presented the fourth and final report of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities, and moved that its consideration be set down for to-morrow.

Agreed to.

laid upon the Table: Government Notice No. 982 publishing revised Harbour Regulations.

said he had received a Bill from the Senate providing for the collection of Statistics relating to Agricultural, Industrial, Commercial, Shipping, Fishing, and other matters in the Union.

The Bill was read a first time and the second reading set down for to-morrow.

said he wished to ask the Minister of Finance a question of which he had given private notice. He saw that a situation had arisen in the Transvaal Provincial Council which seemed to him to be one of the utmost gravity, since that Council had failed to pass an Expropriation Act for the expenditure of public money on Provincial affairs. What step did the Government intend to take to deal with that situation? He might point out that the matter could not be dealt with as unforeseen expenditure at a later date because Parliament was now sitting.

said he was aware of the situation in the Transvaal Provincial Council, but as his hon. friend knew that Council had adjourned until Tuesday, and in view of their meeting to-morrow it would not be advisable for him to make a statement then. He hoped the hon. member would not press the question at that stage;

moved the third reading of the Customs Tariff Bill.

said that before the motion was put he wished to refer to an amendment made in committee in the schedule on item 53, to which certain words had been added. He wished the Bill to be recommitted so that those words might again be deleted. He referred to the protection on the local manufacture of paper bags, one of which he held in his hand. He was informed that if the item had stood as it was originally, a local factory making those bags had contemplated adding 200 men to their factory. An order for 1,500 paper bags which had been given to that firm was cancelled immediately the item had been altered. The words having been put in, the order was placed abroad. The addition of the words to the item would make a great difference to one firm. He did not think it was too much to ask the House to recommit the Bill, as that item had not been properly discussed. There was no doubt that if the price of the bags was even brought up to near the preferential duty which had existed before that item was put in, the local people would still be getting them cheaper than if they were imported from abroad. He moved that the Bill be recommitted for the purpose of deleting the words “and printed paper bags of every description,” appearing in item 53, inserted during the committee stage.

said he hoped the House would not agree to the recommittal. Surely if 25 per cent, was too much for bespoke clothing, it was too much for printed bags. What did the hon. member require? As a matter of fact the duty on printed bags had been 25 per cent, since 1905—something like eight years. One factory had been established in the Union. There had been inserted in the clause a provision that the duty should be 25 per cent., with a maximum of 3d. per lb. That worked out at 100 per cent. Representations were made to the Treasury, which went back to the old duty of 25 per cent. Surely that was perfectly fair.

said he had wanted to move the recommittal of the Bill for the purpose of dealing with an amendment which he had wished to move last Friday, when his hon. friend the Minister had not agreed to it. He proposed to add a new sub-section providing that films for bioscopes dealing with South African subjects should be on the free list. He believed that in the interests of the youth of this country it would do good to have films of an educational character instead of some of the films which were being shown now. It would be an education to the youth of the country to become acquainted with different parts of the country, and it would also be an advantage if those films were shown in other parts of the world. He moved that the Bill be recommitted for that definite purpose.

said he thought there was a conflict in the provisions of section 9 of the Bill. In their Customs Management Act it was very clearly laid down that where there was difficulty in determining the dutiable value of goods, it was not the Commissioner who should determine the value, but the Commissioner should require the goods to be examined by two competent persons. This laid down that the Commissioner might determine the value of goods; in the Act of last year it was laid down that this matter should be in the hands of arbitrators.

said that the hon. member had brought up the matter as though it was something new. They threshed it out very carefully in committee that clause 47 of the Customs Management Bill of last year referred to ordinary cases. This clause dealt with exceptional cases, where it was almost impossible to determine the value, and to appoint a Court of Arbitration would mean great delay and much expense. That was why for these exceptional cases they had made this difference. With regard to what the hon. member for Newlands had said, he (the Minister) would tell the hon. member that he was misinformed with regard to the representations he had made. He understood the hon. member to say that a big contract had been given to a firm, but when this tariff came in the firm lost the contract. He (the Minister) believed the tariff had been the same for the last six years. By a little mistake these printed paper bags were also put under a minimum of 3d. per lb. It was pointed out that this minimum meant increasing the duty from 25 per cent, to 100 per cent. They were going to penalise the public, both rich and poor, in favour of one individual who was making these bags in the country. He (the Minister) was in favour of encouraging legitimate industries, but he did not think under these circumstances a change would be justified. With regard to this bioscope film business the matter had been threshed out so repeatedly that he became frightened whenever he heard the word. (Laughter.) He admitted he had been a little curt the other day, and that was the reason. Though there was some force in the argument that had been advanced he could not at that late stage of the session concede the point.

The amendment was negatived.

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

moved that in line 8, after the word “Parliament,” the following words be inserted: “Not exceeding in the aggregate the sum of £725,000.” He thought it was a wrong principle to pass a Bill without stating the aggregate sum that the State would be asked to provide for the scheme.

said that the hon. member was far too generous. (Laughter.) They did not ask for so much money. (Laughter.) They asked for £603,000.

I will make it that.

said that section 1 merely referred to the irrigation scheme. There was a closer settlement scheme involved, and he thought that the two should not be confused.

The amendment was negatived.

The clause as printed was agreed to.

On Clause 2,

said that these people were entitled to the normal flow by law and then they went on in clause 12 to say what the normal flow should be—600,000,000 cubic feet.

made a reply which was inaudible in the Press gallery.

But you prescribe that normal flow afterwards. Supposing the Water Court said they are entitled to a good deal more. Are you going to take it away from them?

was understood to say that they were guaranteeing existing rights.

said they had no information to show them that these people were not using more water now. They might be taking away in that section rights belonging to these people. The three clauses did not hang together at all.

said the object of section 2 was simply to exclude the present riparian land from this agreement. This land would continue to be served by the normal flow of the river.

said he had never seen such a scheme put before the House with such slight information. (Opposition cheers.) There was nothing to show the locality of the farms or what land was to be irrigated. If hon. members were children they could not be asked to vote £700,000 on more scanty details. (Opposition cheers.) Where was the land of the private owners situated—had they the eyes of the thing? The Committee was entitled to have the information. (Opposition cheers.)

said all the parties concerned had agreed that they would take 600,000,000 cubic feet as a normal flow. This was in excess of the present normal flow.

Where are the agreements?

said there was an absolute lack of information as to what was going to be irrigated, as to what the private rights were, and as to what was proposed to be done with the water. What did clause 12 mean? Was the 600,000,000 cubic feet for 12 months or every day?

replied that the 600,000,000 cubic feet were for the whole of the year and were in excess of the normal flow.

Where are the agreements? We are entitled to see these things. (Cheers.)

said he understood a meeting had been held between the Director of Irrigation and the lower riparian owners referred to in the scheme. The Director of Irrigation there had explained that, of course, in summer time less water than in winter would be required for the dam, with the result that He had further explained that 600 million cubic feet of water were sufficient to maintain a stream in a sluit 10 feet broad and the winter supply would be quite sufficient. 1½ feet in depth throughout the year. The riparian owners had asked for more water in certain months of the year and less in other months, and that had been agreed to. Although a definite agreement had not been drafted, he understood that the lower riparian owners had expressed their concurrence with the scheme. He suggested that the words “more than,” in clause 12, should be amended to “not less than.”

said the Government held the intelligence of the House at such a low estimate that it thought it was unnecessary to supply hon. members with proper information. (Opposition cheers.)

said he gave the information that the hon. member referred to in the course of his speech on the second reading.

said that these matters should have been included in a schedule. The difficulty the Minister was now finding was entirely due to rushing through the House in the last few days of the session a Bill of this sort without referring it to a Select Committee; which could have been placed in possession of all the information.

said he thought it would be well for him to move that Mr. Chairman now leave the chair. The result would be that there would be an opportunity for the Government to have the agreements printed and submitted to the House. Never had a scheme been laid before the House with less information. He denied the insinuation that he was opposed to the Bill because the Minister had not agreed to an irrigation scheme in Bechuanaland. A church there wanted to construct a small waterworks and had asked for a loan. All he had asked the Minister was to see whether he could advance the necessary money. He moved that progress be reported, so that they could get further information.

said he wished to support the motion to report progress. One of the strong points apparently upon which the Minister relied for success in connection with this scheme was that, while the Director of Irrigation did not absolutely support it, he did not condemn it. What stronger words of condemnation, asked the hon. member, could they have than these? The clause spoke of “reasonable use of the normal flow.” This was so calculated to lead to misconception as to what the rights of parties were, that he thought the committee should have fuller information upon that particular point. Then again there was the phrase “in such other manner as may from time to time be prescribed by the Minister.”

The hon. member is applying himself to clause 2, which is not before the committee.

I thought it was.

No; the question before the committee is a motion that progress be reported.

said if hon. members were expected to exercise their judgment upon a particular subject they were entitled to the fullest information. He contended that this project was immature and that it was impossible for the committee to bring to bear upon it that intelligence which they ought to exercise, if they only had full information.

said it was clear that hon. members under the pretence of trying to protect the riparian owners were really trying to wreck this Bill. (Dissent.) The right hon. member for Victoria West had got up and wanted to protect the riparian owners. Let him assure the right hon. gentleman that those people were going to be no worse off under the Bill.

said the Minister must keep to the point under discussion. (Laughter.)

said that he was dealing with the subject of whether there was sufficient information before the House. Was there sufficient information before the House with regard to the normal flow ? The riparian owners would be entitled to the amount of water that was fixed under the Bill.

said the Minister was quite wrong if he thought that the Opposition was going to withhold its support from the scheme if the Minister gave them the necessary information, but he had not given them that information. The riparian owners were entitled to a certain portion of the normal flow and also to a certain portion of the surplus water, but there was no provision in the Bill with regard to the surplus water.

asked what information they had The report had probably been written some time ago, and it was not dated. It mentioned that no survey work had been undertaken in connection with the canals, and that it would not be undertaken until there was a reasonable chance of the scheme being carried out. Then they had a photograph that they might put in a child’s book to show a drilling machine near the side of the proposed dam.

The question now before the committee is that I report progress.

said they had not sufficient information. They had a diagram showing the total flood discharge in three rivers from the 21st to the 22nd January, 1909, and also a sketch which might appear in a child’s book—

said he must ask the hon. member to confine himself to the question of reporting progress.

said, in his opinion, an attempt had been made by the Minister of Lands and the Minister of Railways and Harbours to saddle the responsibility of that matter on the Director of Irrigation, in whose report he could not find a word in favour of the scheme.

The motion to report progress was negatived.

said he wanted some information regarding the points he had raised. The Minister had read certain communications from a chief and a missionary, but that correspondence ought to have been laid on the Table. He saw that three additional farms had been put in the schedule of land that could be purchased, and he wanted further information on that point.

said he did not think they had sufficient information regarding the scheme, but he saw that the majority of members of that House intended to go on with the Bill. There were several dangers in the clauses, and he did not think any Government was justified in bringing in a Bill in that slip-shod fashion. The responsibility for it must rest on the other side of the House. The Opposition could only propose amendments, and if the Minister would not accept them, they could not do any more.

said the Minister of Lands had said that he had got up for the purpose of protecting the under riparian proprietors. He had done nothing of the kind. He was anxious to protect the Government. Perhaps the hon. Minister, who came from a drier part of the country, had not seen the number of people outside the courts in which a “water zaak ” was being heard. He wanted to know what were the nature of the agreements. How much ground had the Government got in that flimsy little sketch which had been shown? Hon. members were sent to that House to look after the business of the country, and that business was not to be put on one side because the Minister got up and said he did not want it. He would take another opportunity of referring to the telegram which he had seen in a newspaper that day—it was intended to bulldoze members in a way he had never seen before. It was a most disgraceful thing. (Hear, hear.)

said he wished to know from the Minister what would be the height of the walls and what would be the length and depth of the dam. He could not find those particulars in the report.

That does not come under this clause.

said the hon. member for New lands had raised an important point, with regard to the position of the lower owners not only with regard to the normal flow, but with regard to the surplus water over and above the normal flow. He took it that if the lower owners desired anything outside what they were getting at present, provision would be made for them to get their fair proportional share of the surplus water. The object, of the dam was to store surplus water in the dry season. What provision was made for the lower riparian owners who did not pay any money for the normal flow to get the surplus water above the normal flow? Clause 2 only made provision for their proportion of the normal flow. That was a very important point so far as those people were concerned.

was understood to say that the Conservation of Water Act said that a person was entitled to the surplus flow as long as it remained on his land.

said that this was a very knotty point, and he thought that it was one that, the Minister might discuss with the Director of Irrigation. The riparian owner was entitled to a proportionate share of the normal flow, and also the abnormal flow. He was dealing with the lower riparian proprietors. They were putting up works that were going to dam up the surplus water. Would he come in under a better rate than the man who was paying 40s. for a share of both the normal and the abnormal flow ? It was no good talking about an Irrigation Act.

said that riparian owners below the boundaries of these two farms also had rights to the use of surplus water. He wanted to know from the Minister what agreement the Minister had to show that these people were waiving their rights under which they would be for all time cut off from any share of the surplus water.

Can the hon. member show me where the water is used?

I don’t know.

That’s just it. It can only be used through storage. You must store it in order to use it.

Not necessarily.

said he did not think they would find any stipulation about surplus water in any other Act.

drew the Minister’s attention to section 14 of the Irrigation Act which dealt with surplus water and the cases of riparian owners. The riparian owner on a perennial stream had the right to the normal flow and the abnormal flow of that stream. No clause in this Act made that provision, and he pointed out that provision was made in the old Cape Act.

said that a man at present had 100 morgen under irrigation and this would be irrigated from the normal flow. But supposing the owner had another 900 morgen, the question was whether he would be entitled to water from this dam in respect, of the 900 morgen if he paid. Of course, he would be entitled to it. He would be entitled to it on payment of the water rate. It would be cheaper than if he constructed works himself, and he assumed that the Government scheme would be the cheapest.

said he thought a great deal of discussion would have been avoided if the Minister was a little more frank and took the committee into his confidence. The Minister said that agreements existed between the Government and the lower riparian owners which defined their rights. A good deal of discussion would be avoided if the Minister would produce these agreements. Was there a desire on the part of the Minister to preserve secrecy?

shook his head.

Are these agreements in writing ?

shook his head in the negative.

Where is the record of these agreements? If they are not in writing we should be more careful than ever. Continuing, he said the committee would like to know where these agreements were recorded and who were bound under them.

said he was surprised how a clever lawyer like the Minister did not catch, a point which would strike a practical irrigator. The point he (Sir Thomas) raised was that a man with, say, 1,000 morgen of irrigable land below the dam would take for nothing his pro rata share of the normal flow. He would also be entitled to his pro rata share of the surplus water from the dam at a far lower rate than 30s. a morgen, which was the amount to be paid by the man who had no water at present.

said the Minister of Finance had entirely missed his point. Under the Irrigation Act a man who wanted to erect storage works had to give notices and apply to a Water Court. Why should Government be given the right to put up immense storage works and not give to these owners the right of making claims?

asked what prevented any man on a stream storing all the surplus water? If they were going to maintain the rights under the Irrigation Act irrigation works would become impossible. Government had no written agreements, but verbal agreements had been made at various public meetings where these people had expressed themselves. In the past works had been carried out without written agreements. Why did not the hon. member for Victoria West be honest—he did not want the scheme, but if he wanted to help the Government he could do a great deal.

I don’t like to be accused of dishonesty at any time, particularly by my hon. friend. I don’t like this Bill, and I snail vote against it on the third reading whatever happens, but so long as it is here I am going to point out its imperfections, and I am bound to do so, and to suggest amendments. Continuing, Mr. Memmen said it had now (been cork-screwed out that the agreements were verbal ones made at public meetings, where people said “ja” before they consulted their wives. (Laughter.) There would be court cases and then Government would be in a very difficult position. Whose version was to be taken of these verbal agreements? There was nothing so difficult to deal with as riparian rights. The Minister of Lands was under the fond idea that sub-section (2) of section 8 of chapter 2 of the Irrigation Act applied to water in a public stream, but it did nothing of the sort. The moment water entered a public stream all sorts of people had rights to it, the chief being the riparian owner, who was a difficult customer to deal with. There had been cases in which people had had to break down a dam because the riparian owners had taken them into court. There was the case of Foster, which caused an alteration in the Cape law. The riparian owner might be a nasty customer when he took it into his head. The moment Government put up their dams the riparian owners were going to squeeze them unless they were prevented under the Bill. There was another unpleasant class of people whom the committee had not considered, but who would make their voices heard— the people who had the power to impound all the water which fell on their land before it reached a public stream; he meant the people in the catchment area. In conclusion, Mr. Merriman remarked: I don’t like being accused of dishonesty because I want to do my duty, but I shall continue doing it all the same, none the less because the Minister does not like it.

said the Bill interfered with the rights of riparian owners. The right to surplus water below the reservoir had been taken away. The important point was how far below the stream were they considering these people when they spoke about “normal flew.” If they took all the surplus water and disposed of all the surplus water, it might be that there were no other sources of supply down below’ this point. They declared in section 11 (b) of this Bill that nobody above this place might impound any water at all. That was a deliberate overriding of the Irrigation Act. Let people understand that if they voted for this measure they were taking away rights in this manner. The Minister had spoken about the Rand Water Board Bill, but he must bear in mind under that Bill every person had a right to come and appear before the Select Committee.

said that the hon. member was not quite correct. It was not possible to make provision for people at a far distance below the dam. If they made their irrigation furrow 20 or 30 miles long, they might have no water at the end of that furrow. So far as it was possible to supply surplus water to farmers within the area of supply, it would be given to them. The lower owners had no more right to this surplus storm-water than the other owners. The upper owners would have the first call upon it. Here they were dealing with a practical scheme, and they could not be asked to take into consideration these theoretical rights far down the river.

said that his contention as a lawyer was that, if they were taking away what the Minister called “theoretical rights” they should do it definitely, otherwise, they would have claims made upon them afterwards which they would have to fight, and the general taxpayer would have to pay costs, whatever happened.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 3, Constitution of Water Court to determine proportions of normal flow to be allotted for benefit of riparian owners.

moved the following paragraph (c) to subsection 1: “(c) determining the proportion of the normal flow which the proprietors of the lands which form the catchment area of the proposed dam shall be entitled to.” They were, he said, people who had a right to water. It was rather a dangerous attitude for a lawyer like his hon. friend (General Smuts) to talk about “theoretical rights.” Either a man had got rights or he had not got rights. There was a simple way of avoiding all these difficulties provided for in the Act—in fact, there were two ways. One was to form an Irrigation Board, and the other, if the work were too big for an Irrigation Board, was to form a River Board.

said that works were in existence at the date mentioned in the clause, viz., December 31, 1913. This Bill proposed to give to those works the amount of water to which they would be entitled, but those riparian owners were not for ever confined merely to those works, and this clause proposed to allot the balance of the riparian water. After that had been done, there must be some water which might be used on land not actually irrigated by the works in existence on that date. What was proposed to be done with that water? He thought they should insert after “1913” in both places the words “or otherwise,” and in line 51 of sub-section (1) (b) they should add at the end “or to the said riparian land.”

He moved another amendment in subsection (2), to add a proviso, “Provided that the engineer nominated by the Minister as an assessor on the said court may (notwithstanding anything in the said section 28 contained) be other than an engineer of the Department”. He said that as the clause stood the assessor appointed would be an interested party. Where the Government had had to appoint under the Irrigation Act an engineer of the department in a case where the disputants were the Government versus a private owner, it seemed to him an absurd position that a Government engineer should be appointed. That did not make for a fair adjustment of claims between riparian owners. Subsection (3) made provision for all expenditure incurred being borne by the Government. He did not think that was fair. He did not see why, if the riparian owners were to get a substantial benefit from those works, they should not pay a fair proportion of the costs. He moved in sub-section (3) to add after the word “incurred” the words “under sub-section (1) (b).”

said he hoped the House would not accept any of the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Newlands. The provision with regard to the engineer was quite unnecessary. He did not think any good reason had been shown why they should depart from the practice adopted in the past. If they wanted the expenditure to be borne by the people who were to benefit from it, they need not vote any money to the scheme at all. He hoped the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) would not press his amendment, which he thought was unnecessary. The only effect of that amendment would be to throw a great deal of unnecessary work on the Irrigation Department and the Government, because the normal flow in the catchment area would not be affected at all by the work which would be done under the Bill. Those people in the catchment area would enjoy the normal flow just as they had Hone in the past. The right hon. gentleman seemed to have confuted the normal flow above with the normal flow below. So far as the people below were concerned, they were rather placed in a much better position under that scheme than they had ever been The normal flow had been to a large extent a normal flow in theory. It came down when they could not use it. Now, under the Bill, they were going to be given a definite amount of water which was registered as the amount of the normal flow and which would be of more practical use than their present rights. Under the Irrigation law the Government had power to take surplus water anywhere, and they could take that surplus now. The amendment of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Merriman) did not seem to bear on the matter in any way

said the Minister of Railways did not seem to object to the amendment so much on account of the amendment as on account of the quarter from which it came. He noticed that the Minister always jumped up when he proposed an amendment. He wanted to ask the Minister whether he had read his own Bill and clause 11, sub-section (b) ? Did he (the Minister) mean to say that the rights of the people above the dam were not interfered with? The normal flow was the water to which the people were entitled above the dam, and unless they made some provision for leading it to them they would find themselves in a very awkward position. Those people had as much right to that dam as the Minister had to the house he lived in, and they were going to take it away from them under the Bill.

moved a new sub-section (c) as follows: “(c) determining the proportion of surplus water to which existing irrigation works referred to in sub-section (b) are entitled, and the water rate payable per morgen for such surplus withdrawn from storage works.” This was to protect the existing irrigators.

Section 5 will meet the hon. member.

I don’t think that makes it quite clear.

was not at all satisfied with the clause, with the sub-section of clause 11 which took away the right of people to the water. A large proportion of the water was not public water at all.

said the Irrigation Act laid it down clearly that all the water falling on a private owner’s ground was the property of that owner, so that an owner could dam it up. Of course, he saw that every owner was only entitled to his fair share of the normal flow. If the Minister wanted to take away the rights of the upper riparian owners, he would reluctantly be compelled to vote against such interference. He could not agree to clause 11.

thought it would be better to settle the matter on clause 11.

thereupon withdrew his amendment.

maintained that before the Government took away rights they must allow people who had these rights to know what the position was.

Can it for a moment be supposed that these lower riparian owners, part of whose land is already entitled to the normal flow, will be entitled to call upon the Government to deliver water to them at less rates than to the others?

No, but you have made no provision to give them a legal right to get their proportion of the surplus water for the land they are already irrigating. All I want is for the principle of the amendment to be adopted, and it can be redrafted afterwards.

said every proprietor had the right to the normal flow whether he had been using it in the past or not.

said that the Minister had stated that he had taken 600 million cubic feet, which was considerably in excess of the normal flow of the river. The Minister went further and explained that this water would be conserved in the dam and utilised to that extent by the lower riparian owners when they required it.

said he hoped the Minister had read the Bill more carefully than his hon. friend (Mr. Becker). If he read the clause, he would see that the Minister made provision so as to make the normal flow flow down the river. His hon. friend had really unintentionally put the interpretation upon the Bill which did not exist in the printed matter which was before them.

said he thought that some provision should be made for a class of people who would not get any portion of the normal flow to enable them to have a share of the flood water.

put Sir T. W. Smartt’s amendment.

said he would be glad if the Minister would explain what this clause really meant. It meant that those unfortunate fellows who had been referred to by his hon. friend (Mr. Grobler) had been deprived of their private rights altogether, He did not understand the meaning of this clause. Water was to be delivered into the river, if there were any water. Meanwhile their rights were taken away.

moved to delete the words “if any.” He said that this would make it quite plain that the people below would get a share of the 600 million cubic feet.

said hon. members would see that in any case no rights were taken away from the people below. They had a normal flow to-day. That normal flow might be used and was being used by the upper riparian proprietors up to a certain point. They were not going to deprive these lower, riparian owners of any rights that existed before. He was prepared to accept the amendment.

Clause 4 was agreed to.

On clause 5, Levying of irrigation rates upon land which is irrigable or benefits from works,

said the success of that scheme depended on the 15,000 morgen of ground taking water at £2 per morgen under one condition and 30s. under another condition. Under that clause they said that the Governor-General might from time to time levy water rates. He wished to move the deletion of the word “may ” in order to substitute the word “shall.” If they were going to spend £750,000 on those works they should be perfectly certain that that 15,000 morgen of land would be cultivated. He did not think the House was justified in voting that amount of money. He wanted the House thoroughly to understand that they were laying down in that clause a provision whereby it was at the option, of the owners, after the spending of all that money, to take water or not They could not allow that land to lie dormant for ever. The only reason for constructing that work was to see that the 15,000 morgen were properly cultivated, and the owners should be made to pay the rates whether they used the water or not lie moved in line 13 to omit the word “may ” and substitute “shall,” in line 37 to again omit “may ” and substitute “shall,” and after the word “land” in line 38 to, omit the rest of the sub-section to the word “prescribe,” the words to be omitted being “on application made by the registered owner thereof.”

asked what proof had they that those people had agreed to that? If the majority had agreed to it the minority must submit, but if they had not agreed, what right had the House to tax men like that? They taxed a man out of his property by putting those rates on him. That was entirely wrong. But he could see that without the amendment the Bill was going to provide a heavier burden. They had not the slightest proof that the majority of the owners were prepared to go in for that scheme. He for one would not agree to put rates on people until he knew that there was a substantial majority of those people in favour of it. There was a mania to do for people business which they could do better themselves. (Hear, hear.) The Minister said they had got verbal agreements. Had they got verbal agreements to the taxation of land which the people did not want to use?

supported the amendment, which seemed to him the barest common justice. If they irrigated that land, were they going to do it for the benefit of people who held that land and had not the least intention of cultivating it? Those people could advertise that their land had increased in value through the work carried out by the Government, and they could say it was worth £30 or £40 per acre. The persons who held irrigable land should either pay the rates and make use of the water and produce the wealth to pay the rates, or hand the land over to someone else who would do it. He could conceive that there might be some owners there hanging fire, willing to give their consent to the Bill if they thought they were going to get something and the Government was going to get nothing. They (the Labour members) hoped to get support for another proposal which would give power to expropriate the land. Once they had instituted those public works it was the business of Parliament to see the public got the benefit and not the private owners.

said he did not see why if the hon. member who had just spoken constructed certain works he should say that he (Mr. Blaine) was not to benefit by them. The Government should secure the right to get hold of the land before they went in for the work and not afterwards go to a man and say “vour land is improved by irrigation and therefore you must pay rates.”

said he hoped the Bill would be dealt with more seriously. He could not see how they could accept the amendment of the leader of the Opposition. How could they tax the landowners under this Bill unless they provided them all with water? They would then have to supply water for about 70,000 morgen, and that was impossible. He wished to repeat that if all the options were taken up the Government would become the largest owner of land, and if that was so, then they might not be able to supply everyone with water. They could not bind themselves except in regard to the land over which the Government to-day had an option. The water which the Government did not want could be supplied to other owners. Many of them had already asked for water from the dam, and there would be more demand for it than supply. If any person wished to remain out of the scheme he could do so, as there was sufficient other ground in need of water.

said that if he had proposed what the Prime Minister said he had proposed he would not have a right to sit in that House and speak on the subject of irrigation. They knew that a lot of the ground referred to by the Prime Minister was only grazing ground, and was worth only £2 per morgen. He thought the Prime Minister had not gone into the Bill. The Minister who introduced the Bill had said there were 15,000 morgen of irrigable land, that it was proposed to construct a reservoir to hold sufficient water to irrigate that 15,000 morgen—not 70,000 morgen of ground mentioned by the Prime Minister. Such a thing would be madness. If 70,000 morgen were to be irrigated then it would be a gilt-edged security paying 20 per cent, or ’25 per cent. The Minister told them that people were falling over one another to make application for that water, but they wanted information regarding that in black and white. If there were a large number of those people who did not intend to take the water and did not know they would have to pay the rates, then they were being deceived. The Committee should not make the mistake of not saying that everybody had not got to take the water. By the sale of land the cost could be reduced to £450,000. Would the Minister tell the House what was the real position, and over how much irrigable land had Government got options?

said he had tried to express himself as clearly as possible. He distinctly stated, in his reply on the second reading debate, that the two furrows would command about 70,000 morgen of land, all of which was irrigable land, but it had been ascertained that only 15,000 morgen would be irrigated under the scheme. Government had options over 25,000 morgen of land that could be irrigated. Even if the private owners stood out, the Government was quite on the safe side with the amount of land it had, but the Government had assurances from these owners that they would be quite willing to pay £2 per morgen per annum. It had been the experience of the department, where irrigation works had been started, that people who at first hesitated, when they realised what it meant to have a permanent supply of water, afterwards came into the scheme of their own accord. There was no fear of people not coming in, but the Government did not want to bind them.

said the committee wanted to be quite sure of the position before it voted £700,000, four-fifths of which would be townsmen’s money, and not one-fifth the countrymen’s money, and he said this as the son of a farmer.

I give the assurance that over and above the 15,000 morgen of land to be irrigated, we shall have 50 per cent, of the water to be impounded to spare.

said this sort of statement was doing the project more harm than anything else, and was raising difficulties in the minds of the people. If there was water enough for 15,000 morgen, let the Government stick to that. He had put a straightforward question and desired a straightforward reply. Was he to understand that only 7,000 morgen were held by the Government and the remainder by private owners?

said the Minister of Lands had stated that under the two furrows there was an area of 70,000 morgen. Of this the Government had, either as owner or as option holder, about 24,000 morgen. The engineers’ work would be to go into the area of 70,000 morgen and mark out what was good irrigable land. It was not necessary that the result should be 15,000 morgen, it might be 30,000 or 40,000 morgen, if they made the scheme a compulsory one they must guarantee water to all, and that would not be possible. As much as possible the engineers would try to get the 15,000 morgen in convenient lots. He had no doubt that they would have demands for water for more than 15,000 morgen. It was quite possible that the Government out of its 24,000 morgen might have 15,000 morgen of irrigable ground. It was quite impossible to make this a compulsory scheme, because the land would be so much in excess of the water available. The Government’s was the only possible system. Even before the session of Parliament meetings of riparian owners were held, at which the Government’s proposals were carried. Meetings of these owners were called, and the proposals were ratified by meeting after meeting. That being so, he thought they ought to be satisfied with the scheme as it was here.

said the position was really becoming ludicrous. He was reminded very much of an act in the “Gondoliers.” They asked permission to put up a big dam for these owners to use or not use as they liked, and, of course, they agreed to it. The Minister had told them that 15,000 morgen was as much as the dam would irrigate. If that were the only difficulty, then when the engineers made their selection let the area that the engineers had selected, commensurate with the amount of water that they had at their disposal, be the area upon which the compulsory rate should be levied. All the Minister required to get out of the difficulty was to frame some other clause which would give the Government power to select the area over which the compulsory rate would hold.

said that the report of the Director of Irrigation showed that of the area which it was considered could be irrigated by the waters harnessed at Hartebeestpoort 7,000 morgen, if the options were exercised, belonged to the Government and 8,000 belonged to private owners. If that were the case, of this 15,000 morgen which the report said had very little value at the present moment, they were going to make 8,000 morgen of land belonging to private owners worth at least £30 a morgen, and surely it was a reasonable thing to ask in the Bill that there should be provision to make those owners pay water rates.

said it appeared to him that the report to which the hon. member alluded was written before the scheme as they now saw it in the Bill was decided upon. Most of the options to which the Minister referred had been obtained since that report was written.

said that the Bill proposed that a certain number of scheduled areas belonging to natives should be taken over, and that the natives should have ground adjoining. As far as the plan was concerned, the scheduled areas would be in the irrigable area, at any rate it was near the river. What he wanted to know was how much of that 16,000 morgen taken from the natives was included in the 15,000 of irrigable land.

was understood to reply that the whole area fell within the irrigable land.

said that the hon. member’s amendment would be a fair and just one if the Government held two-thirds of the land. He clearly saw, however, that it would not be safe under this scheme to form an Irrigation Board, which was going to compel all these people to come in under the scheme.

said that the report stated that there were 15,000 morgen of irrigable land. He knew there was much more on which they could put water, but the report said they could pick out 15,000 morgen of fairly good irrigable land. The report also stated that practically the whole of the area at present irrigated was of very little value and that the people there were prepared to sell half of this ground, that was half of the 15,000 morgen. The owners of the other half of the 15,000 morgen need not pay rates under this scheme, if they did not like.

said he hoped the leader of the Opposition would not go on as he was doing. No matter how often matters were explained to him, he would not understand. The furrows to go out from the dam would cover 70,000 morgen, but not all that land was irrigable. It would include villages, houses and kopjes which, of course, could not be irrigated. As to the report referred to, that had been written before certain other developments had taken place. A number of farmers were prepared to sell part of their ground to the Government while they were prepared to accept the scheme for the remaining portions of their land. The natives living in these parts were prepared to sell their land below the furrow to the Government. Of the 24,000 morgen which the Government could obtain, at least 15,000 morgen would be suitable for irrigation. When the report was written no one had thought that it would be possible to secure the ground in the locations, and in the circumstances he held that the provision to allow the lower riparian owners six months in which to come under the scheme was the most suitable. The object of the amendment was to force people to sell their ground by placing a tax on the ground without the Government being able to supply the water for all the ground which the rate would fall on. It was based on a report which had appeared prior to the time when conditions changed. They could not tax the people in order to compel them to sell their ground The Bill ought to be accepted in its present form, otherwise the people referred to would suffer injury.

said the Government would have been well advised if they had postponed that Bill until next session and had got further information. The Prime Minister had admitted that he could not be certain on several important items. The Minister of Finance seemed to disagree with the Minister in charge of the Bill, and thought that the dam would only conserve enough water to irrigate 15,000 morgen of ground and no more. The Minister of Lands held a different view—he said there would be enough water to irrigate more than 15,000 morgen. He (Mr. Hull) would like to know whether the Government was prepared to give an assurance that the owners of that 15,000 morgen should be bound and obliged to take the water if it was available and to be liable to the rate.

said 24,000 morgen was held by the Government under option, and of that more than 15,000 morgen was good irrigable land. There was also irrigable land belonging to private owners, and the Government would like those people to come in, as then they would get a more compact area for irrigation. They did not want to force those people to come in, because they had to select the land and have it surveyed, and they could not expect an agreement from those people as to what they were going to take. They had first to ascertain how much of that land would be irrigable.

said that then there could be no objection to his amendment. If the Government held 15,000 morgen of irrigable land he would rather see that land irrigated. All Government would have to do if his amendment was accepted was to see that if people were not prepared to come into the scheme they need not be rated. He did not think anybody should be allowed to come into the scheme and not be rated.

said if that idea was carried out the amendment would not be necessary. The Government invited landowners to apply for water within six months, and if they did not apply within that time, then, if there was water, they would get it at an increased rate of 10 per cent. It would be a drastic step to take to say that if they did not apply within six months they would be excluded altogether from the Act. He thought the 10 per cent, increase would induce the hesitating land-owner to come under the Act.

said that if the statement of the Minister of Finance on the second reading was correct, that if the owners would not take the water it would be used on Government land, then the Government must be buying land for which they would not have water. The estimate of the capacity of the dam was based on nine years’ record, and then 20 per cent, was added, because the Director of Irrigation was informed that those had been very dry years. Therefore the Minister’s statement that 50 per cent, more land could be irrigated was not a permanency—it was an off-chance. On that chance the dam was to be enlarged.

said the first thing to be done under the scheme would be for officers to ascertain which land could be served by the works, and then the owners would have to be notified. The latter would then have to elect whether they would take the water or not The section was very difficult to understand.

said he did not catch the answer of the Minister of Lands to his question, nor did anyone else on that side of the House. The contention of the hon. member for Newlands was quite correct. There was a mixture of two plans, and it would have been better for the Government to have stated plainly what its last plan was, and taken the House into its confidence.

moved, in line 67, to delete “normal flow ” and substitute “water,” to delete “both primary and secondary uses” and substitute “all purposes,” and to delete paragraph (b) of ub-section (3).

The amendments of Sir T. W. Smartt and Mr. Struben were negatived.

A verbal amendment by the Minister of Lands was agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 7, Manner of calculating quantity of water to which the land is entitled.

asked how they arrived at 140,000 cubic feet of water per morgen per annum?

asked what sort of crop was supposed to grow in the winter months, and added that Government ought to have all the information at its fingers’ ends.

replied that they were dealing with a tropical part of the world. Such things as tobacco, potatoes, vegetables and cotton could be grown until fairly late in the winter months, and in the winter corn and hay.

moved in line 25 to omit “60” and substitute “40,” in line 26 to insert “and head office and Advisory Board,” and to delete the proviso in line 28. He said he thought that the redemption period of 60 years was too long and should be reduced to a reasonable period. He thought that the estimated annual maintenance and working expenses should be increased by the addition of head office and Advisory Board expenses. He was of opinion that the proviso that no rate should exceed £2 per morgen should be deleted.

asked whether interest on net capital expenditure included arrears of interest?

said he thought it was part of the scheme that the interest on capital during the period of construction should be included.

said it was proposed to charge interest at the rate of £3 15s. per cent. The Minister of Finance knew that he could not get money at anything near that. Circumstances were different to-day from the time when the rate was fixed in the Irrigation Act. The credit of the country, or, at any rate, the financial condition of the country had steadily grown worse. In every one of the three loans which the Minister had raised since then the position had got worse. First of all, he got money in April, 1913, at £4 2s. 4d. per cent. In February this year a loan of £4,000,000 was raised at £4 3s. 4d., and now on the loan which the Minister floated the other day he had to pay £4 13s. 6d. per cent. Was it fair or right that the taxpayers of this country should be asked to lend out money which had cost nearly four and three-quarters per cent at three and three quarters? If this went through at three and three-quarters it would mean a cost to the taxpayers of this country of about £5,700 per annum. He thought at any rate that the country ought to get back the rate which it had to pay for the money. He, therefore, moved in line 22 to delete “three” for the purpose of inserting “four.”

said that the hon. member for Cape Town in one respect resembled the wicked, he was disquieting himself in vain, they were not seeking after riches in this Bill. They were seeking after poverty. These men were not going to jump into this business, and they would be very lucky indeed if they got £5 15s.

said he was astonished at the attitude adopted by his hon. friend. Whatever they might think of the prospects of getting this money, they certainly ought to put the scheme on a proper basis to begin with.

said he was not against the proposal entirely of his hon. friend opposite. His difficulty was that the Irrigation Act had settled the rate at three and three-quarters, and they were advancing money now for all these schemes, great and small, at this rate, and he did not see how they could differentiate in the present scheme and make the rate four and three-quarters. (Hear, hear.) He would suggest to his hon. friend that they should pass this scheme on its present basis at 3f, but he thought it was probable next year they would have to deal with this question not only in this Act, but in the general Irrigation Act also.

said that the difference was that in the ordinary Irrigation Act, as they called it, they lent money to people who were obliged to pay them back the whole amount, and the Government lent it at the least possible rate. Here, however, they were entering upon land speculation and setting up as a land company.

said he thought this rate had been arrived at by taking the rate for a period of years. According to the figures laid before the Committee they were making a small profit with regard to the loans lent out in that way.

said they had to take the situation as it was to-day. The money they had to put in that project would cost them 4½ per cent. He pointed out, too, that the hon. Minister varied his rates in certain Acts. He was sorry to have to persevere with his motion, but his hon. friend did not meet him in the matter; 4½ per cent, was very low indeed.

said that he was rather disposed to accept that, for what the right hon. gentleman the member for Victoria West had said was perfectly true. That scheme, from a financial point of view, was much better than the ordinary irrigation scheme, because of the extremely large holding of the Government; they would make money out of it, which would go in part payment of the scheme. He was willing to agree to 4½ per cent.

moved accordingly to omit £3 15s. for the purpose of inserting £4 10s.

said he was afraid that if 4½ per cent, was agreed to the rate would amount to more than £2 per morgen.

was understood to reply that the £2 per morion depended on the cost of the dam. Speaking in English, the Minister informed the hon. member for Pretoria District, North, that it would not affect the other farms.

said they should not single out one scheme, it was not fair. If they were going to make a higher charge, they should make all alike. Under the same law they were going to charge one scheme £4 10s. and another £3 15s.

reminded the hon. member that the Land Bank charged borrowers 5 per cent. That was not an irrigation scheme under the old law to which he referred.

was understood to say that it would have been better if the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, had accepted the suggestion of the Minister of Finance, so that all the different schemes would come under the same footing.

was understood to speak in support of equalisation of rates.

said he would agree to the rates being raised if the Minister would take that view. As a proof of his consistency, he pointed out that he had prepared an amendment in connection with the Robertson Canal Bill to raise the rates in that way.

The amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was agreed to.

The first amendment of the hon. member for Newlands was negatived.

suggested they should increase the limit to £2 5s.

thought they should keep the limit to £2. They would be reducing the costs all the time.

asked if it was proposed that the profits of the Government would go towards the reduction of the costs of the works, and therefore charge those private owners who were going to get all the benefit from that irrigation a lower charge. That was a very charming idea from the point of view of those owners.

disagreed with the hon. member for Jeppe, but his remarks were inaudible in the Press Gallery.

said it was an uncommonly good piece of business for the private owners. If the hon. member had the matter to deal with, he would proceed on commercial lines.

said the hon. member for Rustenburg would not act as he had said if he were financing the scheme. If the private owners were having their land enhanced in value, they should pay their fair share of the cost of redeeming the money laid out by the State. If by any mischance the limit was more than £2 per morgen, they should be prepared to foot the Bill.

said they were quietly assuming they were going to sell 7,000 morgen of land at £30 per morgen. But what assurance had the Minister that it was going to sell at that price? In Natal they could buy irrigable land for £3 and £4 per acre. It struck him that Government would not have so many purchasers for the land as they thought.

Mr. Struben’s second amendment was negatived, and the clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 11, Provisions as to impounding water, prohibition of new works in catchment area, and use of water by Government outside the watershed.

moved that sub-clause (b), as follows, be omitted: “(b) It shall not be lawful after the commencement of this Act for any person to construct any new works for the impounding or diversion of surplus water on any public stream situated in the catchment area of the reservoir created by the works, and this Act shall be deemed to confer, without application to or order of a Water Court, every such permission and protection as, by such an application and order, can be obtained under sections 14 and 15 of the said Act.” The mover said that if the clause were omitted it would leave the upper owners in the position they were in now as to their rights. Those people were getting no benefits from the dam, and to take away their rights to serve the people down below was entirely wrong. He could see great difficulties in connection with that matter.

said they should give those people the right to come before a Water Board. He pointed out that another person might construct a dam higher up the river and impound the water the Government proposed to impound in their reservoir. That was another thing which showed that the committee did not know what it was doing. Above Hartebeestpoort there might be another poort, and a man might say he would construct a reservoir there. That might be after they had spent another’ £60,000 or £70,000 on the settlement, etc., and the settlement might be made entirely useless.

said he must say that that clause as it stood was drawn up in accordance with danses 14 and 15 of the Irrigation Act. Unless they had something to protect the scheme someone might come along and build a big dam above, and the whole scheme might be a failure. He thought, therefore, that they should move very carefully in the matter.

did not see what harm the amendment of the right hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) could do, and he would support it. A man in the catchment area surely had the right to use the water there.

said he thought the amendment might be accepted, because if the sub-section was agreed to and if people were forbidden to build, dams, and so had their rights interfered with, the question of paying compensation would at once arise. They should be careful lest they interfered with vested rights. There was sufficient guarantee under clauses 14 and 15 of the Irrigation Act, and besides knowing the locality as he did, he did not fear that any large irrigation works would be constructed above the proposed works.

said they would not be justified in constructing those works unless they took every step to see that they could get all the water available to fill the reservoir. If they constructed that big work and got a large number of settlers they had a moral responsibility to see that under no circumstances should the supply of water at some future date be cut off. If they did not make provision to ensure the flow coming down without any obstructive works being placed in the river they would do away with the whole of the guarantee which should be given to the settlers. If, on the other hand, they proceeded under the Irrigation Act of 1912 five years’ delay would be entailed. If any of the proprietors could prove that they were going to suffer under the scheme in losing water to which they were entitled he would rather that they were compensated than allow the permanent usefulness of the works to be jeopardised. Let them take heed of the fate which befe1 Babylon, which had its waters cut off in one night, the surrounding district being turned into, a desert.

said they did funny things in Babylon— (laughter)—and he did hot think that owners’ rights were very much respected there. As for all the long delay which would take place under the Irrigation Act, he did not think there was very much in that contention, because there were only two farmers above the site of the proposed dam. They had had a little sermon as to what might be done in the future which might fill people with alarm, but if they were going to take away owners’ rights the sooner they gave up the scheme the better.

hoped the Minister would keep the clause in the Bill. What security had the Government to give against the possibility arising of what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had spoken of?

explained that he thought sub-section (a) of clause 15 referred to this scheme, but he found that it referred to some future scheme and not to this particular one. He saw no harm in agreeing to the amendment.

suggested the Minister should accept an amendment to sub-section (b). to insert “save under the provisions of section 16, sub-section (5), of the said Act.” Once they had a scheme the upper proprietors would be restricted in their encroachments on the water supply. If the clause were eliminated it would deprive the Government of the protection previously afforded. They could take rights away from the owners, but it would be dangerous to leave the matter alone without dealing with it.

said that he had been misled by the wretched sketch when he last spoke and now found there was a whole series of farms on the Magalies River. They were now taking away the rights of people who had had no notice. He did not think that was right or fair, and he was glad that the Prime Minister had accepted the amendment.

said he had been under the impression that the upper riparian owners on the Magalies River were fully protected under the Irrigation Act, and so he could not understand Mr. Merriman’s amendment. He thought the question should be carefully gone into, and therefore he considered the clause might well stand over.

said that under section 11 authority was given by the Governor-General to construct this dam and impound these surplus waters, and that notwithstanding anything there might be in the Irrigation Act of 1912. As section 11 (b) stood, there was an absolute prohibition of all irrigation works, great or small, within the catchment area. If section 11 (b) were passed it was quite impossible to construct any irrigation works. Supposing section 11 (b) were left out it would not interfere with the construction of the Hartebeestpoort dam, but on any future occasion should anyone higher up want to make a dam the Irrigation Act applied, and in such a case the Hartebeestpoort people or the Government representing the Hartebeestpoort people could come forward and say that this was going to seriously interfere with the right of this Hartebeestpoort dam. It was left to the discretion of the Water Court whether the plea which was put forward by the Government on behalf of the Hartebeestpoort dam was well founded or not He did not see any objection to removing the bar against establishing dams higher up. He thought the latter part of the clause might remain.

said they were now going to legislate to take away people’s rights without knowing what their feelings were in the matter. They should not do an act of injustice like that.

said that if the amendment moved by the right hon. member for Victoria West were taken in its entirety the protection afforded under section 15 of the Irrigation Act would not remain. If it were taken with the suggestion made by, the hon. member for Fordsburg, then they would have the protection which was required for a work of that character. He agreed with the right hon. gentleman that if they took the rights of the upper proprietors the latter should have an opportunity of stating their case.

said to meet the case he would move to omit the first part of paragraph (b), down to the word “and” in line 52, which stated that it should not be lawful after the commencement of the Act for any person to construct any new work for the impounding or diversion of surplus water on any public stream situated in the catchment area of the reservoir created by the works. The omission of those words he thought would provide sufficient protection.

said that ought to be a lesson for some hon. members on the Government side of the House. The three Ministers themselves took up various attitudes, and it was a very undignified position which the Government had got into in that connection. The Prime Minister had taken up an extremely conservative view.

Very sensible man.

The Minister of Finance had taken the middle course. It all went to show the necessity for prior investigation, which they on that side of the House had insisted upon at the second reading.

The amendment of the Minister of Finance was agreed to.

The amendment moved by Mr. Vander Riet was withdrawn.

The amendment of the hon. member for Victoria West to omit the remainder of paragraph (b) was negatived.

drew attention to sub-section (c) and moved in line 39 the omission of the words “non-riparian, and notwithstanding that it is situated beyond the natural watershed of the main stream of the Crocodile River.” They were taking the water, he said, which belonged to them, and were going to take it into another watershed without any inquiry whatever as to whether it was suitable to them or not They were taking away the thing belonging to the riparian owners of the Crocodile River and giving it to another watershed.

said he did not think there was any difficulty for there would be no interference with anybody’s rights. He trusted the right hon. gentleman would not press his amendment.

said if it did not interfere with anybody’s right, then of course, they should use the water where it could be best used; but it showed the necessity of having all such projects supported by some proper plans. They should not spend that large sum of money on the information they had got regarding that scheme.

said they had no knowledge of the rights of the irrigators on the lower reaches of the Crocodile River There were rights to go to the Water Court and get a permit to divert water from one catchment area to another, but it was now proposed in the Bill not alone to empower the impounding of water for the irrigation of land in the vicinity of the Crocodile River, but they were empowering the transference of the water from the catchment area of the Crocodile River to another catchment area.

Why not?

By so doing you do great damage to the men on the lower reaches of the Crocodile River, who are at present using that water and making their living out of it. There was no objection to diversion if there was some assurance that it would not be taking away from other people’s requirements.

said there should be some protection, so that no damage would be inflicted by such users.

suggested that they might put in “provided that such shall not be done except the Water Court is convinced that it will not do any damage to the owners on the lower reaches of the Crocodile River.”

said he hoped the right hon. member for Victoria West would not insist on his amendment, as the retention of paragraph (c) was absolutely essential. The lower riparian owners were fully protected by a previous clause, and if the matter was placed under a Water Court, he feared great difficulties would ensue, because the Water Court might greatly handicap the scheme, even after its completion

said surely the Prime Minister could understand that at certain seasons those people would have no water at all.

said the people would not lose their water—the people down below would not lose any of the water to which they were entitled. The people down below were all riparian owners. The clause referred to the water of the main Crocodile River, and the people there were protected by previous clauses in the Bill. All that it, was proposed to do was to deal with the surplus water. They could never have an irrigation scheme without dealing with the surplus water in some way. The advice of their technical advisers showed that it would be wise to take that power.

said a technical adviser was not a lawyer, and might take away everybody’s property to start some scheme on. Hon. members were there to look after those things; the technical adviser looked after the practicability of building a dam and so on.

said a man would have the right to go to the Water Board. If they could not use all the water inside the catchment area that water must flow down to the owners on the lower reaches of the Crocodile River. They were now to decide one of the greatest changes in water legislation, that was the taking away of the right of water on the land in juxtaposition to a river. The land and the water were absolutely bound up together. If they used the water for other purposes they had the Water Board to find out that they were doing no damage to anybody who was irrigating with the water at the time. He did not think the Minister would lose anything by allowing that to stand over. In the Irrigation Act of 1912 that was very carefully done. Before they did anything they laid the whole case before the Water Board, which went into the matter.

Mr. Merriman’s amendment to omit the words after “non-riparian ” was negatived.

said the effect of paragraph (d) was that if they let out the water for tertiary purposes the Government could charge fees to the persons who leased that water. Those fees were to go to the redemption of the capital cost of the work. That money should go to the benefit of the general taxpayer and not only to these people who would benefit by the Works.

He moved: In line 47, to omit all the words from “applied to”, to the end of the clause, and to substitute “paid into the consolidated revenue fund”.

ruled that in this amendment, if adapted, would convert the fees prescribed under this section into taxation, he was unable to accept it Clause 11, as amended, was agreed to, On clause 12. What is to be deemed normal How of the Crocodile River,

said possibly the 600 million cubic feet mentioned might be half the flow, and they might leave the settlement without any water at all.

said the figure was fixed on the basis of the average normal flow.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

moved as an amendment the deletion of ” 600 million cubic feet” and the substitution of “one-seventh of the quantity of water impounded.”

was afraid he could not accept the amendment. The 600 million cubic feet had been agreed to by the riparian owners. “We will be quite safe.” concluded Mr. Theron.

But the report says the reverse. Which am I to believe—the Minister or the report? When trouble comes we shall know who is going to be responsible; you cannot put that, I suppose, on an expert adviser. On the face of your own report, you have in some years a totally insufficient water supply.

said he hoped the hon. member would not insist on his amendment. The hon. member was always so anxious to protect the owners, and now it seemed to him (the speaker) that he wished to oppress these same people, Six hundred million cubic feet of water was quite sufficient, especially if one considered that no water would be required during the summer months.

Mr. Merriman’s amendment was negatived.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 13. Use for purposes of scheme of certain areas occupied by natives, subject to equivalent areas being set aside for such occupation.

said it was evident from the Prime Minister's statement that there had been an idea of having a scheme apart from the natives’ land, and if the Government were wise, it would fall back on its first plan, which would not include the native area, and then there would be no difficulty about the matter. As there would be water for only 15,000 morgen, it did not matter whether the land to be irrigated came out of the area occupied by the natives or not He did not think it was politic or wise, for the Government before the Commission under the Natives Land Act had reported, to take this step, even supposing that the natives consented to being removed. He thought it was very bad policy, for the natives would say they were not certain of their scheduled areas, but there was more than this. The Government had tried to steer a way through two difficult courses, and it seemed to him that it did not want the matter to become public, because of the difficulties that might arise. The chief’s and missionary’s letter which had been quoted from by the Minister had not been laid on the Table. However, hon. members understood from what had been read that the chiefs were willing to agree to the removal, but the question was: were the people themselves satisfied? The chief might have half-a-dozen reasons for being satisfied. Did the natives know that they were going to be moved from their present position in the centre of the Crocodile River Valley to outside the furrow, and did they know what that meant? Afterwards they might find out that they had been moved from valuable ground inside the furrow to land outside which was not half so valuable. He did not mean to say that these natives were so advanced in their agriculture as some in the Transkei were, or that they would make full use of agricultural facilities; but they had some right to claim the advantage they held. If these people were moved from that part of the ground along the river they should be compensated in some better way than an increase of one-tenth in the area of the land to be given them. The schedule stood or fell as it were with this clause 13. When they came to the schedule they had not sufficient information given to them. The amount of acreage in the scheduled area occupied by natives was shown, but they were not given the amount of acreage in the land which the Government had under option of purchase, and was to be given to the natives in lieu of that which they now occupied, nor was the value of such land given. There was an amendment on the paper by the Minister which altered schedule 2, and he found that one of the farms that was to figure as a farm part or the whole of which might be given to natives in lieu of the other land, was not in the amendment. He found that three additional pieces of ground not in the schedule were mentioned. He wanted to know what was the origin of that change and what did it mean. He did not object to the Government acting up to its option and purchasing the ground, but he would urge them not to proceed with this Bill until next session. For all these reasons he wished to move the deletion of Clause 13.

said he understood from the Minister that all these specified lands had been acquired. If that were the case, what was the necessity for the first part of this section? It appeared to him that, the words “take or use” appearing here were nothing but expropriation.

said he thought they ought to have some more information from the Minister about this matter. Last session they passed a, Bill in the schedule of which were included these lands now proposed to he taken. They were told that the whole salvation of the European people in this country and the salvation of the native people equally depended upon the provisions of this Bill, and it was put forward as a sort of Magna Charta for natives and Europeans as well. What was there to show until the Native Land Commission had been able to inspect those farms whether they were suitable for European occupation, and whether the lands proposed to be changed for them were suitable for native occupation? This clause in the present Bill simply set aside the Act of Parliament passed last session under very strenuous circumstances. Here by a simple clause in a Rill the natives were to be ousted from a tract of ground of which they appeared to have been in occupation for many years. He would like to know whether the natives who were to be displaced from this farm were a native tribe. It had to be remembered that a native chief and a native missionary had no power under native law to act on behalf of the tribe or people. How could the Minister ask this House to consent to an infringement of an important, clause in the Bill of last session by a simple clause in this Bill ? This was a most important matter concerning native affairs, and he did not see why it should not have been brought before the Select Committee on Native Affairs.

said he did not know what had happened in the Native Affairs Committee last year. He had not brought, this matter before that committee because no ground was being taken away from the natives, and they were dealing here with an absolutely voluntary matter. The natives themselves were quite satisfied with the exchange that was to be effected. A clause was brought into the Bill because the matter was dealt with in the schedule, not an inch of ground was taken from the natives; there was no question of expropriation and he could not understand how a well-read man like the hon. member for Von Brandis could talk about expropriation. He could not understand the attitude of the hon. member for Tembuland, who seemed to be dissatisfied because the natives were satisfied. Whose word, he asked, should he take, that of the hon. member for Tembuland or that of the chief Mamogale? The Prime Minister again quoted from Mamogale’s letter in support of his contention, the letter concluding that if the matter was settled as proposed the tribe would be ever grateful to the Government, The Prime Minister proceeded to refer to a letter from the missionary in the part of the country concerned, which stated that the natives were looking forward to the conclusion of the agreement. The Government would not tolerate any injustice being done to the natives. But besides the ground to which the natives would go was just as good as that they were leaving, and in addition they would get, ten per cent, more land than they held now. Had there been a question of expropriation he would certainly have submitted the matter to the Select Committee. Under the old scheme they (the Government) would have bad a lot of separate pieces of ground, while here they were getting one large plot. He could assure the hon. member for Tembuland that no injustice of any kind would be done to the natives. They were quite-satisfied with their bargain, and the hon. member had no reason to be otherwise.

replied that the Prime Minister saw into what a hole he had brought himself If he had taken the trouble to put on the schedule of the Bill some form of agreement between the Government and those people who were really the owners of the soil he would have saved a great deal of misapprehension. They had only that Bill, with the clause in the Bill, and they had no information as to how that clause came to be in the Bill. They were not accusing the Prime Minister of any unfairness to the natives. Indeed, they saw that he proposed to give them ten per cent, more than it was proposed to take away. The consent of the chiefs was not the consent of the tribe. The Prime Minister saw that the land which was in the occupation of the natives was not tribal land which had always belonged to them, but it was land which became theirs by purchase. The Prime Minister did not get over the difficulty with regard to that particular land in the scheduled area. The Commission had made no recommendation with regard to that land. Some difficulties might arise which would have been done away with if the matter had been placed before the House in a proper light.

asked the Minister whether the consent of the Govern or-General-in-Council had been obtained for that expropriation. Without that consent he did not know how they were going to deal with the matter. He would like to warn the Minister that he was liable to a fine of £100. (Cheers.) Under clause 1 of the Act of 1913 it was clear that they must have the approval of the Governor-General with regard to the land in, the scheduled area, and under section 5 any person who had made any attempt to purchase, sell, hire or lease the land should be guilty of an offence and be liable on conviction to a fine of £100.

said that he thought the Government ought to be very grateful to him for having brought the truth to light. It was only his persistent hammering away which got from the Prime Minister the whole position of affairs. That was very good, because if the explanation which had been given had not been given it was possible a wrong impression that would have existed afterwards in the minds of the natives might not have been removed. However, he still urged that, seeing that there was not enough water according to that plan to irrigate more than 15,000 morgen, it would be better if the Government went back to the first plan. He wanted to point, out on behalf of the white holders of the ground in that vicinity that if the Government were going to get hold of 16,000 morgen of the best ground in one block which was now in the hands of the natives he did not know what they were going to do. The adjoining farmers would not be able to get water, and instead of their being benefited they would not be benefited at all except in extraordinary years when there was a great deal of water in the dam. They should leave the natives as they were and go back to the first plan and trust to the chapter of events to develop things further, next year or some other year.

said it seemed a certain warning had been received by members opposite, and in order to get out of the difficulty now all kinds of grounds of objection had to be looked for. All the points raised had been answered by him (the Minister) during the second reading. The statement that no one knew what kind of ground was to be given to the natives was ridiculous. He had clearly said that certain of the best ground in the western part of the reserve was to be given to the natives. It was ludicrous here to talk of expropriation. The natives possessed the land by law and not under title. In the circumstances it had been necessary to provide for this matter in the schedule. He trusted members opposite would now waive the objections and allow the Bill to pass.

said that after the extraordinarily diverse statements they had had from various members of the Cabinet, it ill became his hon. friend to say that the hon. member for Tembuland had brought that forward at someone else’s instigation. Anyone who knew the hon. member’s record in the old Cape Parliament knew that such would not be the case. (Hear, hear.) Proceeding, the hon. member said that in his second reading speech the Minister of Lands had stated that they were acquiring land from natives at 30s. and 50s. a morgen, and giving them other land elsewhere. No wonder they were satisfied.

Not from the natives.

said that he had taken the Minister of Lands’ words down, and if he had not said that they were paving the natives 30s. and 50s. a morgen he must have heard extraordinarily badly.

Clause 13 was agreed to.

On clause 15, Regulations.

asked what was meant by “benefiting indirectly ” in sub-section (c).?

reply was inaudible.

said that they were not going to rate a person like that because he might not want it. He moved, as an amendment, in line 48 that the words “directly or indirectly ” be deleted.

The amendment was agreed to.

asked what was the intention of the Minister with regard to members of the Board. The provision of the clause was that members were appointed for such time as the Minister might determine. Was it the intention to pay these members, and if so, what was the amount it was proposed to pay?

It is not intended to pay them.

I am very glad to hear that.

Clause 15, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 16, Penalties.

moved as an amendment to delete sub-section (2), which reads as follows: “A magistrate’s court shall have special jurisdiction to impose on summary trial the maximum penalties prescribed for any such offence, anything to the contrary notwithstanding in any law relating to magistrates’ courts.”

referred to sub-section (f), which reads as follows: … “uses water supplied by the Government from the works without having guaranteed the payment of, or without having paid the rates leviable under this Act, shall be guilty of an offence and liable—(i) in the case of a first conviction, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, or, in default of payment, to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a period not exceeding one month, or to both such fine and such imprisonment; (ii) in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or, in default of payment, to imprisonment with or without, hard labour for a period not exceeding two months, or to both such fine and such imprisonment,” Mr. Merriman asked if it was not an unusual thing for a person, if he used water without payment, to be punished as if it was a criminal offence.

was understood to say that, a clause like that was generally put, in to have uniform jurisdiction, but it, had crept into that, Bill through inadvertence.

twitted the Cabinet with more disagreement.

moved, as an amendment, that sub-section (2) be deleted.

The amendment was agreed to.

Clause 16, as amended, was agreed to

On clause 18, Interpretation of terms, Two small amendments were made in the Dutch version.

moved the following new clause (1): “That subject to the provisions of section 13 of this Act, the Governor-General may, for the better carrying out of the objects and purposes of this Act, expropriate any land irrigable by water from the works; (2) the provisions of the law for the time being in force in the Province of the Transvaal governing the expropriation by the Crown of land for public purposes shall apply to any expropriation of land made under this section, so far as concerns the method and procedure for carrying out such expropriation, and for determining the sum to be paid to the owners of such land and the expenses, if any, of arbitration.” The mover said the hon. members on the cross-benches were not satisfied that a large number of people were going to pay back to the State the amount they should for the benefits they would receive. The Government could recoup themselves for any loss that might be entailed in the carrying out of the scheme by expropriating some of the land. The Land Settlement Act had been an absolute failure owing to the absence of land, but mow was an opportunity to expropriate some of the land that was to be irrigated for settlement purposes. Now was the time to prove whether the House was in favour of expropriation or not.

said throughout the discussion on this Bill it had been very patent that by the heavy expenditure of public money a large number of private owners was to be very handsomely enriched at the expense of the State, which should take power to expropriate the land at a fair valuation—not to steal it —by arbitration, if necessary.

Excuse me a moment. The amendment gives power to expropriate land, the value of which is to be determined by arbitration, which will have to be paid for out of public funds. That means expenditure.

It does not involve expenditure. It merely gives the Governor-General a certain power, and if he does not exercise that power, no expenditure will be incurred. The amendment does not contravene the rule that a private member may not initiate expenditure.

I think that the hon. member’s view is correct.

said that arbitration would be more expensive than buying the land by private treaty.

Let the Minister get down from his high Ministerial horse down to the level of common-sense. (Laughter.) The State should get a portion of the enhanced value of the land. The only possible conclusion to be drawn if the amendment is not accepted is that there are some privileged people who are going to be benefited at the expense of the State, and we should like to know more about it.

said he would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether it was a fact that the Government had got the power by Proclamation to expropriate?

No. The only power we have is under the Irrigation Act. There is no power in the land to-day to expropriate for irrigation purposes.

said they would like to know on what principle the Government were going to choose between the private owners, whose land was to be allowed to be irrigated from this dam, and the private owners, whose land was not to be irrigated from this dam? The best way out of the difficulty was to expropriate.

put the proposed new clause.

moved to add at the end of the last paragraph, “and shall cost not more than £605,000.”

The amendment was negatived.

On the second Schedule, The MINISTER OF LANDS moved to omit this schedule and to substitute the following new schedule:

in reply to Mr. Schreiner, said that certain corrections had to be made in the schedule.

said that the Government was playing with the House, and now they were asked to authorise without inquiry the purchase of a block of land without a single word as to the price, the area, or the owners. They were asked to vote on a schedule quite different from that at first proposed without any explanation beyond that they were going to get some things cheaper, and that the others fell out. No doubt they would be accused of blocking the most admirable irrigation scheme, and spoiling one of the finest schemes that had ever been mooted in South Africa. It might be one of the best schemes of the Transvaal, but whether the Transvaal was entitled to it was quite a different matter. They were suddenly asked to say yes to the biggest irrigation scheme they had had in this country with but meagre information, and if it were not a success the Government would have to take the responsibility of putting back irrigation in this country for many years.

said that surely it was within the knowledge of the Minister what options were upon those items.

said he could not give the options upon every farm, but the price ranged from 20s. to £3 per morgen.

asked if the Minister was proposing to let certain options lapse and substitute some others in their stead.

replied in the affirmative.

said that that hardly corresponded with the Minister’s previous statement that the options they had got were on the most wonderful terms. The two statements did not exactly coincide. (Opposition laughter.)

said the hon. member was not justified in putting the position in that way. His further explanation was inaudible.

The amended schedule was agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments.

moved that the consideration of amendments should be taken on the following day.

said if they were taken to-morrow they could not put any amendments on the Paper. They would be too late.

There are no amendments.

How do they know? It ought to be Wednesday at the earliest.

supported the contention of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, and pointed out that there were other important matters which might be taken to-morrow. There was the Criminal Justice Administration Bill.

That will come up to-morrow.

said he was glad to have that assurance, and there was the Medical Practitioners’ and Dentists’ Registration Law Amendment Bill, as well as the Estimates.

appealed to the hon. Minister not to press for the next day. He moved to substitute “on Wednesday.”

said he would agree to Wednesday.

Wednesday was agreed to.

moved that-the Miners’ Phthisis Act Amendment Bill, as amended in the Committee of the Whole House, be considered.

The motion was agreed to.

in reference to his amendment on clause 2, asked the Minister if he would accept the word “ordinary” to be added to “work.” so, that it would make the meaning dear.

said that “his work” meant work as a miner. It was not a reference to any person, but to a miner who had contracted miners’ phthisis.

On clause 3,

said there was a consequential amendment in line 46 to put “employed” instead of “engaged”, and in mine 48 before the word “stone” to insert “at” so that it would read “at stone crushing.”

Agreed to.

moved: That new sub-section (2) of clause 8 be transposed to form a new clause to follow clause 7.

Agreed to.

put the amendments in the schedule.

moved, as an amendment, opposite section 30 in the last item, in lines 1 and 3, before “the sum” and “such sum”, respectively, to insert “such person shall be entitled to”.

Agreed to

The amendments, as amended, were agreed to.

moved, as an amendment, after the item “Section 19”, to insert “section 26, sub-section (1)— the insertion after “underground” of the words “or on or about rock crushers in a crushing station”, Section 26, sub-section (2)—the insertion after “underground work” of the words “or on or about rock crushers in a crushing station”.

Agreed to.

The amendments made in Committee were agreed to.

said that if there was no objection, he would now move that the Bill be read a third time.

In reply to Mr. T. L. Schreiner (Tembuland), who was inaudible,

said his attention had been called to the matter referred to by the hon. member, and it would be altered in “another place.”

There was no abjection to the motion, which was agreed to.

The Bill was read a third time.

asked what was the position of the Registrar of the Witwatersrand High Court? Was be a Registrar or an Assistant Registrar?

An Assistant Registrar.

asked whether the time had not arrived to have a Registrar in Johannesburg? The work there was one of great responsibility. The hon. member went on to refer to prisoners under sentence of death and the time they had to wait for execution, saying that his view would be, if he were under sentence of death or sentenced to be lashed, that the sooner the better. (Laughter.)

If one took the practice in England, when a person was sentenced to death, three Sundays were usually allowed before execution, so that the execution took place at the latest within four weeks.

stated that the Johannesburg Registrar retained his title of Registrar and Taxing Master. Johannesburg was a sub-division of the Transvaal Provincial Division, and it would be rather anomalous to give it a Registrar. With regard to death sentences, as a rule six weeks elapsed before the carrying out of the sentence. When notification was received that the death sentence had been passed telegrams were sent to hurry everybody up, but the shorthand writer sometimes had to transcribe records running into 500 to 600 pages, of which 14 copies had to be made for the Governor-General and members of the Executive Council and the judges who had sent in reports on the cases. By the time the papers reached the head office three weeks generally had elapsed, and sometimes even four weeks. Then the papers had to be considered by the Minister of Justice, who had to frame a report for submission to His Excellency, and he (the Minister) was afraid the Minister kept the matter back for another two or three days, for the cases had to be gone into thoroughly, and then a decent time had to be left between the date of confirmation of sentence and its carrying into effect. With our large circuits the judges were away sometimes for two months, and this frequently led to delay. He could assure the hon. member, however, that no time was lost and the sentence was generally confirmed in the fourth week and the execution took place a fortnight later.

said the remuneration paid to doctors who gave evidence at Circuit Courts was altogether inadequate.

said the Sheriffs in the larger centres should be made full-time officers, which would give some degree of security to the public. At present Sheriffs were practically contractors, and were allowed to bank public moneys in their own private accounts. The hon. member also referred to the charges made in connection with Magistrates’ Court cases, which he said were excessive; the public should be protected from persons who tried to fleece them.

emphasised the necessity of holding proper Coroners inquests. Many more searching inquiries would take place after sudden deaths if this were done. In modern countries inquiries were held in order to be certain that death was not due to foul play. The Magistrates did their best, but they were not trained to deal with medico-legal questions. He also desired to support his hon. friend in regard to the iniquitous payment of medical experts in giving evidence. The present scale operated very harshly indeed, especially insofar as district surgeons who were called upon to give evidence at Circuit Courts, in many cases at considerable distances from their homes, were concerned.

said that, in regard to the question of Coroners’ inquests, in the Transvaal they were one degree worse off than were the people in the Cape, because they had no public inquiry at all in case of sudden or unexplained death.

said he desired to call the Minister’s attention to the fact that in the Transkei there was a good deal of complaint about the insufficient pay of witnesses and jurors.

said he desired to draw attention to the need of revising witnesses’ fees. He also complained about the heavy costs to which men were subjected on apparently trivial charges, and mentioned the case of an engine driver in the Transvaal who in January last was prosecuted on a certain charge and acquitted and had been put to an expense of about £150 in defending himself. The hon. member also alluded to the question of putting the matter of the garnisheeing of wages on a satisfactory basis, and said that he hoped that, if there was another session of this Parliament the Government would introduce a Bill to deal with this matter.

on the other hand, objected to three increases and held that in a free country it was the duty of every man to do his utmost to secure the aims of justice.

said that the medical man when called upon as an ordinary witness did not complain, but when he went as an expert witness it was an entirely different matter.

said he wished to plead for an increase of the fees of jury members, who, especially in the outlying districts, had to come long distances to do their duty to the State. They had in the past been promised that this matter would be attended to, but so far the position had only become worse.

agreed with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, to some extent that it was the duty of citizens to make sacrifices in the interest of justice, but what was a sacrifice to one individual was not always a sacrifice to another. That particularly obtained with regard to low-paid men. Sometimes they had to appear at the Court day after day without receiving anything for it and at times they lost their jobs. They should be paid at least what they would earn at their ordinary work.

said he was glad of the warning which had been given him by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central. Uniformity of fees commenced in the Transvaal on a rather high scale and as soon as they reduced any there was an outcry, with the result that to some extent they had to level up to the Transvaal standard; that was unfortunate, as the administration would grow bigger every year. As regards jurors, the tariff was framed in 1912, and he could not hold out any hope of altering that tariff, which was a very satisfactory one. Jurors from the coastal belt were paid 8s. a day, and those from further inland 10s. They got their railway transport, or if they did not travel by rail, 4d. per mile in addition. There were hard cases, of course, but nevertheless it was a reasonable tariff. The same applied to the witness fees. They were also fixed at 8s. and 10s. a day respectively. Coloured persons received 4s. or 2s., and aboriginal natives 2s. 6d. or 1s. 6d. Medical men were exceptionally well treated, but, in spite of that, they always complained the most. Expert witnesses got one guinea per day. With regard to the hon. member for Springs, he said the fault was not with the tariff when men were kept waiting day after day, and it was impossible to distinguish in the tariff. Most of their problems were caused in this country by the long distances. If medical men’s representatives were satisfied with 10s. 6d., if they came by a motor-car, and with £2 for those who lived further away, he would be inclined to consider that favourably, but he had been told that that would not be popular. As to what had been said about attorneys’ fees, that was a matter of arrangement between an attorney and his client. In regard to cases for workmen’s compensation on the Witwatersrand, he had been informed that some of the attorneys’” fees were rather exorbitant. Regarding what had been said about garnishee orders, he had not yet had time to deal with that matter, although when he came into office there was a Bill in manuscript form there dealing with the matter. He hoped to deal with the matter next session, when he hoped to deal with Magistrates’ Court procedure. As to inquests, he had had a Bill drafted, but owing to various circumstances, it had fallen into forgetfulness. Many magistrates in the Transvaal held that the present system of inquests was very satisfactory. He agreed with the hon. member for Woodstock (Dr. Hewat) that if they had coroners it would be satisfactory, but that would be too expensive for the whole of the country, although they might have a coroner in such places as the Witwatersrand. At any rate, he hoped they would be able to tackle an Inquest Bill next session, and it would not be very contentious. In regard to what had been said about the Sheriff in the Transvaal, the matter was still under appeal. The Sheriff was an official of the Government, and was appointed by the Government, and the Government, was responsible for his action. The Deputy-Sheriffs were not Government officials, however, and they paid themselves by fees, and so did messengers of the Court, He had been asked to appoint Deputy-Sheriffs and Court Messengers, but that would be too expensive. They might save money in some places, but they could not get the men. At present the Government had an agreement with the Deputy-Sheriff in Johannesburg that he was to pay a certain amount over to the Treasury fund. In Natal they had appointed Court Messengers for the past six months, but the difficulty was that, they could not get men to do the work. The Government would make a very great mistake if it undertook the serving of civil processes, as pressure would be brought to bear to have the fees reduced, so that finally the Government would serve them for nothing.

said he must call upon the Minister to withdraw his remark about attorneys belonging to the Labour Party, the inference being that they were especially high in their charges. He must not confound attorneys who acted for the Labour Party with labour attorneys.

said he did not think any hon. member understood him to make such an imputation. He made the remark as an illustration, and said he had instances in which attorneys who appeared in workmen’s compensation cases had charged very high fees. He certainly did not mean to make imputations against attorneys belonging to the Labour Party, for attorneys belonging to other parties also made high charges. Some attorneys belonging to the Labour Party had charged high fees.

said it was essential that sheriffs’ accounts should be audited.

reverting to the question of sheriffs quoted from the evidence given by Mr. Rorke in the recent trial.

said he did not think it was fair to make any comparison between the fees paid to medical witnesses and the fees paid to ordinary witnesses. Medical witnesses were on a totally different basis from ordinary witnesses, inasmuch as they gave expert evidence.

said he desired, in fairness to attorneys who belonged to the Labour Party, to repudiate the suggestion which had been made by the Minister that they charged exceptionally high fees. He rather thought the Minister had confounded attorneys who had been employed by Labour bodies to act for them with attorneys who actually belonged to the Lubour Party.

said that, in regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Commissioner-street, it should be borne in mind that Mr. Rorke’s evidence was not upheld by the Court, and that the Court decided against him. He admitted that the Sheriff’s position in Johannesburg was a profitable one. There were many others, however, where the refused fees were very small, and they could not have different rules for each place. With regard to the hon. member for Springs, he certainly did not want to make any imputation against attorneys, but even in connection with the workmen’s compensation cases he had known high fees charged by agreement.

said that, the Minister had not replied to a remark by the hon. member for Springs, mentioning a case where a man had lost his position as a result of being called upon to act us a witness. He thought there should be protection against witnesses being treated in that way.

The vote was agreed to.

Progress was reported, and leave granted to sit again to-morrow.