from E. D’Exeter Jordan, Messenger of the Court, Bizana, for a pension.

from 112 lessees in the Kopjes Irrigation Settlement, praying that they may be exempted for three years, instead of for one year, from a water rate.

from the widow of E. S. Johnson, late of Cape Mounted Riflemen, for relief.

from the widow of L. J. Haasbroek, who was killed during the late war, for increase of pension.

moved that the Bill be read a third time.

The motion was agreed to and the Bill was read a third time.

moved that the Bill be read a third time.

The motion was agreed to and the Bill was read a third time.

moved the adoption of the reports.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the consideration of this clause stand over until the schedules had been disposed of.

The motion was agreed to.

The first schedule, Scales of compensation and the manner of calculating it, was considered.

moved: That the paragraphs in the schedule be taken seriatim.

Agreed to.

On paragraph 1,

said he would like to ask the Minister whether, in case the Committee agreed in clause 1 to include industrial diseases, any further amendment of the schedule would be necessary.

was understood to reply that, as far as he knew, no amendment would be required.

said that if the Committee did agree to include industrial diseases he presumed the Minister would give facilities for the introduction of such amendment as might be made in the schedule.

said that the hon. member knew that he was opposed to any amendment in the direction he (Mr. Creswell) had indicated. Replying to Mr. Sampson, the Minister added that it was pointed out in the Select Committee that an accident must result in incapacitation or death.

asked whether the Minister desired it definitely laid down that nothing should be given for an injury which did not result in loss of earning power. In Australia the magistrate or judge might take into consideration other things than mere loss of earning power. The magistrate or judge trying the action might assess something in the way of loss of enjoyment, pain, etc., and give something in excess in that respect.

said the Bill laid down a maximum amount of compensation in certain cases—permanent incapacitation, permanent partial incapacitation, and death.

said that the Transvaal Act laid down a definite sum that should be paid for any injury, and it had invariably worked out that the magistrate had awarded considerably less than the maximum.

said what an abominable thing it was for the Government to assess the value of a man’s finger as if it were a 1b. of beef or a 1b. of mutton. Was the finger of Paderewski of the same value as that of the organ grinder in the street? Surely it would be going too far if the Government accepted a suggestion such as that. They wanted the country to advance industrially, but the members on the cross-benches wished to wreck the country industrially. If the country were going to adopt Socialistic legislation of that kind surely they were moving in the wrong direction.

admitted that it was exceedingly difficult to assess a man’s limb, but the hon. member who had just spoken did not hesitate to assess the value of a man’s muscle. So far as killing the country industrially was concerned, what they were anxious to do was to prevent the employer from killing the men. Wherever they made an employer pay compensation they made that man more careful in the employment he kept his men at.

Paragraph 1 of the schedule was agreed to.

On paragraph 3: “In fixing the amount of any compensation the magistrate may have regard to any payment, allowance or benefit which the workman may receive from the employer after the date of the accident. ”

replying to Mr. Creswell, said that if an employer kept an injured man and his family for several months that would be taken into consideration.

asked how a magistrate would act under that paragraph. He did not see how a magistrate could fix compensation having regard to the benefits the employee might receive in the future. He moved the substitution of the words “may have received” instead of “may receive.”

moved the deletion of the paragraph.

said that periodical payments were payments made to a man who had suffered injury during the time he had been unable to resume work. Those payments might be made weekly or monthly, and might amount to 50 per cent. of his wages.

asked whether the Minister would allow the words “allowance or benefit” to be deleted. The compensation provided for was for loss of earning power. If that was the case compensation should be given him in hard cash, and medical benefit should not be included. Instead of moving the deletion of the whole paragraph he would move the deletion of the words “allowance or benefit.”

said that members on the cross-benches did not wish to allow the employer to pay anything of his own free will, but wished to force everything out of the employer. The idea of the Labour Party was to kill all personal relationship between the master and the workman. A workman under the common law of the country was allowed to claim damages in the Law Courts for any accident occurring through no fault of his own. Therefore he did not see the necessity for such an amendment, and he hoped the Minister would not strike out the clause, because it had at least that one redeeming point about it.

thought the Minister should accept the amendment, because he had known of a number of accidents in which the men were only getting half pay, and all that pay went for medical attendance. It was an utter impossibility for an ordinary workman to pay the doctor’s bill resulting from an accident.

said that members on the cross-benches should realise that the House had received the Bill in a sympathetic manner, and members on the cross-benches should not endeavour to go too far by asking unreasonable conditions, or it would defeat the objects of the Bill. They should remember that they were asking for something in advance of anything granted in England or the Transvaal.

said it amounted to this, that they on the cross-benches would have to take what was offered them or they were likely to get nothing at all. There was very much in the Bill that might be greatly improved, but taking it in all it was an example of the present Parliament making laws to safeguard the interests of its own class.

thought they should not be unreasonable in regard to this matter, because they had already adopted the principle of imposing upon the employer the liability for accidents to workmen from whatever cause they might arise, even although it was through no fault or negligence of the employer. It was not intended that an employer should compensate a man for all his lifetime. If it was proved that the accident was due to the negligence of the employer then the workmen could take further action under the common law.

said the hon. member for Fordsburg wished to argue that because some workmen were injured by their own negligence, therefore all workmen must pay their own expenses. He thought that was very unfair indeed.

said that the Bill did not deal with accidents arising from the negligence of an employer, because in that case the workmen had another remedy. Here, compensation was granted without going into the question of how the accident arose.

said that if the whole of the compensation was to be swallowed up in medical expenses, how then could the injured man be said to receive compensation?

The amendment of the hon. member for Springs, to delete the words “allowance or benefit,” was negatived.

The amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg, to delete the words “may receive” for the purpose of substituting “may have received” was agreed to.

Paragraph 3, as amended, was agreed to.

Schedules 1 and 2 were then agreed to.

On clause 1, Liability of employers to pay compensation to workmen or their dependants.

moved: That the sub-sections in this clause be taken seriatim.

Agreed to.

On sub-section (1),

moved, in line 7, after the word “accident” and the word “injury” respectively, to insert “disease,” and in line 8 to delete “and” and substitute “or.” His reason for doing so was that diseases arising out of a man’s work should be subject to compensation. He maintained that it was as much an injury as the loss of a finger or falling down a shaft. The occupational diseases in this country were increasing in number. For instance, the printing trade was introducing lead poisoning, which had been unknown here before. A personal friend of his died a couple of years ago from lead poisoning contracted in printing works, and he left a widow and four children in very straitened circumstances. He was a healthy, sober and industrious workman, but had been unable to save. No compensation was paid either to him or to his dependants. Then there was mercurial poisoning contracted in the battery houses on the Rand, while people who handled hides ran the risk of contracting anthrax, a disease which was scheduled under the Workmen’s Compensation Act in Great Britain. The hon. member appealed not only to the sense of justice of the Committee, but to its sense of humanity.

said there was a necessity for legislation of this kind. In some printing offices where linotype machines had been installed the fumes of the melting lead were allowed to evaporate into the room. At Johannesburg the printing employers took no steps to alter that state of affairs until the Medical Officer of Health forced them to do so by making structural alterations at very great expense. There was no better protection for workmen than to include occupational diseases under the Bill.

moved to omit “and the injury” in line 7 and to omit in lines 8 and 9 “arose out of and in the course of his work.” The mover said the clause introduced the principle that an employer should be liable for the carelessness and, in some instances, the intentional injury of a man committed by the man himself. In Natal Indian engine-drivers would come under this Bill and the Indian was a man of such an extraordinary temperament that he had been known to commit suicide just for the purpose of annoying his employer. (Laughter.) Hon. members laughed because they were very ignorant on this subject. Indians had been known to commit suicide to annoy either their employer or their fellow-workmen, and under this Bill they would put their hands in chaff-cutting machines so as to get compensation. The Bill actually omitted farming operations, but hon. members opposite should not saddle a certain section of employers with liabilities that hon. members themselves were not ready to assume. In a country like this a man who was injured through the negligence of his employer had his remedy at common law and that was going far enough. The unprogressive farmer who did not use machinery would be exempt, but the progressive farmer would be held liable for accidents to his workmen. The Bill would prevent South Africa becoming an industrial country.

said that if the amendment were carried compensation would have to be paid whether the death of a workman arose out of an accident while at his work or not (Laughter.)

thought it would be advisable not to press the amendment. If the amendment were carried, it might mean that if a man were injured during a game of football his employer would be liable. (Laughter.)

said that sooner or later this country would have to fall into line with civilised methods in other countries of the world in relation to industrial diseases. He would like to draw attention to the report of the Select Committee on the Working of the Miners’ Phthisis Act. In the course of their investigations it was discovered that miners were liable to and did contract phthisis of a similar kind to miners’ phthisis who had never been underground. This was what the report said (page 14): ”22. The attention of your Committee has been drawn to cases of silicosis alleged to be contracted through working in crusher stations. Your Committee is of opinion that surface crusher stations, whether belonging to mines, local bodies, or Other employers, should be placed, for inspection purposes, under the Mines Department, but that the question of compensation to workers in such crusher stations should not be dealt with under this Act.” Here they had a class of men who were suffering equally with miners underground from miners’ phthisis. They were debarred from the provisions of the Miners’ Phthisis Act because they were not persons working underground, and yet no other provision was made for these cases. Rightly these men should be included with those who contracted diseases in the course of their employment under the Bill now under consideration.

said he would like to say a word or two in support of what had been urged by the hon. member for George Town. In the course of his profession he had seen several cases of men who had contracted miners’ phthisis, although they had never been underground. According to the report of the Select Committee on the Working of the Miners’ Phthisis Act, that Committee decided that these cases should not come under the Miners’ Phthisis Act. This was a disease which had arisen out of and in the course of a man’s employment, and if it did not come under the Miners’ Phthisis Act he thought it was right that such cases as that should come under the Bill at present under discussion.

said he hoped the Minister would consider this matter. He did not think the amendment moved by the hon. member for Springs would meet the case. That, he thought, went too far. He did not think that anywhere they had Compensation Acts that dealt with diseases contracted during the course of the employment. There were certain occupational diseases which were recognised as being directly due to the employment. If the hon. member would limit his amendment to scheduling certain diseases as occupational diseases he thought the Minister might consider whether he could not include that in the Bill. There were certain diseases, such as lead poisoning, etc., arising out of employment, and he thought these should be provided for. He would move, by way of putting the matter before the Committee, to insert after “accidents,” “or by one of the diseases included in the third schedule.” Then provision would have to be made afterwards for the third schedule including certain diseases, and the Minister could add others which, on further knowledge, were found to be occupational diseases.

said he thought they were departing from the scope of the Bill in including occupational diseases. He thought a separate law should be made for occupational diseases.

said that this essentially was a Bill in which those diseases should be scheduled. It was not his fault that they were not included in it earlier. He hoped the Minister would now see his way to accept the amendments moved by the hon. member for Springs and the hon. member for Fordsburg, and include occupational diseases in the schedule to this Bill.

said he was sorry that he could not accept this amendment. A little consideration would show at once the futility of trying to get the Committee to accept an entirely new principle, and an important new principle, in a Bill of this sort, which, on the face of it, was intended to award compensation for injuries received by workmen during the course of their employment, injuries arising out of an accident. How were they in a position without evidence to sit down here to-day and prepare a schedule of occupational diseases which should be included in the scope of this Bill? Certainly no member of the Government was in a position to do it, and he thought very few members in that House were in a position to do it. It was a very important matter, no doubt, and one that would be dealt with in course of time. Hon. members on the cross-benches must remember that there were few industries in this country at present, and that we were behind other countries which were highly industrialised, but they were trying to keep pace with the needs of the moment. (Hear, bear.) He thought the Committee would be well advised if they allowed this clause to stand as it was drafted. As to the amendment of the hon. member for Umlazi, it seemed to him that the hon. member was trying to make this Bill a farce.

said it seemed to him that no amendment he could make at this stage of the Bill would have the result he wished it to have. He would, therefore, withdraw his amendment.

said he would remind the Minister that his Committee were responsible for altering the scope of the Bill from “injury” to “incapacity.” They might have incapacity from disease just as well as from accident. This was not a new principle at all. The “needs of the moment” in this country industrially required the inclusion of occupational diseases in this Bill.

said that, on a point of order, he would like the Chairman’s ruling as to whether these amendments fell within the scope of the Bill?

said that occupational diseases would fall within the scope of this Bill.

said that a disease which was included in the English Act as an occupational disease was hookworm. This was very prevalent in the mines here, and in fact right throughout the country. They were making a new law for South Africa, and while they were doing it let them take into consideration the experience of other countries, and in drafting the law let them start fair and on the best basis. The English Act included a large number of occupational diseases, including telegraphists’ cramp. Were there no telegraphists in this country? If the Minister wanted as he said, to legislate only for the needs of the moment, let them legislate for occupational diseases.

put the amendment in lines 15 to 19, paragraph (a), proposed by the Select Committee.

moved to omit from paragraph (a), “or in so far as the capacity or death … but for a pre-existing diseased condition of the workman and such condition was unknown to the employer.” He said they should take for instance the case of a person who was injured through an accident, and it was shown after the accident that he had had a pre-existing disease. He got compensation for the accident, but the accident accentuated the disease, and might extend the period of incapacitation for many years. Most people had a disease of some sort. Supposing an accident did happen, and the man had a disease which had nothing to do with the accident, then during incapacitation that disease might be developed as the result of the accident.

said he wished to point out the bad effect the clause as it stood would have ou the large number of people out of employment. If a man had some disease which was likely to affect him in his work he would have to tell his employer that he was suffering from that disease, and if he failed to do it he could not get compensation under the Act. If he told the employer, he would not get employment. He had not seen any similar provision in the law of any other part of the world.

moved to delete the words “serious and wilful.” He did not think it necessary to include the words. It would be sufficient if the clause read “workman’s misconduct.” The words would lead to endless litigation, and surely the word “misconduct” was sufficient.

said that if the hon. gentleman who had just spoken had looked at the definition his difficulty would have been removed. With regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Commissioner-street, if it was carried” it would be to the disadvantage of the workman.

said that as the clause was originally drawn a workman who sustained an injury owing to an overstrain which was not actually an accident would not be entitled to compensation. He pointed out that if a man threw his whole might into his duties and strained himself he should receive compensation. The Committee had agreed that that was a reasonable request. If a man had a weak heart and dropped down and sustained injury it would not be fair that he should receive compensation for an accident which was due to his own condition. He did not think it would be in the interest of the workmen to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Commissioner-street.

said the argument of the Minister was met by the fact that if the workman’s incapacity or death was attributable to his own diseased condition it would not fall within the four corners of the Act. He knew there had been different legal decisions on the point of whether death was caused by accident or to a pre-existing condition. He thought it would be best to leave it to the Courts to decide; as the clause stood they were throwing a large responsibility on the medical profession to show how far death was due to an accident and how far due to disease. He thought it would avoid a great deal of litigation if the Minister would leave the matter to be dealt with by the Courts.

thought that in the interests of the workmen the amendment of the Select Committee should be deleted.

said the Minister was quite right when he stated that the clause was a compromise. They on the cross-benches had considered that this proviso was far more dangerous to the workmen than the original wording of the clause, and if the Minister would revert to the original wording of the clause they on the cross-benches would take the responsibility of the change being made. He thought the Minister would be prepared to withdraw that part of the Bill, because it was at his (Mr. Boydell’s) request that the previous clause had been dropped. They took the full responsibility of acting in the best interest of the workmen.

asked if the member for Greyville was agreeable to adopting the original clause?

Yes.

said the original clause would prevent a workman receiving compensation for any injury he had received from any cause which was not a direct accident. He thought members on the cross-benches would be well advised to allow the clause to remain, because it was conferring an added benefit.

hoped the amendment would not be insisted on, as employers should not be held responsible for the workmen’s diseases and sicknesses. He thought the amendment was not to the advantage of employers themselves. Employers did not know what diseases the men were suffering from, and if the amendment was agreed to they would have to have all their men examined before engaging them. The Bill gave sufficient protection to the workman.

supported the proviso. He had had a good deal to do with workmen’s compensation claims, and there was nothing more difficult than the question as to whether a man was previously suffering from any disease which might have contributed to the accident. Of course, a man might not know that he had a weak heart, but then there were cases, of course, that were otherwise, as where a man had fits, but did not mention that fact to his employer, and it would be hard lines for an employer under those circumstances to be responsible for an accident. It meant if they excluded this recommendation of the Select Committee that a man who had any disease would not be able to get employment. He thought a decision should be given upon a reasonable assumption as to whether a man knew that he was suffering from any particular disease or not.

said that he had had large experience in such matters, and it was generally found that there were doctors on both sides, one saying the one thing and another contradicting it. He certainly thought the question should be left to the Court to decide upon the evidence placed before it. To his mind there was no reason why this part of the clause should be retained.

Mr. Madeley’s amendments were negatived.

The amendments proposed by Mr. Duncan and Mr. Fawcus were also negatived.

then put the question that the proviso moved by the Select Committee stand part of the clause.

said he had the greatest objection to sub-section (c), and he did not see why an unfortunate workman should have to choose whether he would institute proceedings at common law for damages against his employer or institute proceedings for compensation under the Bill, and that if he instituted proceedings at common law he should be debarred from taking any further proceedings. A man might be employed on the railway, and while driving a wagon over a level crossing might be killed. Under the common law his dependants would get very substantial damages, but if they sued the railway they would have to prove negligence, and if that failed they could not proceed further.

said the effect of the Bill would be to give workmen very much greater redress than they had at present under the common law, and it seemed only reasonable that workmen should elect whether they should proceed under the common law or under the Bill. At present in the Cape an injured workman could sue only under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. A man could not have it both ways, and he was given ample time to make up his mind as to which remedy he would seek.

moved the following amendment: In sub-section (1), paragraph (c), line 53, after “Act” to omit the comma and to substitute a full stop, and to insert thereafter “The issuing of a summons either under the common law for damages or under this Act for compensation shall be deemed to be an election,”; in the same line, to omit “he” and to substitute “the workman or his representative”; and in line 39, to omit all the words from “Any” to “Act” in line 43. The hon. member explained that it was his desire to make such provision that a workman would not be rushed in deciding whether he would proceed under the Act or at common law.

said that this was a subject which was a good deal discussed in the Select Committee. They were told that cases had occurred where people had had money paid to them under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which had afterwards been used for proceeding at common law by the lawyers, with the result that that money was dissipated and the workman got no compensation. He thought the hon. member for Von Brandis might well accept the clause as it stood. Such cases as he contemplated did not occur in one case out of a hundred.

said he hoped the hon. member for Von Brandis would not press his amendment, because it would require very considerable alterations in the Bill. If the hon. member looked at a later section he would see that there was no summons issued under this Bill at all. He hoped that this clause, which, on the whole, was sound, would go through.

said he agreed with the last speaker that the amendment of the hon. member for Yon Brandis did not make the clause any better. He thought the clause ought to be allowed to go through as it was, or that it should be taken out altogether. He did not think a man should have his common law right taken away. He pointed cut the difficult position in which a man was placed who had had a serious accident if he were called upon during a period of very great suffering and mental strain to make his election as to whether he would proceed under the Act or at common law. The fact of the matter was that the man was practically forced into the position that he had to make an application under the Act. He would vote for the deletion of sub-section (c) entirely.

said that the Select Committee agreed to the deletion of the words “or if the workman or his representative accept compensation under this Act from the employer,” and he thought it would be very desirable to strike out the other proviso, “and if the workman and the employer agree in writing as to the amount of compensation to be paid.” That was deemed to be an election, and he thought it was unfair.

said that the case referred to by the hon. member would be met under clause 52. It was practically a hopeless thing for the Government to try and place on the Statute-book consolidating measures if every clause were to be fought strenuously as this clause had been They had on the stocks a large number of consolidating measures, but they were afraid to bring them before the House. They were debated as keenly as if an attempt were being made to establish an entirely new principle. He would ask hon. members, if they desired to see this Bill become law, to help the Government to pass it.

said that as he was exceedingly anxious that the Bill should find its way on to the Statute-book he hoped the Committee would allow him to withdraw the amendments which had been tabled in his name.

said the Minister had more than once thrown out a threat that if they discussed that measure much he would withdraw the Bill. The responsibility of withdrawing the Bill rested with the Government and nobody else. The Committee stage was the stage for discussing the Bill, and no one could say that they on the cross-benches had discussed it at inordinate length. There had been a waste of two weeks in referring the matter to a Select Committee. The Government had taken the highhanded view that if the Bill was discussed it would be withdrawn. Did the Government look upon the persons dealt with by the Bill as of less importance than anyone-else? They on the cross-benches would press their amendments, and the Government must take the responsibility of curtailing any discussion.

said the hon. gentleman was so much in the habit of threatening people that he had taken the friendly advice he (the Minister) had offered as a threat. He had only mentioned what was patent to anybody, that if there was a long discussion the Bill might not go through.

Why not?

said the reason was that they were getting towards the end of the session. If hon. members insisted on discussing the Bill as if it had never been to a Select Committee it would be endangered. All the points that had been raised that day had been raised in the Select Committee. If the hon. members were not satisfied with the findings of the Select Committee, and wished to put their views before the House, of course they were entitled to do it, but there had been a good deal of repetition.

said the hon. members on the cross-benches were unaware of the difficulty there had been in piloting that Bill through the Select Committee. If the hon. members on the cross-benches raised opposition again he was convinced that the Bill would be thrown out. It was by compromise and tact that they were able to get that Bill accepted. The agricultural section had felt that the Bill would bear very heavily on them. If they were to discuss all the amendments the result would be that the Bill would not go through. Members on the cross-benches treated the Bill from the Johannesburg standpoint; from the Cape standpoint it was the best Bill they could get.

No, it is not.

said he had as much experience as the hon. member, and perhaps more. (Hear, hear.) Even if the Government did withdraw the Bill, who would suffer—not the Government, but those who were to benefit by it.

Sub-section (1).of clause 1 was agreed to.

On sub-section (2),

instanced the case of a workman whose custom it was to attend to people who were injured in an accident and got hurt himself.

said he thought that there could be no doubt that any man in charge of ambulance work who got hurt would be dealt with under the Bill. The consent of the employer would be implied.

Sub-section (2) and the clause were agreed to.

On clause 2, Persons who are regarded as workmen and employers for the purposes of this Act,

asked why it was that no workman’s compensation was to be provided for policemen under paragraph (a)?

said he had an amendment dealing with that paragraph. Following the words “provided that the following persons shall not be regarded for the purposes of this Act as workmen,” he moved to add to the list “permanent Defence Force and members of the Police Force and Prison Department.” He said that members of the Defence Force and of the Prison Department were eligible for the same generous treatment as was given the police under another law.

He therefore moved: In sub-section (1), lines 28 to 30, to omit paragraph (a), and to substitute the following new paragraph: (a) Persons in naval or military service under the Crown or the Government of the Union or of any British possession, or members of a service mentioned in section 46 or 47 of Act No. 29 of 1912.

The amendment was agreed to.

moved to delete paragraphs (d) and (e), excluding out-workers and contractors and sub-contractors from the benefits of the Bill.

The amendment was negatived.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 3,

moved to add to the clause, “provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to funds which a workman may have contributed to from which a pension or gratuity or other benefit is payable.”

said it was only right that men in the Railway Department being employed on a dangerous service should remain in the enjoyment of their present privileges.

said he understood that a member of the Public Service meeting with an accident in the course of his employment would be entitled to compensation under this Bill, and also to a grant from the ordinary Superannuation Fund, but from that grant would be deducted the amount of the Government’s contribution to the Superannuation Fund.

Mr. Boydell’s proviso was negatived.

The clause, as printed, was agreed to.

On clause 7, Conditions to be fulfilled before compensation can be obtained.

moved the addition of the following, “provided further that when an employer or his agent or his responsible servants had knowledge of an accident no written notice thereof need be given by a workman.”

said the hon. member should have had his amendment ready written out.

said as hon. members were detained in the House until nearly midnight, and had to be there again by 10 o’clock on the following morning, there was very little opportunity for them to write out amendments. That was one of the disadvantages of trying to take legislation at a gallop—in fact it was only playing at Parliament.

said that when a claim was made against an employer it was only reasonable that he should receive a written notice, otherwise an action might be sprung on an employer at such a time when it would be impossible for him to secure witnesses.

The proviso was negatived, and the clause was agreed to.

On clause 12, “Mode and form of application under this Act,”

moved in sub-section (b) line 42, to insert after “agent” the words “or other representative as provided in section 15.”

said he would accept the amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause as amended was adopted.

On clause 15, Appearance by parties,

moved the deletion from sub-section (f) of the words “provided such Union is registered under the Law, governing the registration of Trade Unions.” The mover said it was possible that many Trade Unions would refuse to register, and until the Trade Union Bill was passed there was no method of registration.

moved the deletion of paragraph(f), sub-section (1). He thought that if a workman was not sufficiently represented by an attorney or law agent, an advocate, or a member of his family, he did not see why the workman needed to be represented by an officer of the Trade Union. The tendency of such a clause would be to put a man who from conscientious scruples did not belong to a Trade Union more or less under the control of Trade Union officials.

said he had known Trade Unions do very good work, and he was prepared to accept the amendment.

The amendment of Mr. Boydell was agreed to, and that of Mr. Fawcus was negatived.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 19, Costs,

moved the deletion of the words “double” from the fourth line of sub-section (1). He said the sub-section was levelled against the workmen, and it would be a rather dangerous discretion to put in the hands of a magistrate. His (Mr. Andrews’) experience as an organiser of Trade Unions had not led him to suppose that any man would bring a frivolous or vexatious action.

said that if the hon. member wished to prevent the award of double costs he should move the deletion of all the words after “and” in line 20.

said he thought the hon. member would be well advised if he withdrew this amendment.

said that it was felt in the Committee that it would be in the interests of the men that this provision as to double costs should be allowed to remain.

said that he would withdraw his amendment.

Clause 19 was agreed to.

On clause 21, Appeals to superior courts from magistrate’s decision.

said that this seemed to be opening the door very wide for appeals to be made against magistrates’ decisions. The clause went very much further than the Transvaal Act, which laid down that the only ground for an appeal to the higher Court was that the accident causing the injury complained of was due to the serious and wilful misconduct of the person concerned. He moved to delete the following paragraphs, so as to bring the clause into conformity with the Transvaal law: “(a) Any question as to the interpretation of this Act or any other law or of the common law; (b) whether there was or was not evidence to support the finding of the magistrate or whether any evidence has been improperly admitted or rejected; (d) whether the amount of any compensation awarded is in the circumstances so excessive or so inadequate that the award could not reasonably be made.”

said he thought this clause went very far in the direction of allowing appeals. It allowed appeals on almost every question of law and fact. He thought the policy of an Act like this should be to have finality. He was of opinion that it would be well to allow an appeal only in case of serious and wilful misconduct, but he considered that an appeal should also be allowed on a case stated by the magistrate on a question of law.

said that this was discussed in Committee. There were two sides to the question. It should not be assumed that this clause was against the workman. It was notorious in the Cape that some ridiculous decisions had been given. He thought there should be an appeal not only on a point of law, but also on a question of fact

said he agreed that this would have been all good and well if they had expunged the sub-section in a previous clause to which he had referred. They had taken away the right of the workman to sue under the common law, and now, when they compelled him to sue under this Act, they were going to allow all sorts of grounds of appeal under this Act.

said he thought there was some misapprehension with regard to the object of the Government in inserting this clause. It was not to put the workman in a worse position than he otherwise would be It was done for the protection of the workman. In practice it had been found there were more appeals from workmen than from employers. He thought, taking everything into account, it would be well to al— low the clause as agreed to by the Select Committee to stand.

said that the facts put before the Committee showed that the appeals made by workmen had been more successful than those made by employers. He supported the clause as printed.

said it seemed to him that the Minister was qualifying very rapidly for a seat on the cross-benches. (Laughter.) He moved in sub-section (c) to delete the words “serious and wilful” before “misconduct.” Who, he asked, was to be the judge in these cases of what was “serious and wilful misconduct?” Surely, this was the very question that had to come before the Court to which an appeal was to be made.

hoped the hon. member for Umlazi would not insist on his amendment. If a workman in his zeal did some careless act, he should be protected, and that was what the clause aimed at. A workman might try to advance his work, careless of his own safety. Surely it was right if a man got hurt in such circumstances, that he should receive compensation.

pointed out that in another part of the Bill it was laid down that “serious and wilful misconduct” should only mean (1) drunkenness, (2) contravention of some statutory regulation, and (3) anything which the magistrate might find. Under “drunkenness” one would think that an equally strong case might be made out for laziness or carelessness.

said it seemed to him that the object of a good many members of this Committee was to make it as difficult as possible for the workman to obtain compensation. The Minister must know that where an appeal was allowed the workman was always handicapped. He was anxious to see the appeal clause knocked out, and there should certainly be no appeal on a question of facts.

said it was thought there should be a right of appeal to the Supreme Court in order to correct a wrong decision or a manifest injustice. The sub-clauses detailing the various points on which an appeal might be made had been very carefully prepared by gentlemen of great experience in administering an Act of that sort. After a case had been taken to the Appeal Court and the decision had been given it was very seldom that there was another appeal on a similar point. The information the Committee had had from a gentleman of large experience was that the workmen were more given to making appeals than the employers. The employers as a rule were more often satisfied with the decisions than the men.

said that the Minister had said twice that the men appealed more often than the employers. In the Transvaal, where the vast majority of cases were heard, the right of appeal was limited to the point as to whether the accident was due to serious and wilful misconduct. To extend the right of appeal was going to open the door to the insurance companies to prosecute many more appeals.

said that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the section were questions of law—(d) was not a question of law, and he thought that paragraph should be deleted.

said he wished to withdraw his amendment so far as the deletion of paragraph (a) was concerned; but he wished paragraphs (b) and (d) to be deleted.

Mr. Boydell’s amendment to delete paragraph (b) was negatived.

Mr. Fawcus’ amendment to omit the words “serious and wilful” was negatived.

Mr. Boydell’s amendment to omit paragraph (d) was negatived.

Clause 21 was agreed to.

New clause 22.

moved the following new clause 22: “During the course of any proceedings under this Act the magistrate may at the request of any party to the proceedings reserve any question of law arising therein for the decision of the Supreme Court, and such question shall be stated in the form of a special case, and may be argued before and shall be determined by that Court, which may give such directions and decision on the matter and may make such order as to costs as it may deem fit.”

said that such a clause might be proper in the Transvaal Act, but he did not think it should be included in that Bill. The hon. member wished to put a suitor to the expense of employing counsel to argue the matter before a judge. He thought it was better in the first place to allow the matter to be settled before the magistrate.

said it was not proposed to leave it to the magistrate to decide whether the matter should be dealt with by a judge or not It was left to the parties.

The proposed new clause was negatived.

On clause 22, Review of orders for periodical payments,

said he wished to move the deletion of sub-section (2), clause 22, which provided again for contracting out. An employee might contract with his employer to be paid so much per month or so much per week. No contracting out was allowed before the accident, and why should there be any contracting out after the accident?

said it might be that a magistrate had made an order for payments for two months or three months. It might be that the parties agreed that the man was not in such a state that the amount of his compensation could be assessed, so instead of having to go back to the magistrate an order could be given saying how much should be paid per month or per week.

Mr. Boydell’s amendment was negatived, and clause 22 as printed was agreed to.

On clause 25, Circumstances precluding the recovery of compensation,

said he thought sub-section 3 was very clumsy, and as worded it would lead to a good deal of litigation.

said sometimes a workman had been injured and obtained compensation on the ground of permanent incapacity, but subsequently it was discovered that the man had been able to resume work. It would be unfair to make an employer pay twice over for permanent incapacity.

suggested the substitution in line 50 of “the same nature” instead of “similar to”

said that suppose a plasterer met with an accident and lost a leg, and received compensation for permanent incapacity, but subsequently resumed work and met with another accident which was attributable to the loss of his leg. This man would not be able to claim further compensation, but if the second accident were not due to the missing limb then he could obtain compensation.

stated that a man had received £400 compensation on the ground that he was suffering from miners’ phthisis when subsequently it was found that he was not suffering from that disease at all. Such cases might be repeated.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 33, Special terms in contract of employment to receive less than the maximum amount of compensation,

maintained that if men were good enough to be employed they were good enough to be compensated. The old men should get the benefit of compensation as well as anyone else.

said it was very desirable that the clause should remain as it was in the interest of old and infirm men. If the clause were deleted there would be less chance of such men obtaining work.

said compensation was assumed to be paid on the basis of the man’s wages. Why then should there be any discrimination against a man because he was old?

said it was a most iniquitous clause and would “give it” to the employer both ways, as the old men would be penalised both in wages and compensation.

said old men might very well say “Save me from my friends,” for the proposals of the hon. members on the cross-benches would make it more difficult for old men to obtain employment.

Pension them off.

said a man’s physical infirmity was reflected in the wages, and if they based compensation on the wage-earning power of the worker why should old men be excluded from the benefits of compensation?

declared the clause agreed to.

On clause 36, Position of employers in relation to insurers,

On the motion of Mr. CRESWELL,

put the amendment proposed by the Select Committee.

said he did not think the Committee should agree to the amendment which had been made in Select Committee to this clause. Before the position was that if a claim were contested the magistrate or solicitor who appeared for the plaintiff could put a question to the employer as to whether he had insured the workman concerned. Now it was proposed that that question could only be put if the employer had become insolvent. He thought, it was better to allow the clause to be as it stood before it went to the Select Committee and allow the question to be put at any time.

said that the reason why this clause was amended in Select Committee was to prevent inquiries being made before the case had been determined as to whether or not an employee was insured. It had been found in England that where it was disclosed to the magistrate that the employer was insured there was a tendency to make the employer liable and not apply the law strictly. The tendency in England, in consequence, had been to increase the premiums of insurance. It was thought by the Committee, and he entirely agreed, that it was far better to decide the case on its merits and ask no question as to whether the employer was insured or not before the order was granted.

said he thought that the original phrasing of the clause was the better one, and he accordingly moved that the amendment introduced by the Select Committee be deleted.

said that a workman might want an employer to disclose whether he was insured or not even before proceedings were commenced.

Is not that a privilege at present enjoyed by the workman which you are taking away from him?

said that there was no liability upon an employer to tell the workman beforehand whether he was insured or not.

No, but he can ask the question in Court before the order is made.

said that the object of making the addition to the clause in the Select Committee was to prevent a magistrate from asking any question with regard to whether the employer was insured or not until he had made his order for payment for compensation.

The amendment made by the Select Committee was agreed to.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 37, Sub-contracting,

said it seemed to him that the provision made here with regard to engines or machinery employed in agricultural work and the liability of the contractor under this Act was another case of class legislation. He would like to ask the Minister why the farmer should, not be touched with regard to compensation?

said that the owners of threshing machines and other steam-driven farm appliances usually had an insufficient number of men under their own immediate control. It was the customary thing for the man who owned the machines to go from one farm to another, but the workmen were not actually in the employ of the owner of the threshing machine. The practice as for the farmer to pay these men while they were living on his farm, but they were really subject to the control and in the employ of the owner of the machine. It was thought, in the circumstances, that the liability to pay compensation should be saddled upon the contractor who owned the machines.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 41, Interpretation of terms,

moved in the definition of “work” to delete all the words after “Union” to the end of the clause. He said he wished to raise the question of the exemption under this Bill of domestic servants and everyone employed in agriculture. They had a division in the Select Committee on the subject, with the result that the amendment was only lost by one vote. Neither on the second reading debate nor at any stage of this Bill had he heard any convincing reason given why agricultural and domestic servants should be excluded from the operation of the Bill. Two reasons had been given for the exclusion of these classes, but neither of these seemed to him to be sufficient or satisfactory. So far as insurance was concerned, there was no difficulty whatever. One could only come to the conclusion that there was a third reason, and that was simply that the majority of the House, who happened to be agriculturists and landowners, were determined that their people should not have the benefit of this Act, a piece of deliberate class legislation, and a case of the majority simply using its strength to protect itself. He did not believe in that sort of thing, and he thought the Committee ought to have an opportunity of saying “yea” or “nay” to that proposition.

said that even if he had to explain to the hon. member for Gardens he would not understand, as he knew nothing of agriculture. The agricultural portion of the country did not ask for a Bill like this. But the hon. member for Gardens wished to have this Bill forced on the agricultural section, so that they should insure. But the agricultural employer had absolutely no control over his employees. If the hon. member for Gardens knew the position he would never have spoken as he had done. If the amendment were agreed to, the poor farmer would not be able to employ men.

moved to add to sub-section (1) the words “or wore lawfully entitled to support from such workman.” He said there were many widows who had not been dependent on the wages of their husbands. They might have been separated. A woman might have to earn her own living as best she could, and unless she could prove that she was dependent on the wages of her husband at the time of his death she could not claim compensation. They claimed that the widow should be included in the payment of compensation.

said he was in favour of the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens. Let them take the case of a cobbler who employed only two or three men. One man might hurt himself by hitting himself with a hammer. That man was entitled to compensation under the Bill. An employee of an agriculturist using steam might fall in front of the machine and his employer would have to pay compensation for his injuries. A neighbouring employer might employ horses for the same purpose, and a man might fall in front of the machine, and yet it was proposed that that employer should not pay such compensation. He thought the farmers were needlessly afraid of being included in a clause like that because, under existing conditions, accidents being so seldom, the insurance would be so small that it would press upon no farmer. He did say that they were not justified in recognising the principle of compensation for workmen when they excluded any section from coming under the Bill.

said that with regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Durban, Greyville, a widow of a deceased workman was entitled to compensation fully or in part. If she was entirely independent of her husband there did not seem to be any necessity for compensation.

said let them take the case of a woman in the workhouse and her husband did not send her money. On his death she would not be able to claim any compensation because she had not been dependent on him at the time of the accident.

said there had been difficulty in the matter in the Transvaal because there, unfortunately, a considerable number of men working on the Witwatersrand had wives and families in the Old Country. It was then a difficult matter for the widow to prove that she was dependent on her husband for support.

said he thought the wording of the clause referred to a widow who was able to support herself. The poor woman would be a dependent of the man at the time of his death.

asked how many wives of working men had independent means?

said it was difficult for a woman in Scotland, for instance, to prove that she was financially dependent on a man at the time of an accident.

said that he had been in Court while many of these cases were heard and they had always gone against the women.

said that if a woman was heir to money her husband left why should she not be entitled to the compensation ?

The amendment of the hon. member for Durban, Greyville, was put and negatived.

called for a division, but subsequently withdrew the demand.

said he would like to urge upon the Minister the necessity of including domestic servants. He pointed out that the wages paid to the servants were very low, and it would be no hardship on the employer to insure his servants, seeing it would only cost him 10s. a year.

said it was ridiculous and iniquitous that farm servants should only be entitled to compensation if the injury were done by an engine or machine worked by mechanical power, and he hoped the farmers on the other side would support the amendment of the hon. member for Gardens, and come into line with the rest of the community and remove the slur that they were actuated by selfish motives. Many farmers treated injured employees fairly, but some might not; and he pointed out that the insurance would not amount to much, and when once they were accustomed to the system it would not be felt to be any burden.

said they had to look at the farmers who lived in outlying parts and who knew nothing about insurance. Then there was the case of the poor farmer. If one felt there was any demand for anything of the sort he would be pleased to support it. They must consider the small man.

said that he wanted to look at the case of the small man.

He represents 90 per cent. of the country.

said that the hon. member was trying to make the Committee believe that 90 per cent. of the farmers of this country were so ignorant that they would not know how to insure their employees. He pointed out that as soon as this measure was passed the insurance companies would send their agents throughout the length and breadth of the land. At present he believed that if an employee was injured the farmer usually paid the expenses, but why should they not relieve themselves of this embarrassment by in suring their employees.

said he did not agree with the last speaker. They had heard a good deal about South African traditions and that had always been the plea when this matter was brought up His experience had been that wherever one went, no matter how remote the place might be, one could not escape from the insurance agent, (Laughter.) He did not pay any attention to the plea that the South African farmer could not take care of himself; he thought he was exceedingly shrewd, and if they passed a law affecting his interests he would soon know all about it and what to do under that law. He thought the provision affecting agricultural labourers was wrong. There was only one redeeming part—that which dealt with mechanical power, which would be used to an increasing extent, and the farmers would find it necessary to insure. It was time that discrimination was taken away and the farmers should accept their responsibility

referred to the personal interest of employers on farms, and said he had never known a case of a domestic servant being neglected on a farm. Nevertheless, he thought that the farmers were viewing that matter wrongly. The compensation was very small. The cause of the necessity for a Workmen’s Compensation Act was the indifference of large employers to the interests of their employees. Immediately they got monopolies and trusts there was no personal interest in the employees.

differed from the hon. member for Turffontein, who said the clause was going to educate the farmer to insure his men. It was going to have the opposite effect, and would delay the farmer using mechanical power. From that point of view he would move an amendment to delete the words “unless such employment be at or about or in connection with any engine driven or machine worked by mechanical power.” What was the difference he asked between a man being blown up by dynamite or being killed by an engine? It was easy for the hon. member for Gardens and the solicitors to be enthusiastic about those things. They did not employ workmen. It showed the insincerity of the whole thing in connection with that Act. He had opposed the principle all through, and not because there was a possibility of it touching his own pocket.

said they had listened with interest to the hon. member who wrapped himself up in principles. The hon. member was a farmer, and they could quite understand why he wanted agricultural labourers to be excluded.

I do not.

said that the hon. member left in the words “but shall not include domestic servants or those employed in agriculture.” As an employer his principles coincided with his interests, but that was a matter which should be considered on its merits. He found a difficulty in understanding the hon. member for Three Rivers. That was not a Bill for the punishment of indifferent employers, the principle was that if a man was running a business it was a fair thing that injuries arising in connection with that business should be paid for by the business. That was a fair thing. As a matter of fact the amount of insurance was so small that it could not harm anybody. The small man referred to by the hon. member for Clanwilliam did not employ servants, and it was ridiculous to talk of the difficulty of Insuring. With regard to the arguments of the hon. member for Umlazi he would like to know what personal interest there was in the employee who worked on farms owned by a company. No injustice would be done to anyone if the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens were adopted. If farm labourers were excluded the Bill could rightly be described as class legislation. It was to the interests of the employees, the employers and the State that employers should insure their workmen against accidents.

said he was surprised at the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, being unable to see the difference between farm labourers, domestic servants, and employees in the mines and factories. Surely the hon. member knew that farm labourers remained with the employers and were practically members of the family, while the others went all over the country. It was impossible for farmers to insure casual workmen, whom they did not know and who came one day and went the next. The farmers objected to that sort of legislation. He (the speaker) was pleased to see the change which had been effected in the Bill as otherwise he could never have voted for it. He hoped the clause would be agreed to.

said supposing a carpenter was employed on a job at Woodstock and his master supplied him with a rotten ladder which broke and an accident happened, the employer would have to pay damages. But if the same carpenter went to Kuils River and the farmer there gave him a defective ladder which broke and the man was injured, he would receive no compensation at all. Men were men whether they worked in town or on farms. Insurance companies were prepared to insure agricultural labourers at a very low rate.

said that hon. members opposite failed to see the force of the arguments put forward by the hon. members for Prieska and Clanwilliam. The condition of affairs in country districts was entirely different from the condition of affairs in town districts. In the latter labourers were employed entirely on a commercial basis, and if an accident happened that was the end of the connection between the master and the man, but in the country an employer did not turn a man adrift if he met with an accident. In nearly all cases in the country medical provision was made for the injured man, who was never treated in the harsh way in which, unfortunately, town employers occasionally treated their employees. In large tracts of country it would be impossible to meet the case by insurance.

What about New Zealand?

I am talking about the circumstances of South Africa. (Hear, hear.) Continuing, Mr. Fremantle said that the need was not the same in the country as in the town. It might be possible to get some form of words which would apply to the circumstances of the country, so that everyone in the country should make proper provision for their workpeople. In the Masters and Servants Act there was provision of the kind, but he would like to see whether anything more was wanted in that direction.

said that if farmers took proper care of their injured servants, what was the objection to including farm labourers in the Bill ? He confessed that he could not agree with the view that all employers in the country looked upon all their servants as members of their family. He could see no reason and no reason had been alleged this afternoon why the agricultural labourer should be treated on a different basis from the others.

pointed out that the system of insurance was that a farmer would pay so much upon his wages bill per month or per annum. If his wages bill amounted to £500 a year he would probably not have to pay more than £5 in insurance premiums, so that the burden was not so very great in that direction. With regard to domestic servants, he still held, and if it were not carried at this stage he would try to get the Minister to accept it later, that domestic servants ought to be included.

said that his experience was that he had far more accidents on his farm through breaking in young horses and breaking in young oxen than he had from machinery. With regard to the argument of the hon. member for Uitenhage, in this case, unfortunately for the hon. member’s argument, they had the country legislating for the towns. As to the hon. member for Castle, although he said he might employ a couple of maidservants, and he (Mr. Fawcus) employed more than 100 farm servants, when it came to a division the hon. member and himself would probably be found voting on the same side.

Then why do you move your amendment?

I do not wish to exempt one class of farmer and not another.

said he desired that the workman should have the benefit of any overtime or any extra payment he might have had when calculating the basis of his compensation. He, therefore, moved in the “definition of wages” to omit all the words after “give the.” in line 35 to the end of line 41, for the purpose of inserting “average total earnings per week of the workman.”

said he would like the Minister to explain what was meant by this exclusion of overtime. It seemed to him that the words were not quite clear. The clause stated that they should not include “remuneration for casual overtime not habitually performed, or remunerated at a special rate.” He supposed that no “casual overtime” was “habitually performed. ” It seemed to him that these words were simply bristling with difficulties.

On the motion of the MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS,

put the amendment proposed by the Select Committee to the definition “wages”, in lines 37 to 39.

said the intention was in arriving at the compensation, which was based upon wages, that “wages” should not be held to include overtime which was not habitually performed. For that reason he was unable to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Greyville. He thought the basis should be the actual wages and should not include the overtime which might occasionally be earned by the workman. He agreed with the hon. member for Fordsburg that this was a little bit tautological, and that they should delete the word “casual.” He accordingly moved to delete “casual.”

said he would like to take a concrete case. Suppose an engineer were employed at so much per hour and at time and a quarter on overtime, was his overtime included or excluded ?

Excluded.

That is not casual overtime.

It was agreed that “casual” should be deleted.

The amendment, thus amended, was agreed to.

said that when they came to the question of piecework they found that the basis of compensation was a man’s weekly earnings. A man might be working overtime on piecework. How could they exclude overtime earned on piecework from his regular earnings?

said he did not think that a man who was employed on piecework was in the same position as a man who got regular wages.

said it had been put from time to time in discussing piecework on the railways that one of the blessings of piecework from the employers’ point of view was that a man was allowed to earn at least 25 per cent. more than his average wages. Here they were giving the piecework man more favourable terms than the day worker. That might be the intention.

said he thought the words “or remunerated at a special rate” meant that in case a man were employed on special rates and received time and a quarter for overtime, those overtime rates were included as part of the wages.

said the basis of compensation right throughout the Bill was supposed to be on a man’s total earnings. If a man was injured his earning capacity was gone. If a man had been in the habit of making more than his wages by overtime, that amount should be calculated in arriving at the compensation.

said he understood that the hon. member for Fordsburg was anxious to protect the workmen in that case. The word “overtime” had been inserted originally. It had been pointed out that sometimes a man had habitually to work overtime, and that it was fair to include that in the Bill. If the hon. member deleted the whole of the alteration made by the Select Committee he would prevent workmen receiving compensation in respect of the overtime he habitually earned.

said he defied any magistrate to define what the words in the Bill meant. If a man habitually worked overtime then it must become part of his ordinary time.

Mr. Boydell’s amendment was negatived. On Mr. Baxter’s amendment,

put the question that the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the Bill, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

said he hoped that the House would take the consideration of the amendments immediately. He moved to that effect.

Agreed to.

hoped that the House would take the third reading immediately.

Any objection?

Yes, sir. (Laughter.)

The third reading was set down for Monday next.

moved to insert a new paragraph (m) to follow paragraph (1): “Income received or accrued as dividends from a company whose profits are wholly or in part derived from dividends received from a company mentioned in paragraph (1); but this exemption shall apply only to the portion of such income as the part of the income derived from a company mentioned in paragraph (1) bears to the total income received by or accrued to the company first mentioned in this paragraph.” He said that this referred to the case which had been “overlooked. Hon. members would see that sub-section (1) exempted dividends of companies liable to the profits tax. Now they had the case in South Africa of the financial companies which held shares in the mining companies. The mining company had paid the profits tax and the balance was paid to the financial companies. What would be the position of the individual shareholder in the financial companies? The financial company itself was not liable, and in this way they exempted dividends which came to the shareholders of the financial companies. Otherwise the tax would be paid twice.

Surely you are not going to tax them on their dividends and not on their profits? You would not bring up as income money from companies which had paid the profits tax? What need is there for anything more? You are giving them a double exemption. Why bring in this question of dividends?

said that these were the dividends as paid to the ultimate shareholder. That was the case he was dealing with. His hon. friend would see that if they took it as it stood the dividend from the financial companies would be liable to the tax.

said they were not dealing with individuals in that matter, but with companies.

said that paragraph “1” dealt with individuals.

said it was income derived from dividends; the man in that case was not the individual shareholder in the finance company; the individual was the finance company itself. He did not see how it was possible to exempt them twice over.

said if they took the Minister’s own argument in the case of a dividend tax, the tax was paid by the mining company; then there was the finance company, and they got the shareholder in the finance company and he Minister was providing something to exempt him paying income tax a second time. Under “k” the shareholder was not exempted in exactly the same circumstances.

said they were surely not going to tax individuals, or they would have exemptions all over the place, and there would be endless bother. The principle was that they should tax income at its source, and he did not see how they could drag in individuals.

said he agreed with the argument put forward by the hon. member for Victoria West.

was understood to say that the amendment proposed by the Minister was exactly what the hon. member for Victoria West desired; to prevent shareholders being taxed in respect of income which had already borne a profits tax.

said if he could not persuade the Minister perhaps the law courts would later on. A shareholder of the Rand Mines had nothing to do with paying income tax on what he received from the Rand Mines, because the Rand Mines had already paid the income tax on the lump. The dividend was received from some companies which had paid profit tax, and some which had not It paid income tax upon the whole, and it already exempted from its income that amount which had paid profit tax.

said that suppose a man received £5, which represented £2 10s. dividend from the company, which paid profits tax, and £2 10s, derived from another source, that individual would have to pay income tax on £2 10s. only.

The new paragraph (m) was agreed to.

said it seemed to him that the view of the Minister was the correct one. He thought that paragraph “k ” also wanted considering in that connection. They had parent companies which were not concerned with mining companies, and the argument of the Minister applied equally to “k.”

said the hon. member was not correct; “k ” simply said that if the company itself had paid the shareholder had paid. The special case they were dealing with was where there was a profit tax.

intimated that he wanted to move a further sub-section 5.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said he wished to move the following new paragraph (n): “Income received or accrued as interest on debentures or debenture stock paid by a company liable to the tax on the profits of mining under Act 6 of 1910, where such interest had not been included in working expenditure for the purpose of ascertaining the taxable profits of such company.” He said that under the present Bill they were going to levy a double tax on debenture interest, which he thought was quite unfair to the mining companies. In the case of a farmer who had a mortgage on his farm that man was allowed to deduct the amount of interest which he paid, but in the case of gold mining companies they paid, a tax on their debenture interest, while the debenture holder himself had also to pay a tax on the interest he received.

asked the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, not to press his amendment. Fundamentally there was a fallacy in the argument of his friend. The fallacy was this, the hon. member confused the position of the shareholder with the position of the debenture-holder. The debentureholder was not directly dependent on profits even if there were no profits he would get his interest. He thought his hon. friend would be well advised to withdraw his amendment, particularly after the success he met with on another occasion. (Laughter.)

said he failed to understand the clause. In paragraph (b) the revenue of local authorities was exempted, whilst in paragraph (f) the revenue of municipalities derived from investments was exempted. Would that be corrected ?

pointed out that a new paragraph (n) was under consideration.

Why make favourites of these particular debentures?

There is no making favourites at all. When a gold mining company makes up its profits, it is not allowed to deduct the interest paid on debentures from its profit tax, but a trading company can deduct the interest it pays on any indebtedness it has.

said that the profits tax was the place to deal with this question. They were not going to exempt the person who received interest on a mortgage. A debenture was a mortgage—(Ministerial cheers)—but if they were going to catch people in this way, then it was only common fairness to allow the interest paid on debentures to be set off against the profit.

Mr. Jagger’s amendment was negatived

On paragraph (m),

moved to delete “six of that Act ” and to substitute “section 46 of Act 55 of 1908 (Transvaal).”

I am not going to oppose the amendment on this occasion, because it follows logically on the amendment which was accepted last week. I view that amendment with profound regret, and hope some other occasion will be taken to go into it once more. He moved In line 51, to omit “on ” and to substitute “of”; and in line 60, after “on” to insert “the”.

Mr. Jagger’s amendment was adopted.

The Minister’s amendment was also agreed to.

New paragraph (n),

moved the following new paragraph “The proceeds of life insurance policies paid upon the death of the person insured, or payments made to or credited to the insured on life insurance, endowment, or annuity contracts upon the return thereof to the insured at the maturity of the term mentioned in the contract, or upon surrender of contract.” The mover explained that this meant that in case of death the insurance money would not be reckoned for income tax purposes.

said there must be many eases in which people received payments of this kind under the old Act, and he never heard of these payments being brought up in the assessments of income. If they excluded insurance money they must exclude inheritance and other things, but in making these exclusions they would be including other things they did not need to include.

said he did not see any objection to this amendment. What was dealt with, it seemed to him, was capital, and not ordinary income, and they did not want to assess capital. He was sure that this money coming from insurance policies ought never to pay income tax at all. He was all the more inclined to take this view because in one of the previous paragraphs they had subjected to taxation the income from investments of insurance societies. He had no objection to accepting the amendment, but, of course, he saw a good deal of point in what the hon. member for Uitenhage said, that really it was not in the ordinary sense income.

said that the definition of income spoke of “any gains or profits.” Under no circumstance surely could the proceeds of insurance policies be regarded as coming under that category. If they admitted that, they were inferring that all classes of accruals to an estate were income within the meaning of this Act.

said he thought it would be the safer planto leave the matter alone. It was rather a nice question as to whether the definition “gains or profits ” could not be made wide enough to include accruals to capital.

said that the farmer when he sold his stock might sell part of what was really his capital, and he was afraid that this was not provided for, and as a matter of fact he had drafted an amendment providing for that, but, on taking legal advice, he was informed that the farmer was protected from being taxed on the sale of his stock by the definition in this Bill of ““income.” He did not want them, by accepting an amendment of this kind, to weaken the force of the words in the definition. He would suggest to the Minister that he should allow the clause to stand over, and in the meantime he might perhaps take legal advice.

said he had no doubt whatever about the matter Even if this amendment were not accepted, these policies would not be subjected to income tax.

What about annuities?

said he would rather leave that aside for the moment. He believed that under the old Cape Act the proceeds of life insurance policies were not subjected to taxation. He had no doubt as to what the legal position was.

suggested that the amendment might be allowed to go into the clause, and, if necessary, it could be taken out at a later stage. He urged that the purpose of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central would be met by the adoption of a shorter form, simply saying “the proceeds of life insurance policies.”

said he could not accept that. He was including endowments. He could not follow the hon. member for Uitenhage. The amendment he (Mr. Jagger) had proposed would make the law clear.

said he would suggest to the Minister that he should seriously consider the position in relation to the taxation of annuities. Surely it was not right to exempt a man from payment of income tax on an annuity?

A tax has been paid already on that.

repeated that he did not think it was right that a man should be exempted ’from taxation on an annuity.

asked what would be the position, if the amendment were accepted, in case a person bought an insurance policy and made a huge profit on it? Would he be exempted from paying ’income tax on the profit he had made?

That is a gain or profit. Proceeding, he said he was very much opposed to loading this Act up with a great number of unnecessary clauses. He suggested that the Minister should take time to consider the point raised by this amendment.

pointed out that the amendment had been on the paper for a week, but, he added, as there seemed to be some objection to it he would withdraw it.

The amendment was accordingly withdrawn.

moved: In line 8, to omit “(m) ” and to substitute “(n)”; in the same line, to make “salary” in the plural; in line 9, after “persons”, to insert “paid out of public moneys mentioned in paragraph (a), or”; and in the same line, after “employed by”, to insert “the Railways and Harbours Administration, any Provincial Administration,”.

These amendments put and agreed to.

moved: In line 10, after “interest’, to insert “not exempted from taxation by paragraph (f); in line 12, after “borrowed ”, to insert “on account of any public moneys mentioned in paragraph (a) or”; in the same line, after “by”, to insert “the Railways and Harbours Administration, any Provincial Administration

raised the question of estate duty to be paid.

replied that this question did not fall under this Bill at all. The Bill dealt with incomes. If any one died, the estate was the capital, which was dealt with in an entirely different manner.

moved that in the section providing that certain exemptions did not extend to certain funds the following words be deleted, “or to interest in respect of any debentures or debenture stock issued, or money borrowed by any local authority or any such society, institution or company.” He said there were all sorts of other ways of making money out of those companies.

said they were going to get into trouble with all those exemptions. He had never seen any Act with such complicated exemptions. There was a clause in the old Cape Act providing that the Governor could make regulations avoiding the duplication of taxation and that in respect of the same year or period the Commissioner could make refunds. The more they added to those exemptions the more trouble they were going to get into,

said that in the Act of 1904, section 52, sub-section (8), the exemptions were covered. That Bill seemed to be filled up with all sorts of exemptions and conditions which would land the hon. Minister in a great deal of trouble.

urged that all amendments should be put in Dutch as well as English.

said he did so wherever possible, but he could not always do so at once when a swarm of small amendments were handed in, especially when the one amendment came right on top of the other.

said that as they had put in such a lot of things which had been exempted people would think that all those things not mentioned were to be taxed.

said he accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Uitenhage to omit all reference to interest. He could understand that hon. members; even the right hon. gentleman, were confused with that plethora of words. (Laughter.) Having accepted the amendment it would leave the section as it was in the old Cape Act.

said there was not a Bill that had been brought forward that session that he had not been very much confused about. (Laughter.)

asked whether the clause covered the men living at Simon’s Town and drawing money from the Imperial Government on which they paid income tax in England?

said he had an amendment on the Order Paper and he wished to know whether he should move it as a new clause or whether it should follow clause 5. It dealt with an exemption.

said that it would have to be a new clause, and he asked that the matter should stand over until they dealt with clause 42.

wanted to know if the Civil Service superannuation funds were provided for without special mention in connection with those exemptions.

answered in the affirmative.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Fremantle was agreed to, and the amendments proposed by the Minister of Finance accordingly dropped.

Clause 5, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 6, Proceeds of sale of property by agent and returns thereof by agent,

moved to delete the word “property” where it occurred in sub-section 1, for the purpose of inserting “goods,” and at the end of the sub-section to omit the words “ after taking into consideration any mortgage thereon.”

intimated that he would be prepared to accept that amendment.

asked the mover of the amendment why he omitted to mention “shares.”

said that the amendment was for the purpose of getting at the man who came out here and went up and down the country selling goods. Nobody went about the country selling shares in the same way. The circumstances were different.

said that the clause seemed to be well drafted and very simple. Property was very often sold by agents on behalf of people who had gone to reside outside the Colony, and instead of a profit it often led to a substantial loss.

said that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was trying to introduce a very dangerous doctrine. If they were going to tax goods sent to this country for realisation they would lay themselves open to retaliation in connection with goods, say wool, consigned to England. There was no difference.

argued that there was a vast difference. The man who came to this country to do business naturally did so for profit and he ought to pay income tax as well as those domiciled in the country.

said the clause was misleading, and the best thing they could do was to go back to the Act of 1904, which the right hon. gentleman the member for Victoria West got from the Act of New South Wales.

said to some extent he sympathised with the position taken up by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, but he agreed with the hon. member for Riversdale in spite of what the mover of the amendment said that other countries would be retaliating in respect of produce consigned there; The circumstances were the same. If the hon. member took out the last words he should insert “after taking into consideration any advances made thereon.”

said his right hon. friend took his clause from the old New South Wales Act, while he (the Minister) took his from the new Queensland Act. It was like painting the lily. (Laughter.) He was quite prepared to accept the word “goods” in place of “property,” as the latter had a much wider meaning and probably a lot of difficulties would arise.

wished to ask the Minister if the case mentioned by the member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H. Walton) would not come in under the word “property,” but would not do so if the word “goods ” was adopted. ‘He thought such a man who sold his property, as had been mentioned, should be caught and very justly made to pay an income tax, but before voting for or against the amendment he would first like to know if the amendment was accepted whether such a duty could be imposed ?

noted that the hon. member for Uitenhage was glad that such a person selling his property would be caught, but there were many people who had built houses at the Cape and gone to live in England, who had probably sold their property for one-half the cost price. Would the hon. member feel disposed to tax such people?

said they were getting away from the word “income.” He maintained that taxation in the form just mentioned was not an income tax, and there would be very great danger in departing from the accustomed sources of income.

The amendments were agreed to.

Clause 6 as amended was then agreed to.

On clause 7 Agents for shipowners, etc., whose principal office is outside the Union.

said that the proposal to tax freights was not a tax on profits at all, while the proposal in general was to tax them whether they were profitable or whether they were not The freight on goods sent to England was exceptionally low, as under the Post Office Act the Government had driven a very hard bargain, and rates had been fixed so low that in some cases there was no profit attached to them. Then again when these freights were agreed upon there was no expectation of any extra tax being placed on them. Then, if this clause were carried, it would give freights from Delagoa Bay a great advantage over those to and from Cape Ports. The amendment which stood in his name he would like to alter as follows: “Exclusive of coal, maize, and other cereals, wattle bark, wool, and skins.”

hoped the Minister would accept the amendment proposed by the last speaker. He thought the way the House was being treated in regard to the importations of livestock they could well afford to make the concession asked for by the member for Durban.

thought the amendment ought not to be accepted. If freights to Europe were low they had high rates out. With regard to Delagoa Bay being advantaged by such a tax, the same arrangement existed during the Cape Parliament, and was not found to be a disadvantage.

The amendment was negatived.

Clause 7 was agreed to.

On. clause 9, Assessment in the case of submarine cable businesses,

said the cable companies were afraid that they would be-taxed on cablegrams which merely passed through the South African stations en route to some other country, and to meet that difficulty he moved to add at the end of the clause: “Despatched” shall in this section mean, and shall apply to, all telegrams delivered by post or telegraphic wire or handed in in writing or in code, to any office in the Union belonging to or controlled by the person who transmits telegrams by submarine cable.

The addition was agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was adopted.

On clause 11, Married Women’s Income,

opposed the clause, remarking that if a woman were married out of community of property she was in the position of an unmarried person. Why should she be compelled to have her husband prying into her financial affairs?

said this was only another instance of taxation without representation, and wherever they on the cross-benches saw this they were bound to oppose it. It would be quite soon enough to tax women’s incomes when they had a say in affairs.

said he was afraid that he could not agree to the deletion of the clause. A very grave mistake was made in the Act of 1904, for by treating a wife’s income apart from her husband’s the door was opened to no end of fraud. In England the incomes of both husband and wife were taken together for taxation purposes. As to who had the say in regard to married people it was the wife who had the say. (Laughter.)

said the clause was a distinct tax on marriage—(laughter)—which he had always considered to be contrary to public policy.

put the question that the clause stand part of the Bill, and declared it carried.

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

Ayes—64.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Currey, Henry Latham

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Heatlie, Charles Beeton

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Jagger, John William

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Krige, Christman Joel

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Louw, George Albertyn

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Merriman, John Xavier

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Schoeman, Johannes Hendrik

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Smartt, Thomas William

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

Van Niekerk, Christian Andries

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vermaas, Hendrik Cornelius Wilhelmus

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Vosloo, Johannes Arnoldus

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

Wilcocks, Carl Theodorus Muller

Wyndham, Hugh Archibald

F. R. Cronje and W. Bezuidenhout, tellers.

Noes—16.

Alexander, Morris

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

Duncan, Patrick

MacNeillie. James Campbell

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Meyler, Hugh Mowbray

Nathan, Emile

Sampson, Henry William

Searle, James

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Charles Struben and Thomas Boydell, tellers.

The clause was therefore retained.

On clause 12, Company deemed to be agent for debentureholder.

moved in sub-section (3), line 57, after “debenture” to insert “stock.”

said he would like to ask the Minister how he proposed to tax debentures? Did he propose to tax them in the concern in one lump or to tax them individually? Apparently, from this Bill, he proposed to tax each debenture. That he would find extremely difficult.

said the Minister was under this clause treating debenture holders very differently from ordinary shareholders or preference shareholders. The latter he taxed at the source, but debenture holders he taxed individually. Where a debenture holder had an income of over £1,000 he would pay income tax, and the company could deduct the tax from his interest. But the debenture-holder who drew less than £1,000 paid nothing at all. That was not a sound method.

said that the profits of the company were massed for the purpose of income tax, and the tax was levied on the aggregate of the profit. What had the interest which the bond-holder drew to do with the profits of the company? Why should various sums which had been lent to a company be massed? A company was a persona, and its profits were taxed, but surely that had nothing to do with the interest which the debenture-holders drew. A shareholder had associated himself with the company, but not so a debenture-holder. There, was a great difference between the two.

said he would remind the right hon. gentleman that they adopted exactly the same principle under the Cape income tax. Holders of debentures did not share in the profits, but got just what mortgage holders got.

said he would like to ask the Minister how this clause was going to work, which made the company agent for the debenture-holder and made the company pay a tax which was payable by the debenture-holder ? How did the company know what was the tax that was collectable from the debenture-holder? The difficulty really became greater when they remembered that many of the debentures were bearer debentures.

said that if his hon. friend were going to do this how in the name of common justice was he going to tax the investments of insurance companies, in which the small man was so largely interested ? He thought what the hon. member for Eordsburg said was unanswerable.

said that the hon. member for Fordsburg did not want debenture interest to be lumped for the purpose of levying the tax. It seemed, to him (the Minister)) all the same whether one was a shareholder in an insurance company or any other company.

There are no shareholders in these insurance companies.

(continuing) said that the hon. member asked how were they going to find what a debenture-holder was liable for by way of tax ? His hon. friend would see that by this clause they made the company the agent of the debenture-holder only in the event of his being resident outside the Union. If he were resident in the Union, they did not make the company his agent, but dealt with the man himself. With regard to bearer debentures, that no doubt was a difficulty, and they could only give discretion to the Commissioner, as they did in sub-section (3), to deal with the case. What they were doing here was simply to adopt the old Cape practice under the Act of 1904.

agreed that they could always get over difficulties by giving a free hand to the Commissioner. Where the Minister went wrong was in not recognising that debentures were part of the capital of the concern, just as ordinary shares were.

These are not the shareholders; they are the creditors.

The debentures are just as much part of the capital of the company as the ordinary shares. You differentiate as between the various participators in any concern. You are going to have a difficulty in working this.

said that how the old Cape law could have worked in regard to this matter he could not imagine, because they then applied this very, principle to the people resident in the Union. There must have been a good deal of guesswork, and probably the Treasury suffered. They were not taxing mortgages at the source—there were a lot of things they were not collecting at the source. It was only done in the case of debentures.

said the matter was dealt With in clause 56 of the old Act. It was in precisely the same form, though the working of the clause was different.

said that supposing a man held bearers’ debenture shares on which he lost £1,000 a year, and in another company he earned £1,000 a year—he ought to pay income tax but he did not pay anything at all if his income was not over £1,000.

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 13, What shall be specified in returns of taxpayers in certain cases—as follows: “(2) Income derived from a taxpayer in respect of a share in a company liable to pay income tax or liable to pay a tax on the profits of mining, or in a company exempted under section 6 of Act No; 6 of 1910 from liability to taxation on such profits, shall be deducted from the taxable amount of such income, but such income shall be specified in the prescribed manner by the taxpayer in the returns made by him,”

moved to delete the words “Act No. 6 of 1910,” and substitute “46 of Act 35 of 1908 (Transvaal).”

The amendment was agreed to.

said he wanted to point out the danger of hurrying through a thing like that without sufficient time. In 1908

I cannot allow the right hon. gentleman to discuss clause 12, which has been passed.

Clause 13, as amended, was agreed to.

On Clause 14, Deductions from taxable amounts,

moved that the clause stand over.

said they had had eight hours at that business. Would not the Minister move to report progress ?

said that no doubt clause 14 was a difficult and important clause, and after it was passed they got into smooth waters again. He agreed that the clause should stand over.

The motion was agreed to.

On clause 15, Cases in which deductions shall be made,

said that with regard to farmers there was a great deal of difference of opinion as to paragraph (a)—“The cost incurred in the maintenance of any taxpayer, his family, or establishment.” Farmers had been in the habit of making an estimate of how much they spent in maintaining themselves out of their own pocket. Would the Minister not make a statement, although his words would not have the force of law.

My words have not the force of law, and I hope the hon. member will be satisfied with that.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 18, Commissioners may require production of documents.

moved a verbal amendment.

objected to the Commissioner having power to call in a third person to give evidence as to a man’s income. He moved the deletion of the words “or any person whomsoever the Commissioner may deem able to furnish information.”

said that, supposing the Commissioner was not satisfied that A had made a true statement, should he not call in B to check his statement ?

said that books could be examined, and after a proper examination, if the Commissioner was not satisfied, they could bring the man into court.

put the question that the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the Bill, and declared that the “Ayes” had it.

called for a division, which resulted as follows:

Ayes—47.

Andrews, William Henry

Bezuidenhout, Willem Wouter Jacobus J.

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Botha, Louis

Boydell, Thomas

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Creswell, Frederic Hugh Page

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet; Nicolaas Jacobus

Du Toit, Gert Johan Wilhelm

Geldenhuys, Louions

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Hcatlie, Charles Beeton

Joubert, Christiaan Johannes Jacobus

Krige, Christman Joel

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Louw, George Albertyn

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus

Myburgh, Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Sampson, Henry William

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

Watermeyer, Egidiue Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

F. R. Cronje and J. J. Alberts, tellers.

Noes—20.

Alexander, Morris

Baxter, William Duncan

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Duncan, Patrick

Fichardt, Charles Gustav

Fremantle, Henry Eardley Stephen

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Henderson, James

Henwood, Charlie

Jagger, John William

Keyter, Jan Gerhard

Serfontein, Nicolaas Wilhelmus

Smartt, Thomas William

Van der Riet, Frederick John Werndly

Walton, Edgar Harris

Watkins, Arnold Hirst

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Wessels, Johannes Hendricus Brand

H. A. Wyndham and C. T. M. Wilcocks, tellers.

The question was accordingly affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Duncan negatived.

The amendment of the Minister of Finance was agreed to.

moved to delete sub-section (3):“The Commissioner or any person designated by him in writing may enter upon any premises for the purposes of making inquiries, and obtaining thereon the information as to matters and transactions referred to in this section.”

intimated his willingness to accept the amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

Progress was reported and leave obtained to sit again tomorrow.