under the present proposal. A case was mentioned to him only the other day where the Customs had got extra duty for years past, and now, when they had been threatened with a case in the court they had had to back down.

said that if there was anything in the arguments brought forward by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, it was that they must pay duty on retail prices. He (Mr. Oliver) would like one of the hon. members opposite to send to Europe for a single plough and see what he would have to pay on it in the way of duty. They had heard a good deal of talk about the “open market.” If they went to the West End and bought goods they would find that they had to pay double the price for those goods that they could get them at from the manufacturers. Another thing that was going to happen under this proposal was that the number of officials employed at the Customs House would have to be doubled if the proposed methods were carried out. They would have in the same case goods which were partly made of silver and partly made of leather, and they would have to examine every article in the case to see whether they were to be charged for leather or for ordinary goods. At the present time if they received one hundred cases of merchandise one case was opened and examined and the remaining 99 were not opened. This new method meant that every case would have to be opened and examined. They would have a different practice at the different ports. There might be a small quantity of leather in some articles, a strap or a buckle, and the Customs officer at one port would say that 25 per cent. duty would have to be paid, while at another port it would go through at 15 or 10 per cent. duty. As to the matter of commission, he agreed that it was a fair thing not to charge duty on a small commission under 5 per cent., but the Minister’s argument, it seemed to him, was not quite a correct one. What was the difference between, say, an importer like the hon. member for Cape Town having an office in London, where his goods were bought, and another importer who did not keep an office in London, but paid 2½ per cent. to the buyer? The importer who had his office in London had to pay out wages, and it came to exactly the same thing whether they had a commission agent or a London office. He hoped the Minister would think over these matters, because they were real difficulties. The higher cost of importing goods was not going to be a disadvantage to the merchant. The higher the cost of goods when they came out, the higher the percentage of profit would be that the consumers would have to pay. Every charge put on imported goods was taken into account, and, when the total cost was arrived at, the percentage of profit was put upon that.

put the question: That the words from “for home” in line 6, down to “imported”, in line 8, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the paragraph, which was affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Jagger, for the substitution of other words, accordingly dropped.

then put the question: That the words “including carriage to the port of shipment”, in line 8, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the paragraph, and the “Ayes” were declared to have it.

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

Ayes—54.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bekker, Stephanus

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

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 Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Krige, Christman Joel

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

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Serfontein, Hendrik Philippus

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

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

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

H. Mentz and H. C. Becker, tellers.

Noes—33.

Baxter, William Duncan

Berry, William Bisset

Blaine, George

Botha, Christian Lourens

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Chaplin, Francis Drummond Percy

Crewe, Charles Preston

Duncan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Griffin, William Henry

Henderson, James

Jagger, John William

Juta, Henry Hubert

King, John Gavin

Macaulay, Donald

MacNeillie, James Campbell

Merriman, John Xavier

Nathan, Emile

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Quinn, John William

Runciman, William

Searle, James

Smartt, Thomas William

Struben, Charles Frederick William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndley

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Whitaker, George

Woolls-Sampson, Aubrey

H. A. Wyndham and J. Hewat, tellers.

The question was accordingly affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Sir Edgar Walton, negatived.

The remaining part of the amendment proposed by Mr. Jagger was negatived.

The amendment of the Minister of Finance was put and declared carried.

moved a proviso that this provision should only apply to wholesale prices.

The amendment was put and declared negatived.

Paragraph (c) as amended was agreed to.

moved paragraph (d), as follows: (d) That, notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph (c). the following provisions shall be in force in respect of the charging, levying, collection and payment of Customs duty: (i) In the case of goods imported into the Union of a class or kind made or produced in the Union, if the export or actual selling price to an importer in the Union be less than the true current value aforesaid of the same goods when sold for home consumption in the usual and ordinary course in the country from which they were exported to the Union at the time of their exportation there to, there shall, in addition to the duties otherwise prescribed, be charged, levied, collected and paid on those goods on importation into the Union a special Customs duty (or dumping duty) equal to the difference between the said selling price of the goods for export and the true current value thereof for home consumption aforesaid. (ii) When a bounty is granted in the country of origin on any goods, an additional Customs duty equal to the amount of such bounty may be charged, levied and collected upon the importation of those goods into the Union. (iii) The goods in respect of which there may be charged, levied and collected any special (or dumping) Customs duty under sub-paragraph (i) or any additional Customs duty under sub-paragraph (ii) shall be from time to time determined by the Governor-General and notified by him by proclamation in the “Gazette,” together with the date as from which such his determination shall take effect.

said he had hoped that the Minister would have reconstructed this paragraph. He took a liberal view; not the hidebound Free Trade view of his hon. friend the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. (Laughter.) He thought they should not go on with it, but drop it in the interests of their own industries. They would do all they wanted to do with paragraph (c). If the Minister found that dumping was practised in the country, then, backed by his experience, he could come to the House for further power.

said that no doubt the burden of the case really rested on sub-section (c).

It gives you all the powers.

There are difficulties against us dropping this dumping clause.

Try (c) first. If they took the landed market value of an article at £100, and the article was sold at a reduction of £20, or dumped there at £80, the sale price would be £80, and the stuff here was manufactured at £100. (C) provided that the Customs duty would be charged, not on the £80, but on the £100. The power they took now was to plank on £20. There was no doubt it was a difficult system to work, but in principle it was defensible.

asked why in the one case—in the case of bounties—the power was discretionary, and in the other case it was compulsory?

said that it was for the Governor-General to take action under (3). It was the Governor-General who had to decide whether any special article would be proclaimed as provided there, and then either the dumping clause or the special duty would come into effect. No arbitrary action could take place. It was for the Government, after considering the case, to take action, and proclaim these articles. He did not think they need be frightened of that clause, and it was not at all alarming.

said that the Minister had not answered his point at all. It was not a question whether under sub-section (3) there was discretion for the Governor-General or not The discretion was as to goods which would fall under sub-sections (1) or (2). Whether or not those goods were really of a class or kind made or produced in the Union which would be interfered with by the importation of other goods was a matter he would not have to trouble himself about. Whatever he was advised to be subject to the dumping clause he would proclaim, and they would find that large classes of goods which they had no opportunity of producing in that country and which they could not produce in quantities would, for the purpose of stimulation, be put on the list to be proclaimed. That was a very large power.

That will he ultra vires.

I do not see how it can be ultra vires. If the Governor-General determines that the dumping clause must apply, the dumping clause will apply. Continuing, the hon. member said that a very big power was given to the Ministry to include in that dumping clause a very large and wide number of goods. But that had nothing to do with the point he had put—why in sub-section (1) the power was compulsory and why in sub-section (2) it was discretionary—“this may be charged.” It was not a question of tightening it up, because he had voted against all the impositions of the Minister, but he was asking for information.

Yes; quite right. I see the point of my hon. friend. Evidently the phrasing of these two sub-sections is not in accordance, and they should be either both “may” or they should be both “shall.”

said that even if the sub-section were altered to “may” he would object that at any time they could be placed at the mercy of the Government and its officials like that. They had had experience of arbitrary methods, and he wanted to see put down in the law exactly what they could demand. In the case of any small manufacturer who was undersold it would be said it was dumping. They had heard of wheat being dumped in South Africa. The thing was absurd. They might as well say that wool was dumped in London. His hon. friend the Minister might be bona fide in his assurances, but he would not always be there, and the Treasury officials would be The hon. member went on to point out that in the Canadian clause it was strictly limited, but in the present instance the Minister could impose 30 per cent. When it rested with the Governor-General-in-Council it would be a matter for the officials. In Australia if there were a case of dumping it was referred to a judge of the High Court, but here it was to be left entirely to the officials. Why could not Parliament lay down the law as it should be, and then they would know what they had to do?

said the hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour (Sir H. H. Juta), had said that they might proclaim articles not made in this country under the dumping duty.

I did not say so. I said “made in small quantities.”

said that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Jagger) had said that it was absurd to speak of the dumping duty in regard to matters like wheat. He (the Minister) would quote on that point some figures with regard to Australia and how the manufacturer managed to get round it. On April 2 last the price of flour in Australia was—City brand £9 5s., country £9, for export from £8 5s. to £8 7s. 6d., f.o.b. Adelaide. That showed what could be forced on this country.

said that a thrill of horror had doubtless gone through the House when the figures had been read by the Minister who had last spoken, but they in South Africa were carrying on the same practice themselves. If it was wrong, what sinners they must be, and yet they had the Minister, who was carrying on the same practice, coming down and making them shudder. The dumping clause had emanated from Canada. It was part of the whole Canadian system which had eventually thrown the manufactures of Canada in to the hands of trusts. At last, after years of trouble and fiscal oppression, the farmers woke up, and were insisting that the tariff of Canada should be changed, and that is what he predicted would happen in this country. It was not the merchants who were going to pay that duty. They might put up the duty higher and higher, but the merchant would insist on his profits. One country they were shaking their fists in the face of was America, and the other was Germany, and those two countries were among the biggest customers for the products of this country. The hon. member for Waterberg had put a very proper and apposite question with regard to the duties on feathers and other things in the United States. If they shook their fists sufficiently in the faces of those two powers they would have retaliation. Retaliation had already taken place in Germany with regard to Canada. It was unfortunate, if true, that America should be taxing their ostrich feathers. If they went in for a petty prohibitive policy they would irritate their best customers into some measure of retaliation. It was the greatest hypocrisy he had ever heard of to be blaming other people for dumping when they were dumping themselves.

said he understood that the object of paragraph 2 (d) was to prevent people sending in goods which would compete with local products. He moved the insertion of the words “of a class or kind made or produced in the Union.”

said the Minister of Railways and Harbours, in quoting those figures, should have shown the comparison of the value of flour and the value of wheat. They might find that the making of flour in Australia was in the hands of trusts who bought wheat at the world’s price. He mentioned it to show how ridiculous figures of that sort were unless properly analysed. He had an idea that the miller in the Australian colonies was getting an undue advantage over the producer. Flour and wheat were world commodities, regulated by world’s prices. The price quoted for flour in South Africa would be regulated by the world’s prices.

said it was evidently thought that dumping was a fearful crime, and if they dumped their stuff in other countries the other countries would retaliate. They were always going to retaliate—it was a matter of business, and South Africa would have to fight its own way. They were dumping their stuff now. That idea about dumping being a crime was absurd. Every country was dumping to-day by freight and in other ways. They were dumping cement down here from the Transvaal. Dumping went on within a country as well as outside in other parts of the world. There was another question which had been raised by the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens, who said there was no open market, and he agreed with him. In Canada and Australia importers and merchants who buy goods from English manufacturers stipulate that the second and third qualities are not to be sent to those countries for them to compete with. What then became of the second and third qualities? They had to find a dumping ground for them. There was no open market, and naturally they were using South Africa and India for their dumping grounds. Those Free Traders who said they did not want industries in this country might think it was quite good business. He thought the clause which the Minister had put in there was absolutely necessary, and he hoped that he would not consider any amendment.

said he had listened carefully to those Free Trade and Protection arguments, and he had never yet heard anyone say that we did not want industries in this country. Of course we wanted industries; industries of a kind which would make their way on their own merits and not at the expense of the people of the country. With regard to dumping, so far as flour was concerned, we did not produce a third of our requirements of wheat and flour. If the farmers here were up against competition which was unfair, he would feel less disinclined to give them some assistance in some shape or other, but where should we be in this country without this importation of flour? Whatever the cause, we had to import two-thirds of our flour requirements. Flour was the last thing to which that dumping clause should be applied. It was no use saying they must not be alarmed or afraid He did not believe in leaving things of that sort to Ministers or officials. It had been a perfect godsend to this country that flour had been dumped here for the last 20 years. It was a monstrous thing, but no doubt that dumping clause would be passed, and all they could do was to make it perfectly clear that they were not deluded, and they therefore made an emphatic protest.

said he hoped the Minister would withdraw the clause unless he could point to particular cases of dumping. In his (the speaker’s) opinion the millers in this country were doing exceedingly well. He hoped if this clause was going to be adopted the Minister would make some provision for giving a certain notice to importers before it came into operation, because otherwise they would have a sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of importers all the time.

said that with reference to the procedure in other countries in connection with dumping, Canada did not go as tar as we did. In Australia they dealt with dumping under the Industries Preservation Act. Before one could say that goods were being dumped into Australia it must be proved that goods were brought in unfairly and was doing damage to the industries of the country, and the people affected were allowed to be present at the inquiry and give evidence. Even if an article came into the country at less than it cost; if it was considered to do good to the country it was allowed to go in The hon. member agreed that if the clause was put into effect it was necessary that adequate notice should be given, otherwise it would upset business. In his opinion that clause would affect food more than anything else. They knew who was at the back of that clause, and the Minister should consider the general interests of the community. Proceeding, Mr. Henderson asked if they were not dumping coal in different parts of the world, and was not the Minister of Railways and Harbours helping that so far as he could by giving lower rates for export coal.

was understood to say that that was not an offence.

replied that it was not an offence because it had not been made one under our law. In his opinion the clause was one of the most dangerous in its effect on the business of the country. Would the Minister agree to the clause standing down—(Ministerial cries of “No”) —for it was absolutely necessary that there should be some alteration.

said he had no idea of praising the work of the Industries Commission, but he got up to defend the members of the Commission who could not defend themselves in that House. The members of the Commission wore all hon. gentlemen. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, put himself on a pedestal and stood with a sort of halo around him. (Laughter.)

I did not make the charge, the hon. member for Troyeville did.

You made it immediately after; you said they each had a trade. If you have an hon. member with all this glory round him it makes a nice picture. (Laughter.) It occurs to me that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, has altogether a mistaken idea of these people.

said that for public men he thought the members of the Industries Commission were singularly thin skinned. He did not think there had been a single word uttered in that debate to justify the assertion that dumping was carried on in South Africa to any extent. It was strange that it was the highly-protected industries which were crying out for the dumping clause. The proposal before the House went much further than any dumping clause in Great Britain, the United States, Australia or Canada, which protected themselves against the arbitrary use of such a clause. The proposed clause would put enormous power in the hands of the Customs officials; no one was attacking these officials, but they would make use of the stringent powers which it was proposed to confer on them. The U.S.A. provided that the dumping duty should not exceed 50 per cent. ad valorem in any case. That Committee had degenerated into a body to endorse the demands of the permanent officials of the country, who drafted the proposals for presentation to Parliament. Parliament had come to a pretty pass when hon. members were not allowed to argue these matters on their merits. (Hear, hear.)

asked what foodstuffs were dumped into this country.

replied “None.” The only case of dumping that had been brought forward had been that of flour. The average duty on flour worked out at 25 per cent, to 26 per cent., and the £1 shares of a local milling company were quoted at 54s. This company’s dividends did not fall below 10 per cent., and yet it asked for what was practically an increased duty. The Minister of Railways and Harbours had stated that flour was sold at £9 a ton at Adelaide for local consumption, and at £8 5s. for export. The explanation was that there was a ring which kept up the price for local consumption at Adelaide, but that £8 5s. was the market price for flour the world over. Would the Australian people send their flour here at £8 5s. a ton if they could sell it elsewhere for £9? If we did not get that flour for £8 5s. a ton from Australia we should get it at that figure from America. Was the South African consumer to suffer because of a millers’ ring in Australia? The thing was useless. They placed themselves too much in the hands of officials, who at any time might raise this question.

Notice must be given under sub-section (3).

It is unnecessary to give notice. Any cargo that comes along may be hung up.

said that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, seemed to forget altogether what was the underlying idea of dumping, and that was to suppress the local market

Oh, no.

said that dumping was simply for the purpose ultimately of raising the price. There was a temporary reduction for the purpose of raising the price ultimately. If the idea of the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) were right as to the price of wheat, the dumping clause would certainly not apply. This principle of underselling for the purpose of crushing out competition was not new in South Africa.

Mention a case.

The hon. member would remember that in 1907 he was very active in trying to prevent the crushing out of competition in the meat trade. (Hear, hear.) He was the father of a Bill introduced for that very purpose, but, as a matter of fact, when it was meat and competition was being thrust out unfairly, the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was quite prepared to call in the assistance of Parliament. (Ministerial cheers.) Now when it is done by the importer from outside and the exporter from elsewhere comes to dump down his cheap goods for the purpose of preventing South Africa from starting its own industries and becoming independent in that sense, he raises all these objections. (Hear, hear.) Proceeding, the Minister said that the right hon. the member for Victoria West had stated that Germany retaliated when Canada introduced this. Nothing of the kind. There was some talk of retaliation, but that was on account of preference and not at all on account of this dumping clause. The dumping clause in Canada was used more as a scarecrow, as his hon. friend had said, than for any practical effect that it had There was also the argument that these industries would become trusts afterwards, and that in Canada the farmers had risen up in their might in protest. Quite true, and we might expect that here, and if that thing did take place, the remedy was in the hands of Parliament. They would have to remove the duties. That could easily be done. Protection was only justified so long as it assisted in the production and establishment of industries. When those industries were established and were strong enough to stand on their own legs, they could withdraw the protection and deal with the matter on its own merits. Take the case of matches. They had given high protection on matches, and now no matches were imported, and they were in a position to get what they formerly got from import duties through an Excise on matches. It was necessary, if they were going to have a national policy in South Africa, to see that we were not permanently dependent on the products of other countries.

My hon. friend speaks of dumping raw products. That has never been done.

I said so.

It is only manufactured goods. Proceeding, he said that his view about the dumping clause was that it ought to wait. It was clear that the whole of the commercial community in the country were strongly opposed to it. It was extremely desirable that the merchants and manufacturers should work together, and his own experience as a manufacturer, and he believed also the experience of other manufacturers, was that the merchants did buy their products, and were willing to co-operate with them to the utmost. With regard to flour, no case of dumping had been brought before the House. They were told that in Australia flour was being sold for export at 15s. per ton less than it was sold at locally. That, however, had not injuriously affected the industry here. On the whole, he thought they ought to leave this matter of the dumping clause over.

said that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was good enough to give them an illustration of dumping in regard to foodstuffs, but it seemed to him to be rather a faulty illustration. In Australia flour was sold internally at £9, while for export purposes it was sold at £8 5s. That price, he understood, was regulated by the world price. It seemed to him, therefore, that the dumping clause would have no effect, so far as that matter was concerned, upon this country. This matter of dumping, on which he confessed he was somewhat of a tyro, had always appealed to him as guarding against the very illegitimate use of the financial power which big trusts were able to exercise. (Hear, hear.) Suppose some petroleum wells were discovered, and a private individual or company was working those wells. He could not help thinking that some powerful organisation, in order to collar that supply, could easily so cut down the price for a time as to get that industry into its own hands. He agreed that this clause seemed to put an arbitrary power of determination into the Government’s hands without any clear indication as to the principle in accordance with which they utilised that power. In the Australian Act it was laid down how this power should be utilised. He suggested to the Minister that, if he were going on with this, either at the present stage or in the Bill, he should see that the application of this was strictly limited to those contingencies where it was a clear case of some external powerful corporation trying to manipulate the supplies in this country.

said that the Minister of Mines and Industries had stated that there was only one instance in which protection was justified, and that was with the idea of production. But there was another instance—and this was its danger—and that was that sometimes political reasons were brought to bear upon these matters. The Minister had also asked how could this country ever become a nation if we were not able to produce our own food? What about the United Kingdom, which was importing £280,000,000 worth of food every year? He thought the House was indebted to the hon. member for Pretoria, North, for an entirely new definition of dumping.

He took it that a dumper was a man who was prepared to give the buyer the advantage of, perhaps, some protection which existed in his own country. From that point of view the dumper was their best friend. They were dumpers themselves in that country, to a certain extent. They dumped fruit into England and France at prices which they could not get here, ostrich feathers, diamonds, and so on. They recognised that it was a good sound thing, and that was why they did it. Continuing, he said that the non-dumping cost in one country might be more than the dumping cost in another, and how were they going to deal with that? He wished to join in the protest against this clause, because he thought the dumper was a good friend, who wanted to sell them things at a low price.

referring to the remarks of the Minister of Mines and Industries, said that when the time mentioned by the Minister came about the hon. member for Oudtshoorn and his friends, not being able to send their ostrich feathers oversea, the whole of the land would then be available for producing butter, cheese, and other things which they were importing. If they could get 5 1b. of good butter from oversea in exchange for ostrich feathers, he thought it was better than the 1 1b. they might get from the land of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn and his friends. He thought the Minister of Mines and Industries had completely misunderstood the position with regard to dumping, as the Minister had stated that the object of dumping was an attempt to crush out an industry in this country. He did not say that that never happened, but the Minister must know that, if they could produce 1,000 things at a certain price, they could produce an extra hundred a good deal cheaper than the first 1,000 without any absurd schemes against anybody else. Where there was dumping by means of a conspiracy to crush industries, surely there ought to be some other means to meet such a conspiracy.

They heard a lot about conspiracy when the House first met, and they took special means to deal with them. The Minister had also said that they should have protection while they built up industries, but when these were founded, these taxes could be taken away. He (Dr. Watkins) would say that, when such a thing came about, the Minister would not sit on the other side, and the gentlemen who now formed the majority would not be the majority, but would be in the position of the Canadian farmers to-day. The Canadian farmers were howling to get rid of the protection that they once asked for.

said the Minister had said it was necessary that industries should be protected until they became strong enough. He (Mr. Haggar) pointed out that the first industries protected in the U.S.A were still the weakest industries, and were in very serious positions indeed. What country in the world was prosperous owing to a policy of Protection? In Australia 80 per cent. of the industries were not protected, and 20 per cent. had no rivals. Italy’s main industry was the silk industry, and that was not protected. The prosperity of Germany was due to the improved science of processes, and not protection at all. The Minister said that protection was an economic necessity, but Sir John McDonald told Sir Rob. Griffin that there was no justification for protection in Canada, but that it was a political god.

said he had listened to all the arguments, but he was not convinced that a moderate dumping clause was not a proper piece of machinery. He would move that the word “shall,” in section sub paragraph (i) be changed to “may.”

moved that after the word “aforesaid” the words “but shall not exceed 15 per cent. ad valorem in any case” be inserted.

That is a reasonable amendment. (Laughter.) This was one of the limitations in the Canadian Act and I think it a reasonable one.

The several amendments were agreed to.

also moved to the effect that not less than three months’ notice should be given after the Proclamation.

asked why should a man not be protected when he had made a contract in the absence of the dumping clause.

moved, as an amendment, that the period be six weeks instead of three months, as moved by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central.

said that in regard to contracts the difference of duty could be passed on.

accepted the amendment of the Minister of Finance.

The amendment as amended was agreed to.

The paragraph, as amended, was agreed to.

Resolution No. 4, as amended, was reported, the Chairman to bring up the report of the Committee to-morrow.

moved, as an amendment, to insert the words “or report” after “certificate,” and “other” in line 18.

This was agreed to.

moved, as a proviso at the end of sub-clause 3: “Provided that no leper shall be transferred from one Province to another without, in the case of an adult, his own consent, and in the case of a minor, the consent of his guardian.”

supported the amendment, and said he took great interest in the lot of the lepers. He pointed out that these lepers were not criminals, and none of them would object to being removed to the mainland. They should be considered in such matters.

supported this view and said the lot of these lepers was a heavy one, and he trusted the Minister would take the amendment. It would not do to remove them against their will.

said that here was another of these Bills brought in at the end of a session, which they had had not time properly to consider. The country was in a disgraceful condition with regard to lunatic asylums, and they wanted a proper Lunatic Board; such a patchwork method as that Bill was not going to help matters. He was not prepared to take the responsibility of accepting it as a good, sound Bill, because the people who knew most about the subject had no opportunity of considering it, and the Minister and his advisers must take full responsibility for any evil that might occur as a result of that Bill.

asked if the hon. member for Woodstock could not go a little further with his amendment, so that it would refer to all persons concerned, whether lunatics or lepers. Why should lunatics be debarred? He would treat them as minors and their relatives should be consulted.

said he had not included lunatics in that because the lunatic asylums were overcrowded and it may in certain cases be necessary to move them to another Province, but there was no such excuse in regard to lepers. He could assure the hon. member for Barkly that he had gone carefully into the Bill and it was in the interest of the people concerned.

said it was impossible to accept the amendment, for if they had to carry out that it would mean that they would have to drop the Bill. For instance, there was no leper asylum at all in the O.F.S., but he could assure the hon. member there was no likelihood of lepers being taken from Robben Island, say, to Pretoria. There was no question of drastic changes of that sort. If they were to keep within the Provincial boundaries they would be unable to do anything at all. With regard to lunatics it was very different. Last year a Select Committee inquired into the accommodation, and they issued a report to carry out what would cost many thousand pounds. That recommendation was being carried out; part of it was for a central asylum at Bloemfontein. If that report was to be carried out they must have that power to transfer lunatics from one part to another. He could assure hon. members that lepers would be taken to the nearest place available. He could not accept the amendment.

said that the hon. Minister had made a statement giving information which they were not all aware of. He (the speaker) knew that the O.F.S. Government had removed their lepers from Robben Island and had domiciled them in the O.F.S. Now it appeared they had been removed from the Free State to Pretoria. Proceeding, he said they were dealing with a class of people who deserved the greatest consideration. After all, they were being segregated for the public good and not for their own fault. Before they removed them from their own Province every consideration should be given to the views set forth in the proposal of the hon. member for Woodstock, and until they were able to deal with the matter as it ought to be dealt with by having one central station they should as far as possible endeavour to meet the wishes of those unfortunate people.

pointed out that many people who were detained in lunatic asylums were not absolutely insane, and to remove such people far from their relatives would be a tremendous hardship. In his opinion it was just as important a matter as in connection with the lepers, and he thought such removal should not take place in such cases without the consent of the nearest relatives or friends.

said he hoped the hon. Minister would consider the question of accepting the amendment to provide that in the case of anybody who was removed by the Minister’s order the place to where they were removed should be notified to the relatives. In his opinion it was very important that it should be clearly known where a man was and when he was confined in an asylum.

said that they went much further than that in actual practice. Not only were the relatives told where a person was sent to, but they were given free tickets to visit him. He was entirely in sympathy with the views of the hon. member for Tembuland, and he could assure him that no movement of lepers or lunatics would take place except in cases of necessity. As a matter of fact, it was in the interest of the Government to keep them near their relatives, as will be seen by the fact that the Government provided tickets to their relatives to visit them. That in itself was a good check. He hoped the hon. member would withdraw his amendment.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said, he had drafted an amendment which the hon. member for Fordsburg had communicated to the Minister. It referred to the giving of notices with regard to the removal of a lunatic. He moved to add at the end of sub-section 3, “in case of any transfer of any leper or lunatic under this Act, notice thereof shall be given to the guardian or any relative of such leper or lunatic.”

said the amendment was not an improvement.

said that with regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Woodstock (Dr. Hewat) he would point out the immense importance of providing the least possible encouragement for hiding the disease outside the segregated places. Anything which would mitigate that feeling of wishing to hide away should, he thought, have the greatest attention paid to it.

said he could not understand why the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) had moved the amendment. He did not see any necessity for it, and it had nothing to do with the idea he (Dr. Hewat) had got— that no incarcerated man should be removed from the district where he was segregated without the permission of his friends. A lunatic was kept in an asylum for his own safety, but a leper was segregated for the benefit of all of them. He asked the House for humane reasons to do what it could to ameliorate the conditions of those people.

said that under the Bill, lepers could be sent away far from their relatives. There was the possibility of a father being removed from his family, and sent many miles away. It was hard that a Bill had provided for the compulsory removal of such people, and he thought everything should be done to make the lot of these people as easy as possible. Even when a leper was segregated he felt the neighbourhood of his relatives. It gave him a certain consolation which should not be taken away. There was also a great deal in what the hon. member for George Town had said, and he thought no trouble should be too great to keep lunatics near their females. He appealed to the generosity of the Minister to see what could be done. There had been an agitation in the Free State to remove lepers from Robben Island and treat them locally. The then Government agreed, but afterwards the patients were removed to Pretoria. They did not like that. They should not remove the lepers from their country of birth.

Although an insane patient had no conception of where he was sent to, his relatives had, and the patient ought to be lodged in the nearest asylum so that his relatives could visit him.

said he must appeal to hon. members. The Bill was an important one, though a small one, but it must not stand in the way of more important legislation. He was prepared to withdraw the Bill unless they could make some progress He would appeal to members very seriously to let them come to a vote, but if the discussion had to be prolonged it would be impossible for them to go further in the matter. He proposed that they stop on the discussion and vote on the amendments.

The amendments of the hon. member for Woodstock (Dr. Hewat) and of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) were negatived.

Clause 1, as printed, was agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments,

said he had carefully read through the Bill, but he could not find out what were to be the functions of the people concerned—were they to be ordinary policemen, or sergeants or what? (Laughter.)

said it appeared to him that the hon. member was not here last night. The functions were explained in clause 3, and when they got to that clause he would indicate what the functions were to be.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 2, Appointment of Justices of the Peace,

said surely it was unnecessary to provide for pensions for field-cornets.

said that in the Cape field-cornets who had served for 15 years were entitled to a pension of £5 a year, and he did not think it was right to take that away.

said he thought it was unnecessary to have three field-cornets in one ward, of which there were 80 in the Cape Province.

said that in some of the Provinces, particularly the Transvaal, the wards were very large, and it might be found necessary to appoint more than one field-cornet in a particular ward. He did not propose interfering with existing rights, but in future when people were appointed for the administration of oaths they would be known as Commissioners of Oaths.

said that in his ward they had already three J.P.’s and one field-cornet. If the field cornet were made a J.P., there would be four of them.

said the new J.P.’s would have other work than the present J.P.’s. In order to prevent difficulties he wished to preserve the old title.

urged the Minister to be extremely careful in the appointment of Justices of the Peace in future. The field-cornet system was a very old system in the Transvaal. The field-cornet went about all over the ward and helped all the people. If J.P.’s were appointed they should be divided all over the ward, and in their appointment regard should be had to the wishes of the public.

said there were three field-cornets in Kroonstad who would become J.P.’s. Besides that there would be several unofficial J.P.’s, which would be troublesome to the public.

replied that the present Justices of the Peace were not in reality Justices of the Peace. All these people did was to accept sworn declarations; this matter was duly dealt with in the Bill, and the hon. member need not foe nervous that there would not be sufficient Commissioners of Oaths.

wished to know whether as many Justices of the Peace as were necessary would be appointed in every ward. Would each ward have a J.P.?

replied in the affirmative.

said it seemed to him that they were going to have two sets of officials with the same title. They would have one set of Justices of the Peace who would have certain functions to perform, and they would have another set of Justices of the Peace who would merely be Commissioners of Oaths. Surely something could be done to avoid the confusion which would necessarily arise through having two sets of officials with the same title performing different functions.

said he realised the difficulty mentioned by the hon. member, and he had cast about to try and find some term to distinguish the two sets of officials. The difficulty was that Justices of the Peace had been appointed broadcast all over the Union who were not really Justices of the Peace at all, but Commissioners of Oaths. They could exercise all the functions of a Justice of the Peace, but they never did. The difficulty, on the other hand, was that if he made these men merely Commissioners of Oaths and they had to drop the letters “J.P.” behind their name there would be an outcry in the country, especially on the part of attorneys who were J.P.’s. Under the circumstances, he had adopted the lesser of two evils. The same difficulty existed, of course, in regard to field-cornets.

said he thought the Minister might just as well abolish the existing Justices of the Peace and make them Commissioners of Oaths.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 3, General powers and duties of. Justices of the Peace appointed under this Act,

said he could not understand the hon. member tor Standerton, who, coming from the Transvaal, asked what the Justice of the Peace would do. For instance, under the Cattle Diseases Act, the Justice of the Peace would have to be given notice of such outbreaks. In general, the functions of the field-cornet would be taken over by the Justice of the Peace. There was no question of abolishing field-cornets—they were simply given another name.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 4, Ex-officio Justices of the Peace,

moved, in sub-section (1) to insert “permanent” before “Defence Forces” in both paragraphs (a) and (b). He stated that it was only the permanent Defence Forces that performed police duties, and he was dealing in this section with the police. As the sub-section now stood, it might be construed to include the Burgher Forces.

The amendments were agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 6, Members of Liquor Licensing Courts need be no longer Justices of the Peace,

moved to delete the clause. He explained that there was some doubt whether Licensing Courts were covered by the title of the Bill.

Clause 6 was deleted.

On clause 7,

asked what would become of the J.P.’s?

said they would continue to exist.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 10, Penalties for false statements, affidavits, etc.,

moved as an amendment, in line 11, after the word “or,” to insert the words, “makes such statement, knowing it to be false, and.” He said that the section ought to be quite clear that he made a statement knowing it to be false.

The amendment was agreed to.

Clause 10 as amended was agreed to.

On clause 11, Regulations,

asked the Minister for some information about the scale of fees for field-cornets. How did he intend to remunerate the work they had to do for the Government?

said that the Commissioner of Oaths must take nofees, except in Natal. At present field-cornets in the Cape worked under a scale of fees, according to Act 3 of 1348. Field-cornets did not do any stock inspection, but they might hold inquests, prepare voters’ lists, or, for instance, one of the departments might want some statistics, and might find a field-cornet or a Justice of the Peace would be suitable for the work. The scale was 1s. 6d. per hour for horse hire, not to exceed 7s. 6d., and 7s. 6d. per day. Why the last clause had been put in was because it was recognised that for certain parts of the Union the scale was higher than for other parts.

Why?

When a man goes for six days Into the interior, he should not be paid on the same scale as a man who does his work near to some central parts. The scale should be, not, he added, according to a Province, but according to certain districts. In the Free State field-cornets received a salary of £75 per annum, and the remuneration in the Cape Province worked out at £2 generally. It would be better to pay a scale of fees than a salary, because if one was to be paid, it would be so small.

Replying to Mr. Creswell,

stated that the £260 paid in the Transvaal was for doing stock inspectors’ work, and the Minister of Agriculture would take over a large number of these field-cornets, and make them officials in his department. He thought that the Transvaal field-cornets had been the worst paid, for they had to do a tremendous amount of work for their salary. The fees were on the Cape scale.

asked who was to perform the duties of receiving reports in connection with the Stock Diseases Act?

said the Minister had told the House that salaries would be reduced, and that there would be much economy. He also told the House that the Minister of Agriculture would deal with the appointment of stock inspectors. The question of economy depended mainly on the number of stock inspectors that would be appointed. Field-cornets in the Free State had to do a lot of other work for £75 a year, and if they were now reduced to a low salary, then he feared they would be unable to do the work properly. What was to be the salary of the new cattle inspectors? “Was it wise to be so hasty in abolishing an old institution?

feared that the work of the Justices of the Peace would not be done at the low fees they were to be paid. To abolish the field-cornets would be to abolish their useful work.

said the hon. member for Ladybrand had told the House that the Free State field-cornets did nothing but ride to the towns to draw their salaries. Who was right, he asked, Mr. Fichardt or Mr. Wilcocks?

said he spoke of what he knew, and he knew a number of field-cornets who did a great deal of good work. In his district there were three field-cornets. They looked after such matters as noxious weeds and obtained necessary reports.

said he did not think the explanation of the Minister was satisfactory. They had the same state of things for field-cornets in the Cape Province, and here there were large wards as well as the smaller ones. Yet they had exactly the same scale of fees. It was a blot on the Bill, and he did not think it ought to be passed like that. He moved that the following words be deleted, “a differential scale of fees may be prescribed in respect of different Provinces or other areas of the Union.”

hoped the amendment would be withdrawn, as different conditions prevailing throughout the country made the distinction necessary. There were, for instance, big differences in the prices of fodder.

said he hoped the hon. member would not withdraw the amendment. The scale of fees was one of those things which would lead to discontent in the Civil Service. He had been a magistrate in Bechuanaland and all over the Colony, and he had never heard a field-cornet say that he should receive a larger scale of pay because he happened to be in the North-west.

opposed the amendment, and pointed out how in some parts of the country field-cornets had to make all kinds of provisions. Especially in the isolated parts of the country a different state of affairs prevailed from what prevailed in the populous districts. A field-cornet in Zoutpansberg, for instance, should be paid more, as he had to endure greater discomforts.

said he was sorry the Minister had not prepared a scale of fees, which should not be left to regulation. It would have been much better if they had before them a scale of fees. He hoped the Minister would not attempt to make the position of field-cornets a remunerative post. If the Minister made the fees such as to make the post remunerative, they would not get the best men. If it was a question of pay they would only get the inferior men.

also urged the necessity of varying fees. He did not agree with the last speaker. The salaries of field-cornets in the Cape should be raised and the tariffs made uniform.

expressed surprise at the remarks of the hon. member for Barkly, especially seeing that doctors generally charged fees at the rate of £1 per hour. If high pay made bad work, were they bad doctors? Farmers were still satisfied to do the work so long as they got their expenses paid. He moved the deletion of the words “Provinces or other.”

said he hoped the Minister would stick to his guns. If they had a uniform tariff throughout the Union the highest scale would prevail, and he could quite understand the desire of Government to keep down expenses.

said the scale of fees dated back to 1848. He had held the post of field-cornet for 18 years, and on many occasions he had to pay 30s. for cart hire. He believed he was entitled to a pension, but he had not applied for it yet. (Laughter.) In the Cape field-cornets settled disputes between farmers. If the post were made an honorary one, and the allowances for horse hire were doubled, there would be no lack of aspirants for the position, which should be one of honour

said the position of Justice of the Peace had always been regarded in the Cape as a post of honour. He was opposed to the varying scale of fees, as more people would try to get as much as possible. All that should be paid were the expenses of the man. It should be fixed at so much per hour. He supported the amendment of the hon. member for Colesberg.

said that the post was one of honour and the fees proposed simply aimed at paying out-of-pocket expenses. As regarded the different areas, he was quite prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Colesberg. It was not the intention to appoint such officials as scab or stock inspectors as field-cornets. As to the fees, his idea was to consult with the other Department to see what arrangement could be arrived at, but there was no idea of paying a lavish scale of fees, the object of the Bill being to secure economy. The post of field-cornet was an honorary one, and in the Cape there were always more applicants than vacancies. He had had applications from a good many prominent men in other Provinces, and he was sure we should be able to get men to accept the position for the honour of it.

wished to withdraw his amendment in favour of that of the hon. member for Colesberg.

I object.

The amendment of Mr. Louw was carried and that of Mr. Heatlie negatived.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 12, Repeal of laws,

moved to add the words “and any reference in any law to a field-cornetcy shall be construed as a reference to a Ward under this Act. ”

The amendment was adopted.

The clause, as amended was agreed to.

On the first schedule, Ex-officio Commissioners of Oaths,

moved to insert “district surgeon or additional district surgeon, General Manager of Railways, the Commandant-General of the Defence Forces, the Principal Medical Officer of Health, the Assistant Medical Officer of Health, the Port Health Officer, clerks and prosecutors of the inferior Courts.”

What about postmistresses? (Laughter.)

moved the insertion of the words “Chairman of the Rural Council.”

said there was only one such person, and he appealed to the hon. member not to press the amendment.

said that, with reference to postmistresses, he would like to point out to the Minister that the post office at Springs was in charge of a postmistress. He thought the point as to whether they should be appointed Commissioners of Oaths was worthy of consideration. He would also like to ask whether this list was absolutely final?

said that in clause 8 provision was made that the Governor-General may from time to time add by Proclamation. With regard to postmistresses, he did not think these ladies would thank the hon. member if they were made Commissioners of Oaths.

said he thought there should be some caution exercised in regard to the number of people who were appointed Commissioner of Oaths.

The Minister’s amendments were agreed to.

The schedule as amended was agreed to.

On the second schedule, Laws repealed,

moved to include under “Cape of Good Hope,” Ordinance 9, 1848.

The amendment was agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments.

moved that the amendments be considered tomorrow.

urged that the interval was too short.

I will make it Friday.

It was agreed that the amendments should be considered on Friday.

in moving the second reading of the Criminal Justice Administration Bill, said that, when he asked for leave to introduce this Bill, he stated that the object of this unpretentious little measure was to try and keep people out of prison, and he hoped hon. members would agree with him, when they had perused the Bill, that the main object was to try and keep certain classes out of gaol. He found from the statistics for 1915 that the total number of convictions for the Union was 208,000, of which 51,800 involved a punishment of less than seven days, and in nearly all those cases as an alternative to a fine. One of the most unsatisfactory signs of our progress was the fact that the number of prisoners was mounting up from year to year. (Hear, hear.) He was glad to say that the statistics for the last month available— April—had shown a reduction in all the Provinces—not a very good reduction, but still, in the aggregate, some 600 or 700 of the daily average. One of the most difficult problems to deal with was that these men were sentenced mostly for small offences to a very small fine, or an alternative of less than seven days. In the cases he had mentioned, he found that the most common convictions in the Cape were for offences against municipal regulations, drunkenness, police offences, petty assaults, and Master and Servants’ Act. In Natal the chief convictions were for Indian immigration laws, municipal regulations, master and servant, pass laws, breaches of the peace, and drunkenness; in the Free State, police offences, pass laws, master and servants, and drunkenness; and in the Transvaal, pass laws, municipal regulations, and Master and Servants’ Act. It was a problem which had engaged the consideration of other countries as to how people whom magistrates did not consider to be criminals of a bad character should be kept out of prison. Not only was there expense involved to the State, but these people associated with hardened criminals, and there was the danger that, after serving seven days’ imprisonment, they came out worse characters than when they went in (Hear, hear.) They had tried to prevent that in some way by having road camps to which natives who were sentenced to short sentences were sent. Even in that way the expenditure involved was considerable. They had hundreds of natives who went into prison every year and who had money actually in their possession, but refused to pay the fine, preferring three or four days’ imprisonment as the alternative. He noticed that the Natal Agricultural Union had passed a resolution, in which they said that prisoners were fed too well. They made a proposal that the rations should be cut down, so as to compel these natives to pay their fines.

He thought a much more humane way was to do as proposed in this Bill and try to recover the fines or give persons who could not pay the fines straight off time to obtain the necessary means to pay the fines. This Bill was framed in that direction. The first clause dealt with the case of a person who was arrested or summoned or warned to appear before an inferior court with reference to a minor offence, for which the maximum penalty was £5 or less. There was a case, for instance, of a man who was fined for riding a bicycle on the footpath. He might come to the court, lose half a day’s work, and be fined 5s. Provision was made so that he could pay the fine straight off without appearing before the court. This practice worked very well in Holland and other countries. In the next clause provision was made with reference to persons convicted for the first time, and magistrates were given discretion to postpone sentence for a period not exceeding one month, and release the offender on certain conditions, or to pass sentence and suspend it on certain conditions, or order payment of any fine by way of instalments or enforcement by seizure of moneys on the person of the offender or deductions from any amount due to him from his employer. That provision was also recognised in a good many of the countries that had made progress with their criminal laws and had been incorporated in a Bill which was at present before the House of Commons, and from which he had taken this provision. The practice of suspending sentence for a certain period or postponing the giving of sentence was already recognised in some of the Provinces of the Union in some respects. It was quite true there had been a few cases in which one might say this privilege had been abused, but, as a rule, he thought it had worked very well. He thought the balance of convenience was that both magistrates and Superior Courts should have this power. Then the Bill provided that it should not be lawful for a magistrate to commit to prison a person who was detained as a witness, unless upon the application of the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General. He thought the way in which witnesses had been kept in prison in this country did not speak well for our system, and there were not many civilised places in the world where witnesses were detained. With their large native population there were instances where, in the interests of justice, it was necessary to detain witnesses; but a limit should be put on it. It was assumed that only in special cases would the Attorney-General make such application. At present the police might make application for the detention of a witness, who might be bound over in his own recognisances, and if he could not find the money, he might be detained in gaol. Provision was also made in the Bill that no offender should be sentenced to less than four days’ imprisonment unless he was sentenced to be detained until the rising of the court. In Mr. McKenna’s Bill the limit was fixed at three days. If a magistrate did not want to give an offender a serious sentence he could order the man to be detained until the rising of the court, and the moral effect would be the same as if the man were imprisoned for less than four days. The Bill was only an attempt to try to keep persons out of gaol who should not be in gaol. He moved the second reading of the Bill.

said that he had much pleasure in supporting the second reading of the Bill, although that came from the Opposition side.

We don’t mind.

said he was glad to see the hon. member for Jeppe was so witty. In his case, at any rate, imprisonment seemed to have done him good. (Laughter.)

Proceeding, the hon. member said that the Minister might introduce a short clause to the effect that a man who had been reprimanded for an offence, but not sentenced, should have the power to appeal, because he might be innocent and want to clear his name. There had been a case where a man was convicted of theft and sentenced to be reprimanded and come Up for sentence in a certain time. Although that man was innocent, he could not appeal. He hoped that the Minister would deal with that matter, and make provision for it in the Bill. It seemed to him that the Minister in that Bill restricted cases, in which sentence could be suspended, unduly. The Minister had drawn up a long schedule and had gone out of his way to define the thing so closely that the very cases which he wanted to benefit might be excluded from that benefit. In the Cape Act it stated that in any case for which a person was convicted for a crime which was not a capital crime he might be given the benefit of the First Offenders’ Act.

The Minister does not withdraw that.

went on to say that if a person was convicted of any of the offences scheduled in the Bill he had to go to gaol. He hoped that the Minister would go into the matter and see whether it was worth while. In regard to another provision of the Bill, the hon. member said that the deterrent effect upon several people was taken away if a man could pay the maximum fine and not appear in court. In several cases a well-to-do man could pay, and nothing would be said, but a poor man might not be able to do so because he would have to pay the maximum penalty, and it seemed a very unfair discrimination against the poorer man. Neither did he like the provision where an employer could be compelled to pay the fine of his employee. Another provision he did not like was in section 7, where there was a repeal of laws, and they did not know where they were. Nobody would know how much of the existing Statute was repealed and how much was left on the Statute Book.

said that he heartily welcomed a Bill of that nature, because he thought it was badly wanted. He congratulated the Minister for having taken it in hand—none too soon. Small as the Bill was, it was capable of improvement. Clause 7 was exceedingly cumbersome and exceedingly difficult to follow, because it was too general in its terms, and he hoped that the Minister would set the Parliamentary draftsman to work on it, to make it clearer and more concise, and if he did so he would do a good service. The hon. member went on to criticise the Bill from much the same point of view as the preceding speaker, and said he did not consider the highest sum should always have to be paid as a fine when the whole sum had been deposited. He thought that one month’s time in which to pay the fine was too short, and that it should be extended. It was wrong to lay down a principle which would enable the Government to give notice of a particular offence to an employer.

Then he goes to prison.

said the man took that risk. Under the circumstances he thought the clause might be modified. Under section (d) the powers of the court were too restricted where there had been a previous conviction. Supposing a person were charged with assault, and there was a previous conviction for a contravention of a regulation, then the benefits were taken away from the man. With regard to the protection of witnesses the law would be giving the witness an opportunity of clearing away before the Attorney-General had had time to say that he wanted the witness detained. By the time the Attorney-General had notified the magistrate of his desire that a witness should be detained the witness might be gone. With regard to section 5, which laid down that a magistrate should not sentence a person to gaol for lees than four days, he thought the magistrate might be constrained to give a person a longer period than four days. It would be better to leave it entirely in the discretion of the magistrate. He trusted the Bill would be passed. He wished to know whether the Minister had considered the question of the training of prison officers? With regard to the administration of criminal justice, he thought the time had arrived when they should have a criminal Court of Appeal in connection with jury cases.

said that was a matter to which he had been giving attention, and he had discussed the Bill with the Minister. He thought that persons should be given an opportunity of signing a document stating that they would abide by the decision of the magistrate, thereby obviating the necessity of appearing in court. He did not think there was anything in the argument that the rich would escape and that the poor would be punished under the Act. The offences that were dealt with were only minor offences.

As to publicity being given to minor offences, newspapers did not report that John Jones was convicted for leaving his horse unattended; newspapers wanted something better than that. A month for the payment of fines was too limited. He knew of a case in which a magistrate fined a farmer £5 for a stock offence. The farmer, who was a most respectable man, had not the whole of this sum with him, and was to be removed to prison when the magistrate made up the difference out of his own pocket. The experience of other countries had shown that a man who was fined for drunkenness, and was allowed a certain number of weeks in which to pay the amount, did not in many cases touch drink during that period. If it were necessary to send a man to prison at all it was useless to send him for one day, and for such offences as having no light on a bicycle after dark a person should not be imprisoned at all. Clause 7 was a most complicated one, and he was very sorry that the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Struben)—who had a happy knack of delivering orations and then retiring to reflect on the effect of them—was not in the House. (Laughter.) The offences which were excepted from the provisions of the Act did not contain a single simple offence. The Bill was a great step in the direction of helping prisoners. (Cheers.) He heartily congratulated the Minister on the measure, and he was glad to see that the Government was acting in a humane manner in this direction. (Hear, hear.) It was to the credit of the Minister of Justice that he had taken up a position which another Minister had refused to adopt, viz., the payment of fines by instalments. (Hear, hear.)

said that after the House had listened to so many legal luminaries it might be as well that he should put the position as one would imagine it would present itself to a convicted prisoner. The Minister of Justice had stated that the main object of the Bill was to reduce the number of cases of imprisonment. One would applaud any effort in that direction, but if the Minister looked a good deal deeper for the reasons which caused those imprisonments he would do a great deal more good. (Hear, hear.) However, he (Mr. Creswell) welcomed the intention of the Bill, for imprisonment was a very stupid institution where it could possibly be avoided.

He could not conceive of its doing any good to a human being to be inside prison walls for a fortnight or a month, or whatever it might be It was a stupid punishment which our civilisation provided, and the less there was of it undoubtedly the better. One should get at the reason which produced so much contravention of laws. There were hundreds of men in this country who did not know where to turn to get food for themselves or their families. That was a condition of affairs which produced contraventions of the law. On the subject of giving acquittances, it seemed to him that in many cases it would result in hardship if this limit of £5 were insisted on. He hoped the Minister would look into the question of whether that was not too high a limit. He entirely differed from the Minister in his view on clause 2 (3). He understood from what had been said that a curious suggestion had been made by some gentlemen in Natal that the luxurious prison fare should be reduced. He could tell the gentlemen who made that suggestion that if they tried it they would find that prison fare was quite healthy, but not luxurious, (Laughter.) He thought it was a bad principle to insert in this Bill. After all, there might be individuals to whom money was more important than three or four days’ imprisonment. He thought a man should have the option in such a case. He strongly objected to power being given to take a man’s future earnings in payment of a fine. As to clause 5, he supposed that in Committee this would be discussed more at length, and the Minister might then be able to give better reasons than he had given for his decision as to the four days. He thought it would be wise to stop at three days. On the whole, he welcomed the Bill.

said that with regard to suspended sentences he was glad the Minister had admitted there had been some abuse of that privilege. That was certainly the opinion of most of the commercial community in the Transvaal, especially in regard to the crime of insolvency. He was glad that the Minister had included fraudulent insolvency in the schedule of crimes for which suspended sentences should not be given. He did not think that the list of such crimes was at all too long. He would suggest to the Minister that he should consider whether he should not add culpable insolvency to the list.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a second time. The Committee stage was set down for next Monday.

said that the Minister of Finance had made an appeal to them to expedite business, and the Minister would see that his appeal was being acceded to; but they were taking the Fruit Export Bill, when there was much more important business on the Paper, such as the consideration of the Estimates and so forth. The hon. member went on to say that here in that Bill large powers were again put into the hands of officials.

We are on clause 1 now.

said that then he would move that progress be reported, and leave asked to sit again.

said that he hoped that the Minister would accept the motion, for another reason. He thought that the Minister would admit that they had given the Government every consideration in the way of expediting business. He thought, in view of the fact that they had been sitting continuously, night after night, that members should have some consideration shown to them.

Sir T. W. SMARTT (Fort Beaufort)pointed out that the deputation of fruit growers was unanimously in favour of the measure before the House with the amendment made by the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie). As that Bill was urgently required, he hoped that his hon. friend (Mr. Jagger), in his endeavour to meet the farmers—(laughter)—would admit the necessity of going on with the measure that evening, and that he would withdraw his motion.

said that that Bill embodied a principle he was very strongly against, and he was going to oppose it in all its stages. (Dissent.) Well, what were they there for but to express their opinions?

said that in spite of what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had said, there was a large amount of opposition to the Bill from fruit growers themselves, some of whom had intimated to him, his colleagues, and others, that there were certain clauses in the Bill to which they were bitterly opposed.

The motion to report progress was then put and negatived.

moved an amendment in the Dutch version in clause 1, which was agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 2, Prohibition of export of fruit without inspection,

moved the deletion of the clause, which he said was an unwarrantable interference with the liberty of the subject. He agreed that certain classes of fruit ought to be stamped, but that was no reason why other fruit should not be exported. He quite agreed that fruit of a certain quality should be stamped, but that should not debar other fruit from being exported. It was essential in order to get fruit stamped as passed by the Government inspector that it should be inspected in certain places. The regulations showed that the conveniences in the matter of inspection were very limited indeed, in fact in some places it would be impossible to get the fruit inspected. The Government under the regulations claimed not only that they should set the size and quality but that they should also set the variety. It was quite possible that the varieties of fruit the Government might prohibit might sell on the market. Regulations could be framed making it impossible to export fruit which might command a ready sale if permitted to be sent.

said provision would be made so that there could be no regulation excluding any variety of fruit—(hear, hear)—or any grade. But fruit which was unsound could be excluded.

said that was all very well, but that was not expressed in the Bill or in the amendment. The inspector should not be allowed to reject any fruit. There had been cases in which fruit which had been rejected had been sent to England and sold at a good price.

said that last year out of 400,000 boxes of fruit inspected at the Docks only 15,000 boxes were rejected. The Bill, with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Worcester, opened the door so wide as to make provision for any class of fruit that come forward.

said that they had not got the regulations before them and that was why he moved to report progress. He objected to giving the Minister and his officials a blank cheque.

said that the conditions established in the interest of the fruit industry were of such a character that they could send any fruit whatsoever to Europe, except it were diseased, and likely to damage the trade, or in such a decomposed condition when placed in the cold storage chamber that it was dangerous to other boxes. At the meeting held this morning there was a representative gathering of 50 to 60 fruit farmers and the utmost unanimity prevailed.

said that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort seemed to forget altogether that there were other parts of the Union where fruit was grown. Fruit growers in Natal strongly objected to some of the proposals in this Bill.

asked the Minister whether it was not a fact that, under the Bill, if this clause was passed, the Minister would have power to exclude certain varieties of fruit from export?

Only unsound.

asked whether the fruit growers of Natal had been consulted?

said that the Agricultural Union, as representing the Agricultural Union of Natal, had been consulted, and a draft of that Bill had been sent to the fruit growers of Natal. The amendment of the hon. member for Worcester covered the objection which they had had He had letters from some of the fruit growers of Natal

Some!

Was it not reasonable that they should ensure that they sent sound fruit? They had the most drastic regulations that some of their fruit could not go to certain parts of the Union on account of some of it being unsound.

said that the trouble was that they did not know what the powers were which were to be given to the Government to make regulations. The clause, as it stood, gave the inspector the fullest power to reject any fruit in accordance with that Act, but no one knew what that was going to be until the regulations were passed. He suggested that clause 7 should be taken, and the other clause stand over.

said that he was one of those who believed that they should have as few regulations as possible. They were learning from day to day, however, and the fruit farmers recognised that it would be inadvisable at the present moment to lay down regulations of such a drastic nature that the fruit farmers, when they came together, would not have the opportunity of altering them. Conditions altered from year to year, and the fruit farmers thought that the regulations should be of an elastic nature.

said that there were so many ways in which a man’s fruit could be rejected, and that being so, under heavy penalties, a man was prevented from exporting his fruit. (Cries of “No.”) He instanced a case in which a large number of small plums had been exported, and said it would have been impossible to have wrapped each of them in tissue paper, as required by the Bill.

said the amendment of the hon. member for Worcester was going to take all that away.

moved that the clause stand over.

This was agreed to.

On clause 5,

moved that the clause stand over.

Agreed to.

On clause 4, Examination and branding by inspectors,

moved to omit the words “measurement and,” and to insert “and has been graded as prescribed by regulation.” He said the object of the motion was to exclude the provision giving the Government power to reject fruit on account of its measurement, but only on account of its quality, and power would also be given to Government to grade the fruit. They would be giving the Government power under the regulations to deal with the grading and the naming of the different grades if the amendment were passed. He would also propose an amendment to clause 5. With these amendments the exporters would be put on a better footing than they were at present, for the existing regulations were very much wider than those proposed under the Bill. The exporters had previously stated that next season they would require 50 per cent. more cold storage accommodation on the steamers than they had utilised this season, but with the alterations in the regulations they decided that they would want 75 per cent. more accommodation. (Hear, hear.)

said the inspector might allow only first grade quality to be exported. He was convinced the Minister of Agriculture was perfectly sincere, but members did not trust Ministers now, but only what was down in black and white. He moved as an amendment to delete all the words after “and” in the third line and to add “he shall brand or stamp each box in the consignment in accordance with the grade of the fruit contained therein.”

Do you want to send unsound fruit Home?

No, but I cannot conceive a man being so foolish as to do that. There may be three qualities, and the inspector may allow only the first quality to be exported.

said he did not know that the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, would take the matter any further. It was an actual fact that the gentleman upon whom he believed the hon. member relied shipped some bad grapes, which were put on the top of a consignment sent by one of the best growers in Constantia, with the result that the latter suffered serious damage. He thought when the amendment of the hon. member for Worcester was accepted by the Government, the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, if he really wished to help the fruit industry of this country, ought to assent to it.

said there were still two things which seemed not to be settled, even accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Worcester. What was meant by “prescribed by regulation” and “the inspector was to be satisfied that the fruit was in accordance with the prescribed standard?” What was the prescribed standard?

said that as the Bill had been first drafted he thought it was rather drastic. The regulations would be laid upon the Table of the House next year, as soon as drafted. They would consult all the different exporters. It would be suicidal for the department to do anything to ruin the fruit industry of the country.

Would you grade according to variety?

According to quality.

said that there would be nothing in the regulations to prevent fruit being shipped, so long as it was sound.

said that that was the issue he wanted to get.

said he wanted an assurance from the Minister that it would be only unsound fruit that would be rejected.

put Mr. Heatlie’s amendment, which was agreed to.

said the door must be left open for the export of fruit, and the export of smaller qualities would be allowed to go on, but the smaller fruit might possibly exclude the superior fruit. He therefore moved the following addition to clause 4: “Provided that if the inspector has reason to believe that on a ship by which several boxes of fruit of different grades are consigned for export there is insufficient accommodation for all such boxes, he shall first brand or stamp such boxes as contain fruit of the higher grades.”

suggested the deletion of the words “passed by the Government Fruit Inspector ” and the substitution of “and with the grade of fruit contained therein.” Then a man who bought third grade stuff would know that it was third grade.

Unsound.

Are you going to send only first grade? The fact of the Union Arms being on the box would show that the fruit had been passed by the inspector.

said that at present the boxes were marked “extra selected,” “selected,” and “graded.” There would be no harm in specifying the grade.

You get that in the regulations.

at 11.29 moved that progress be reported in order to give the Minister time to consider the amendments. (Ministerial cries of “No.”)

I am not prepared to accept such a motion. It is barely half an hour ago since it was moved.

We ought to have the ruling of Mr. Speaker on that point. Under what regulation is that ruling made?

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

said he was not prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town.

said that it was laid down in this clause that the box must be stamped with the Arms of South Africa and passed by the Government Inspector. The most important thing of the lot, the grade of fruit inside the box, was not to be put in, but left to regulation.

said that the boxes were to be of uniform size. In regard to oranges, the grade would be determined according to the number of oranges in the box.

The Minister’s amendment was agreed to.

withdrew his previous amendment, and moved to insert after “Government Fruit Inspector ” “and the grade of fruit contained therein.”

The amendment was negatived.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 5, Provision where inspector refuses to pass fruit for export,

moved the transposition of certain portions of the clause.

The amendment was agreed to.

moved a proviso to the effect that if the decision of the Board upheld the consignor’s contention, any fees which had been paid in that regard should be returned to the consignor.

This was agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 7, Regulations,

moved, as an amendment, to omit sub-section (e) for the purpose of substituting “the quality and grading of fruit intended for export and the manner in which the different grades shall be marked.”

This was agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 8, Penalties,

moved, as an amendment, the deletion of the alternative of imprisonment not exceeding three months in case the fine was not paid.

I accept that.

said he did not see how they could proceed civilly.

suggested that the following words be substituted for those proposed to be deleted by Mr. Henderson, “which fine can be recovered by execution if need be ”

accepted the suggestion, and amended his amendment accordingly.

The amendment was agreed to.

Clause 10 was verbally amended.

The Committee reverted to clause 2.

withdrew his amendment.

The clause was agreed to.

Clause 3 was agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments, which were set down for consideration on Friday.