Correspondence in connection with the appointment of consulting pathologist.

asked the Minister of Justice: (1) Whether he has seen the paragraph in the “Cape Argus” of the 2nd inst., entitled “New Police Grievance.” (2) Is it within his knowledge and with his authority that the houses of those of the police at Johannesburg who live in private houses should have their cottages ready for inspection by a headquarters officer? (3) What right, authority, or regulation is there for this high-handed and unpopular procedure, and (4) What is the object thereof?

I have seen the paragraph in question and have communicated with the Commissioner of Police, who informs me that the paragraph is quite misleading. The Divisional Inspector inspected only Government married quarters when the occupants report that repairs are necessary or when complaints with reference to the condition of the quarters are made, but not otherwise. Those living in private houses are not interfered with in any way.

moved the second reading of the Appropriation (1914-15) Bill.

said he would like to ask the Minister a question with regard to the Creamery at Parys. He had received a letter on the subject, and his informant stated that this creamery was in liquidation. But that was not all. His informant stated that it was rumoured that it was the intention of the Government to start this again on a cooperative basis, and put further Government money into the business. His informant was in the creamery business himself in the Transvaal, and he said it was not fair to private individuals for the Government to do anything of the sort. Was there any truth in the statement?

said it was true that the creamery was in liquidation, but there was no intention on the part of the Government of starting it again on a co-operative basis. (Hear, hear.)

Was it in liquidation when we voted the £1,500?

When?

At the beginning of the session. On, I suppose it went into liquidation immediately afterwards. It does not seem to me to be a very happy business—(laughter)—and I am glad we opposed the vote.

said that now that the fires had almost entirely burned down he wished to express to the Minister the hope that the action of the Ministry at the beginning of the session would not be revived in the future. He alluded to certain nine persons who were not exactly banished from this country, but under a law which was passed in the House might be treated by the Minister should they come back in a way that would give great offence to many thousands of people in this country. He might tell the Minister that most undoubtedly there were large numbers of people who would never rest satisfied until that wrong had been undone. He would tell the Minister that most certainly those nine persons, unless their character deceived him, would certainly come back to South Africa at some time or other, and it was in the power of the Minister to molest those persons. He earnestly hoped the Minister had greater wisdom than the Ministry had some months ago and would recognise that the best way to promote peace in this country was to refrain from arbitrary action. He hoped that wiser counsels would prevail than had prevailed at the beginning of the session.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time.

said that the Minister of Finance in the course of his Budget speech said that great reductions had been made in regard to the maintenance of the Cape system prior to Union. He said that the Cape Government had very much starved the maintenance of the Cape system and that a large amount had had to be spent since Union to bring the system up to standard. In the course of the debate the right hon. member for Victoria West said that his Government gave strict instructions to at all costs the lines must be kept up to standard. The late Mr. Sauer, in reply to a question, confirms that entirely, and said that strict instructions were given to keep the lines up to standard, notwithstanding the financial position.

said that when he made the statement referred to by the last speaker, he had come to a wrong conclusion. Since then Mr. McEwan had been to see him and they had gone into the whole position, and he was quite convinced that what he (the Minister) had said was not in accordance with the fact. Nothwithstanding the retrenchments that were carried out he found that in December, 1910, certificates were given by the engineer to the effect that the permanent way was in good order, and there were other facts which Mr. McEwan brought to his notice that, although there was retrenchment in other directions, the railways of the Cape did its best to keep the permanent way in good order. He said that because he thought it was due to Mr. McEwan, Mr. Tippet and the other engineers.

said the instructions of the old Cape Government had been whatever retrenchments were carried out the permanent way should be kept in good order.

said the whole of the line from Cape Town to Kimberley had been re-laid, and they were spending large sums of money on permanent way.

said he did not think it was necessary to add anything to what had been said by the Minister of Finance. If they looked at the figures of working expenditure between 1903 and 1909, they would find a substantial reduction. It had been 4½ millions in 1903 and a little over 2 millions in 1909. The expenditure had not been reduced at the expense of the safety of the permanent way; it was effected by a substantial reduction of the train mileage. In 1903 the train mileage run on the Cape Government Railways was 12,700,000, and in 1909 it was reduced to 9,200,000, a reduction of something over 5,000,000. That had been done by reducing the number of trains run, and it did not affect the safety of the permanent way. There was no doubt that the officers of the Cape Government Railways were officers who had a well deserved reputation in this country.

asked the Minister whether there was any possibility of the line being surveyed during the present year from Bethal to Middelburg.

asked whether it would not be more convenient to take page 5 of the Estimates first, as the Railway Board and the Ministerial salaries were dealt with there.

We will get there in time.

asked what the Government’s intentions were in respect of the Bothaville line. He hoped the Government would see its way to have the proposed course of the line altered so as to have the districts of Boshof and Hope Town served. If the line was to follow the course proposed at present it would be of very little use. Was it the intention to extend the line to Vierfontein? Last year it had been promised that the line would be continued to Boshof, but this year nothing had been done.

asked when a proper railway station was to be constructed at Johannesburg.

said he wished to draw attention to the alarming number of railway accidents which had happened throughout the country, and especially in Natal. Nearly every week they saw in the papers that an accident had happened on the Natal section, more especially near Botha’sHill. He believed those accidents were mainly caused by a defective permanent way which was not heavy enough to carry the large engines which were running on that section. Fortunately those accidents were principally to goods trains, but one of those days there would be an accident to a passenger train and there might be heavy loss of life. He thought they should have someone outside the Railway Department to conduct an independent investigation.

strongly supported what had been said by the last speaker. He believed the accidents had been very frequent on the Natal line, and there seemed to be no way of getting at the cause. The departmental inquiries resulted in no information for the public. He strongly urged the Minister to institute independent inquiries into the matter. The public was becoming seriously alarmed not only for its own safety but for the business of the country.

spoke of the need of placing a station at Umfolosi on the Natal North Coast line.

said he wished to support the request which had been made for independent inquiries into accidents on the railways. He desired that these independent inquiries should be extended to shunting accidents, and pointed out that from his own observation he found that the surfaces of station yards were very uneven. He would urge upon the Minister to make a personal investigation, if possible, into the condition of station yards where these shunting operations were carried on

said that before Union in one of the sessions of the Cape Parliament the construction of certain railways and the raising of the necessary money was authorised. Amongst those railways was one from Cathcart to Bontebok Flats. That railway was not built, and subsequently to Union the then Minister of Railways (Mr. Sauer) appropriated the authority given for the construction of this line to another purpose altogether. He did not do that, however, without first promising him (Mr. Blaine), in consideration of his agreeing and not making any disturbance when the appropriation of that fund, to give Cathcart a good road. Time had gone on, and they had got neither road nor railway. Mr. Blaine added that he would like to know from the present Minister whether he was going to endeavour to carry out the promise of his predecessor in office, or whether he intended to repudiate that promise.

referred to the unsatisfactory lighting at Plumstead and Diep River Stations.

called attention to the need of improved lighting at Queen’s Town Station.

urged the Minister to have a sort of shelter built at Bleskop Halt in his constituency.

said that during the first session of the Union Parliament certain railway lines which had been authorised by the different Provinces prior to Union, and for which money had been allocated, were ruthlessly put on one side.

The money was jumped.

There is no doubt that that was the case. Continuing, Sir Thomas said there was nothing more unfair than for the Government to carry the construction of certain lines largely on account of political consideration and to drop the lines already authorised by the old Parliaments. He proceeded to say that the railwaymen were allowed to get weekly “subs,” but the Salt River men were denied this privilege. He hoped the Minister would go fully into the question of the weekly payment of wages, for that would be in the interests of the men. Among our permanent railway inspectors was a clever young fellow, who had invented a most successful device for preventing cattle straying on to the line.

He will get the sack, then.

I don’t at all agree with my hon. friend. I believe it is the policy of the department to encourage any inventions brought forward by its own staff. (Hear, hear.) The railway should give bonuses for useful inventions of this sort.

urged that relief should be afforded the people in the South-western Districts, and asked the Minister to give some indication of the Government’s policy on this matter. For years the people in the South-western Districts bad been patiently waiting for some definite statement on this point. It was somewhat galling to them to see railway rates reduced in other parts of the Union when they had to continue paying very heavy rates, which severely handicapped them in competing with other districts of the Union. He hoped the Minister would be able to give a more definite reply than he had vouchsafed in the past when the people in the South-west were told that they would have to wait until railways had been built in other parts of the Union. He trusted that next session Government would be able to put some definite proposal forward. The new Cape Central line should either be expropriated or be given a subsidy so as to enable it to reduce its rates.

was perfectly certain that the benefit to the railwaymen by receiving their wages weekly would be very substantial. For one thing it would enable them to obtain discounts from their trades people. He was certain the wives of the men were in favour of weekly payments. He had been informed that two coloured men employed on railway work at Diep River had been dismissed, the foremen telling them that coloured mechanics were not allowed on the railway. The Minister must know that in the Cape Peninsula they had, unfortunately, a large coloured population who had reached such a standard that they could not be placed in the same category as the ordinary native, or even the civilised native, and it seemed a great hardship that the Minister should pay regard only to the white man to the neglect of the coloured man. It seemed very hard that these two men should be told they had to go, owing to the instructions of the Department. He thought that the Minister had gone too far in this matter, and he hoped he would reconsider these instructions.

asked if the Minister would bring in a Bill next year for the taking over of the Cape Central Railways by the Union?

said he understood that the provision trains were to be discontinued, and asked what return the railway servants were going to get for the discontinuance of this privilege

was understood to ask the Minister whether he could not see his way to place railway extension in that district on the Estimates. The hon. member said that last session he left with very hopeful prospects, but this year he found there was nothing on the Estimates. He said there was a splendid country, but that very little could be done owing to the exorbitant charges for transport. Would the Minister give an assurance that this question of railway extension in this particular part of the country would be taken up next year?

was understood to plead for a minimum wage for lightermen at Algoa Bay.

said that owing to the noise he could not hear a word of what the hon. member was saying.

said he was astonished at the hon. members on the cross-benches talking while he brought forward this question, because it was essentially a labour topic. In the course of further remarks, the hon. member was understood to say that these men wanted a minimum wage for three days a wek—he was alluding, of course, to the men with from three to five years’ service.

supported what had been said by the hon. member for Griqualand West with regard to the prospects in that part of the country and the absolute necessity for railway extension before much progress could be made. He could assure the Minister that it was a country literally flowing with milk and honey—(laughter)—and he was astonished that that part of the country had been neglected for so many years. He supported the hon. member for Fort Beaufort that members of the railway service should be encouraged to exercise their ingenuity in regard to new devices which would be economical for the country. He suggested that the Minister might invite suggestions for an efficient spark arrester for locomotives and a movable trough for the watering of cattle. If they could get devices to deal with these matters thousands of pounds would be saved to the country, and he thought the Minister should make it worth the while of some of his efficient and clever mechanics to invent something. (Hear, hear.) In conclusion, the hon. member appealed for a new station at Pinetown, Natal.

urged the building of a line from Pretoria to Magaliesberg, his arguments, however, being quite inaudible in the Press gallery. He was further understood to urge the Minister to make proper provision for separate carriages for natives and to draw attention to the danger of fire which was caused by sparks from railway engines.

said that the Minister had said that the railway employees did not want weekly payments. Twelve months ago the men in the workshops took a vote on the matter, and the voting was 770 for weekly payments and 25 against. Arising out of that, he believed it was the practice for men receiving less than 9s. a day to draw a weekly sum on account of their monthly pay, but those receiving more than 9s. were not allowed to do that. Why that definite line of above and below 9s. should be drawn he could not understand, especially as some men getting more than 9s. a day were allowed to get those advances.

drew the attention of the Minister to the many dangerous level crossings on the Witwatersrand. There was a particularly dangerous one near Germiston, where, owing to the mine dumps, there was a great deal of dust. A friend of his met his death there some time ago. He hoped the Minister would see that those areas were properly protected.

asked the Minister to have a railway line built in his constituency, to connect Douglas and Belmont. The line had been granted in 1906, but nothing further had been done. It would undoubtedly show a margin of profit. Large amounts of money had been spent in the parts referred to, and in a few months a large number of settlers would be placed on the ground. Unless they had a railway line there they were only creating more poor whites. The Railway Board had been to his part of the country last year, but so far no report had been published. He complained that the Railway Department had refused to place a fence along the railway line to Hope Town. Other people had to fence their lands, and he claimed that the railways should do the same. There were irrigation works at Douglas, the water was there and the ground was good, but all that helped nothing in the absence of a railway.

said a case had been brought to his notice where a number of coloured men who had been employed as drivers of wagons had qualified themselves to drive motor wagons when the motor wagons were substituted. Those men had nevertheless been got rid of and their places taken by Europeans who had been trained by the Government. He was told that this policy had been adopted in regard to the Postal Department. It seemed to him a gross injustice that citizens of the country who had shown their absolute qualification for the work should be taken on merely to make room for others who were not better qualified, but who possessed a white skin. Mr. Alexander also drew the Minister’s attention to the petition of Mr. Buur, the victim of an accident at the Royal Road level crossing, Muizenberg, which had been the subject of litigation. He hoped the department would be able to render some assistance in this matter.

said he saw there was a good deal going on in connection with the taking over of cartage work by the department at the various centres. He would like to know if it were the intention of the department to take over the cartage at all the centres.

Not all.

Will Port Elizabeth be one of the places that will be left?

was understood to reply that he could not say at present.

said that with regard to the displacing of coloured employees by white men he thought the department was going a little bit too far, especially in the Western Province. He noticed that in his report the General Manager of Railways called attention to the excessive cost of the maintenance of branch lines, and made a comparison between the cost on the branch lines of this country and certain branch lines in the Scottish Highlands. He would like to know what the Minister proposed to do in reference to this. He also noticed that the Railway Department had put up some trucks for the Portuguese Railway authorities at a loss of over £1,000. Why, he asked, should the Union Railways be put to a loss of this kind?

said he desired to draw attention to the discrepancies in the figures between the various coloured books which had been issued by the department. He would like to see some amendment made in the form of accounts published by the Railway Department. These accounts at present were very misleading, and he thought the form adopted by the Treasury might very well be followed in this matter. Mr. Fremantle also referred to the position of men on the Cape Fixed Establishment, and stated that the department now claimed that they could retire these men without any notice at all. He stated that when the Minister was Attorney-General of the Cape he gave a very strong opinion on the question of the Cape Fixed Establishment, which had been laid on the Table of this House, but since he had been Minister, and, in fact, ever since Union, there had been an everlasting attempt to filch away the very small rights of the Fixed Establishment, culminating in the fact that last year several of them were dismissed quite illegally. Some of them, he was glad to say, were restored, after he had called attention to the matter and moved for a return. The department, he understood, was going on the same lines at present. He would also like to ask the Minister to look into the question of the position of some of the clerks who were in the Cape Government Railways before Union. A number of grievances had arisen in this connection. A petition had been presented, and he would be glad to know whether the Minister would be prepared to go into this matter. What had happened in regard to the Grievances Board? Was there to be only one Board, or were they to be localised?

said he was afraid at one time that they were going to resolve themselves into a Committee to discuss new railway construction. Let him say at once to hon. members who had urged the claims of their districts that, of course, these matters had the serious and constant attention of the Administration. The case of Griqualand East was rather a special one, but he could not pledge himself. The Administration realised to the full that great claim which Griqualand East had to railway construction. (Hear, hear.) The Administration tried to give people proper accommodation, but if it spent money on building beautiful railway stations, that would reduce its usefulness in other directions which were more necessary.

New lines.

Yes. If you go to the Argentine or to Holland you will find that they have a minimum of expenditure on these trimmings in the shape of nice stations which involve the country in an enormous amount of money. (Hear, hear.) We try to give all the light we can. I was shocked to hear my hon. friend describe Queen’s Town as a place of darkness. I am sure that without the light we humbly try to supply them with Queen’s Town could not be described as a place of darkness.

The station is.

We shall endeavour to light the station when the municipality takes a more reasonable view of the charges.

They have agreed to your terms.

I will go into the question. If there is no trouble about terms my hon. friend will have all the light he wants. As to the accidents on the Natal line (proceeded Mr. Burton) there had been less accidents since Union than prior to Union. There was no section on the whole of the South African railways that was in a better condition than the Natal line. He thought something like £800,000 had been spent on the section of the railway since Union. There had been rather a crop of accidents recently and there was consequently a tendency to consider the matter was worse than it really was Recently there had been rather more derailments than one would like to see, and it was very difficult at present to fix the exact responsibility for it. He did not think the responsibility rested with the permanent way, but the Department was investigating the matter as carefully as it could. With regard to level crossings, some of them were dangerous, but the Railway Department could not really be expected to find all the funds necessary to deal with this matter. In every case it had offered to pay half the cost of making these crossings perfectly safe if the Municipality would pay the other half.

What about the main roads?

That is on a different footing. The Johannesburg Municipality paid half.

The hon. member for Cathcart, backed up by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, has raised a grievance. They have delved out sins that are at least four years old.

They are at least sins.

There have been so many sins. (Hear, hear.) Don’t let us pull old cows out of the sluit. I am quite prepared to carry out the undertaking given by my predecessor, but the hon. member seems to forget that we have no power whatever to provide for the construction of roads which are under the administration of the Administrator. But I am prepared to undertake to use all the influence I have with the Administrator to get the road made. As to the weekly payment of wages, went on Mr. Burton, that was rather a difficult matter. His information on the point differed rather from that placed before the House that morning, and he was not very sure that the men at large were so anxious to have weekly wages. He was told that the men at Salt River had the weekly “sub” system.

Not all.

said the cattle guard invention which had been referred to by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had had the attention of the Railway Department. Not only was the greatest interest taken in any invention made by the men, but there was a body called the Suggestion Board, which dealt with all the suggestions made by the men. At the same time every experienced man knew that there was no subject on which one had to be more careful than that of inventions. The utmost and most careful scrutiny was required before an invention was adopted, but every encouragement was given to the men. There was no scale of bonuses for men who made inventions. But it would be quite a fair thing in the case of an invention of outstanding merit, to give a bonus. Nothing would please him better than if he were presented with a spark arrestor which would really arrest sparks.

Offer a reward.

said this question had occupied the attention of people all over the world, but so far they had not been able to find anything which dealt completely with the difficulty. The real difficulty was the narrowness of the paths allowed on each side of the railway track. In Bechuanaland, where the path was wide enough, practically they had no trouble with grass fires at all.

The barriers remain.

The barriers remain as they are in the Public Service.

There were no barriers before Union.

was understood to say that the rights of pre-Union men were not prejudiced.

Continuing, he said he would now refer to the important point raised by the hon. member for Newlands, in connection with the employment of coloured men on the railway. Let him say at once he regretted that the hon. member had brought the matter before the House, instead of going to his (the Minister’s) office and giving all the information concerning the case. If the hon. member had done that, that would have placed him (the Minister) in a better position to deal with the case of the two men turned out of their employment, and he would have taken steps to have ascertained the details of the case. He entirely agreed, and he thought hon. members knew his views and practice in the past, that men should not be excluded from the railways because of their colour. It was the policy, as far as possible, to encourage the employment of white men on their railways— (hear, hear)—but with regard to coloured men who had been working for years, and who had become skilled workmen, it was not right that these men should be deliberately excluded from employment because they happened to be coloured. If they were skilful enough to do the work they should be given an opportunity of doing that work. That was his policy, and there was nothing in the answer which he gave to the hon. member which was at variance with that policy, because although they desired to encourage the employment of Europeans as far as possible they had laid down no rule excluding coloured men. In the Cape Peninsula it was a perfectly fair and reasonable thing that coloured men who were skilled should have a reasonable and fair chance of doing the work. If both the hon. member for Newlands and the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, had let him know at his office about these men it would have enabled him to have dealt with the case more satisfactorily than he could on the floor of the House So far as possible, he would see that no injustice was done these men, because of any unfair discrimination between white and coloured.

said the Minister had not answered his question.

replying to the hon. member for Boshof, said that the hon. member should be pleased to have a railway line at all. Other parts of the country had nothing at all. He did not know whether the department would be able to comply with the request made by the hon. member.

urged the Minister to provide for a line from Eendekuil to Piquetberg.

The vote was agreed to.

moved the reduction of the item “other expenses” by £60, in order to deprecate the idea that seemed to have got into the head of the Railway Board that it was necessary for the maintenance of rolling stock and workshop efficiency that £60 should be spent on a book called “Sane Trade Unionism,” by William Osborne. He did not think hon. members when voting the money last year knew that it would be devoted to this purpose. Why should not the Minister and the members of the Railway Board spend their own money in making these little presentations. (Laughter.)

said he thought it would be better if the Minister were to write or get somebody to write a pamphlet describing to the men how they could live and bring up a family on 3s. a day than distributing a book like “Sane Trade Unionism.” He did not know whether the Minister was a judge of “Sane Trade Unionism,” and he understood that the writer of the book was not in good odour with the Trade Unionists with whom he was connected in the past.

Business was suspended at 12.45

said he understood that, with regard to the construction of a number of sheep trucks, the foreman had been told to take on hands to do the work, and six natives and six white labourers applied for the work, yet only the natives were taken on. The white labourers had been prepared to do the work for the same pay, 3s. a day. He hoped the Minister would give that matter his earnest attention, because that state of affairs was creeping in all over the railway.

asked for some information as to the rolling stock available in Natal.

was understood to say that the Department was dealing with that matter as fast as it could. He promised to look into the complaint of the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Madeley). With reference to the distribution of the circular mentioned by the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Creswell), he said it was distributed because of its inherent merits. (Laughter.)

The amendment for the reduction of the vote was negatived.

Head No. 2 was agreed to.

Head No. 3, “Running Expenses,” £2,073,756,

said he thought the punishment meted out to members of the running staff who made mistakes was altogether disproportionate to the offence. According to the regulations, or the way they were carried out, if a staff error was committed by a fireman or driver it meant that the man was dismissed. He did not wish to minimise the gravity of a mistake which might possibly lead to loss of life. But even the best regulated railways could not entirely eradicate mistakes. He thought that if some other form of punishment not nearly so hard was meted out it would have the same effect. He had known of cases where men had been discharged for staff errors, and had then been taken on again and started at a lower rate of pay. When the new regulations were promulgated in January last year they caused a good deal of dissatisfaction throughout the Service, and delegates were invited by the Administration to discuss matters with them in Cape Town. A deputation came down from Durban from the running staff. One of the principles laid down by the General Manager and the Department was that no servant should suffer any financial loss as a result of the new regulations. One of the concessions granted to the running staff in Natal was time and a half for holiday payment, and double payment for Christmas Day and Good Friday. It was pointed out that under the new regulations this would be taken away from them. A compromise was arrived at whereby the drivers would receive, in lieu of that, 3d. per day and firemen 2d. a day. Many of these men were now in the same position as before, because as their rises became due they found that this allowance had been stopped. He believed that the matter was now being considered by the General Manager. He hoped that it was not too late for the Department to remedy what the railway men in Natal looked upon as a breach of faith, because they had been given to understand that they were to have this allowance, in spite of any increment in the ordinary course.

said that, in regard to the item of coal and fuel, he noticed that there was a memorandum prefacing the Estimates, which explained that the increase of this vote was due partly to allowance for a slight advance in the price of coal. Perhaps the Minister would explain why he anticipated an advance in the price of coal during the present year. He noticed a statement in the Controller’s report on the Estimates of last year to the effect that the Railway Board had made a contract for three years without inviting a tender. He would like to ask the Minister if it were the policy of the Administration to make contracts for such a length of time without calling for tenders. He also wished to express his deep regret and disappointment, which was shared by a good many in Natal, that the Administration showed no indication whatever of remedying the severe grievances which the Natal collieries were suffering under just now in connection with the coal rates on the railways. There was no question whatever that the country sustained a heavy loss in consequence of the rate charged on coal conveyed between the Transvaal mines and Cape Town.

The hon. member proceeded to give a number of reasons why the Government had adopted its attitude, and said that another reason which had been given by the Government was perhaps the correct one, that it was to prevent Natal coal getting all the business in Cape Town, and to some extent that intention had been carried out. Why should that be the case? If the shipping companies were satisfied with Natal coal, why should other coal be brought, and they were more satisfied with Natal coal than with Transvaal coal. Another reason given was that the Natal prices were too high. (Hear, hear.) It was true that the prices had been raised to some extent in Durban, but it was not a question of profit, but of the higher cost of working the collieries. Another reason for the increased cost was that the freights from Durban to Cape Town had been increased, and still another, that the price of coal in the world had increased. Many of the Natal coal mines paid no dividend at all, and some had had to close down. He was not saying anything against Cape Town, and that it was not entitled to the bunkering trade. Natal coal was much preferred by the shipping companies, but if Transvaal coal could be brought to Cape Town at such low prices by the railways, naturally it was given a chance. The Transvaal coal mines were cheaper to work than the Natal mines, and they had an outlet in Delagoa Bay, which the Natal mines did not have. Why should the Rand market be kept for Transvaal coal? Why should not Natal coal be given the same opportunity? During the last three months the railway revenue had, he read in one of the newspapers, fallen by £46,000, as compared with the revenue for the same period last year, and if that was likely to continue the Government would be faced with a great loss, owing to the falling-off of that revenue. The Government was not in a position to throw away revenue like that in connection with the carrying of Transvaal coal. He wanted to draw attention to another matter, which was the very high rate charged on the railways for the conveyance of Natal coal to Durban for local and manufacturing purposes. It was a very great grievance of the Natal people, and he hoped that the Government would do something to meet them.

drew attention to the case of a railway employee at Modder River Station who had been dismissed for giving a wrong order. He said that the man had proved a very efficient servant, and his case was a very, very hard one.

said that in regard to these staff errors, the policy which the Minister tried to carry out was largely to blame for them. The foremen were made to do more work than was humanly possible. It was time that the whole system of working was overhauled.

All these things are being inquired into.

referred to the dismissal of S. Jones, of Braamfontein, who gave the right-of-way signal before being properly authorised, and contrasted this with the treatment of another acting stationmaster, who, although he committed a similar mistake, only a rather more serious one, was suspended and then reinstated. Jones was convinced that he was dismissed because he was a prominent member of the Railway Servants Union. The way to avoid this feeling was to establish an independent Appeal Board.

emphasised the point raised by the hon. member for Durban, Berea, with regard to the extra cost of carrying coal to Durban for local consumption, the rate for export coal being 4s. 11d. per ton, against 10s. a ton for coal for local use.

complained there was a good deal of red tape about the export of ostrich feathers, this involving a considerable amount of additional expense.

said he did not for a single moment wish members to refrain from bringing up questions, but many of the questions that had been put to him could have been settled in his office or in the General Manager’s office in five minutes. (Cheers.) He was dealing with the case mentioned by the hon. member for Liesbeek. Generally speaking, with regard to tablet errors it would be a great mistake if these were not dealt with other than severely. (Hear, hear.) In Natal, some time ago, there was a regular epidemic of tablet mistakes, and the only way to stop it was to say that if a man made an error he would be dismissed. They might have 20 mistakes and nothing happened, but the 21st time there might be a loss of 100 lives.

You don’t always have the same punishment.

That is so. The difference is because the responsibility in one case was greater than in the other. Broadly speaking, I entirely agree that where the circumstances are the same the punishment should be the same. Continuing, Mr. Burton said the Commission of Inquiry presided over by Mr. Justice Ward was going into many of the questions that had been raised. When the report of the Commission was published Government would have to answer to the House for the way in which it dealt with the matter.

On a private members’ day?

Oh, there will be every opportunity. It will be unfair to the Commission to go into these matters now. With regard to the coal question raised by the hon. member for Durban, Berea, continued the Minister, he thought that practically only two persons tendered in the Transvaal. The other questions they had thrashed out in the House time after time. As to the coal rates to Cape Town from the North he had explained to the House more than once the reason why those rates were adopted. They found a state of affairs in which there was practically a monopoly in the supply of coal in Cape Town, and that was being made use of in order to increase prices in Cape Town.

It is not true.

Well, we must agree to differ.

Continuing, Mr. Burton said one of the objects of reducing the coal rate, as he had mentioned before, was to improve the bunkering trade at Cape Town, and to bring down the price of coal. He had kept a close watch cm the progress of events, and so far it did not appear that those objects had been attained. He still found the price of coal was unduly high nor had there been a satisfactory increase in the bunkering trade. He thought the department was quite justified in establishing low rates for the purposes mentioned, but unless these objects were attained it would be necessary to reconsider the question. Meanwhile a strict watch would be kept on the position and the question would come ap again. With regard to Natal local rates, the fact of the matter was that these rates were imposed by the Natal Government, and while those rates appeared to be high, he felt that any alteration was a matter which should be taken in hand with very great care or they would do more harm than they might do good in their attempts to rectify the position. He had consulted expert opinion on this matter and a report bad been submitted to him, but as this report affected the competitive interest of the Natal collieries, he thought it would be better before giving effect to the report that a Conference should be held of the parties interested. After the present session a Conference would be held in Durban.

We had that last year.

Very well, then, if the hon. member objects to this Conference being held—

No, I am not objecting.

said that he hoped when the Minister of Railways and Harbours attended the Conference that he would maintain his position with regard to the coal rates down to the Cape, and in this connection, it was just as much in the interests of the Transvaal as those of Cape Town that this rate should be maintained. He hoped the Minister would stick to his guns.

said that he was not weakening from the position he had taken up with regard to this question. All he wanted to see was that the objects for which that low rate was established were acquired, and so long as that was done the rate was likely to remain.

said he did not wish to prejudice the position of Cape Town. All he asked for was that the interests of Natal should be safeguarded.

said he was a member of that Select Committee which inquired into the question of railway rates, and he agreed with what the Minister had said, because there was indisputable evidence that the coal trade had got into the hands of a monopoly, because without any reason the price was sent up from 24s. to 26s. per ton. What he (Mr. Boydell) was anxious to see was that the local consumer should get his coal at the same rate as those people who were using it for export.

Head No. 3 was agreed to.

On Head No. 4, Traffic Expenses, £1,876,787,

moved the reduction of the vote by £20.He said the amount represented compensation for damages alleged to have occurred at the farm Rusthof through fire. An investigation was made, and the assessor reported that no trees were destroyed by the fire, but that if any damage were to be paid a sum of £20 would be sufficient. The sum of £20 was paid. In the other case the fire occurred during the day time. There were several witnesses, and it was more likely owing to the distance that it was caused by a live coal instead of by sparks. The Railway Department refused to settle the claim, and the case was brought before the Magistrate at Johannesburg, and Mr. Sykes was awarded the damages claimed. The Railway appealed to the Provincial Division and the decision was upheld. Then they made a further appeal to the Appellate Court, and the decision was reversed by a bare majority of one. In one instance they did not know how the fire started and £20 was said, and in the other case they had reliable witnesses and the department refused to pay.

suggested to the Minister that ambulance stores should be placed on the passenger trains. He believed that very few coaches in Natal carried any of these stores.

said he had been asked to bring to the notice of the Minister the sweating hours worked by clerks in the invoice office at East London. Frequently they worked from two o’clock in the afternoon until two o’clock next morning. They had to work on Good Friday and Easter Saturday, and only got Easter Monday off.

who was almost inaudible in the Press gallery, was understood to deal with the question of compensation as the result of fires. He referred to goods worth £126 consigned to a mission station near Engcobo, which arrived at Ndabakazi Station the fame day on which the fire occurred, and there was no time even for the mission people to receive notice, and on that ground compensation was refused.

Is that the case that was discussed last year?

Yes, sir.

And the year before.

And next year.

went on to say that the mission people lost these goods, and did not get any compensation. He thought that, on second thoughts, the Government might come to the rescue. He was understood to say that the mission authorities were told that if there had been a written notice to forward the goods, the Government would have paid, but there was a verbal notice to that effect. He asked the Minister whether he would not print the statement showing why claims were repudiated so that these people might know what the Government had done? because there were 26 other persons who also received no compensation.

The amendment of the hon. member for Boksburg was put, and declared negatived.

called for a division, which resulted as follows:

Ayes—18.

Andrews, William Henry

Baxter, William Duncan

Boydell, Thomas

Brown, Daniel Maclaren

Crewe, Charles Preston

Dunoan, Patrick

Fawcus, Alfred

Jagger, John William

King, John Gavin

Madeley, Walter Bayley

Maginess, Thomas

Oliver, Henry Alfred

Schreiner, Theophilus Lyndall

Searle, James

Smartt, Thomas. William

Walton, Edgar Harris

J. C. MacNeillie and F. J. W. van der Riet, tellers.

Noes—46.

Alberts, Johannes Joachim

Bosman, Hendrik Johannes

Burton, Henry

Clayton, Walter Frederick

Cullinan, Thomas Major

Currey, Henry Latham

De Beer, Michiel Johannes

De Jager, Andries Lourens

De Waal, Hendrik

De Wet, Nicolaas Jacobus

Geldenhuys, Lourens

Griffin, William Henry

Grobler, Evert Nicolaas

Grobler, Pieter Gert Wessel

Henderson, James

Krige, Christman Joel

Lemmer, Lodewyk Arnoldus Slabbert

Malan, Francois Stephanus

Marais, Johannes Henoch

Marais, Pieter Gerhardus,

Meyer, Izaak Johannes

Myburgh. Marthinus Wilhelmus

Neethling, Andrew Murray

Nicholson, Richard Granville

Oosthuisen, Ockert Almero

Orr, Thomas

Rademeyer, Jacobus Michael

Smuts, Jan Christiaan

Smuts, Tobias

Steyl, Johannes Petrus Gerhardus

Steytler, George Louis

Theron, Hendrik Schalk

Theron, Petrus Jacobus George

Van der Merwe, Johannes Adolph P.

Van der Walt, Jacobus

Van Eeden, Jacobus Willem

Van Heerden, Hercules Christian

Venter, Jan Abraham

Vintcent, Alwyn Ignatius

Watermeyer, Egidius Benedictus

Watt, Thomas

Wessels, Daniel Hendrik Willem

Whitaker, George

Wiltshire, Henry

F. R. Cronje and G. A. Louw, tellers.

The amendment was accordingly negatived.

Head 4 was agreed to.

moved the reduction of the item, Railway Board, £13,556, by £6. He said he wished to call attention to the action of the Railway Board which had resulted in a loss to the country. He referred to the report of the Railway Commissioners on the proposed new coal railway in Natal. The late Mr. Sauer had promised to have that matter of a coal line looked into, but nothing had been done. The report of the Surveyor (Mr. McPherson) was now before the House, and also the report of the Railway Board. The Railway Board had been called upon to report on a matter which they had previously decided on, on an earlier and hasty survey. What he blamed the Railway Board for was that they had refused to believe that a better survey could be found than the original one. He quoted from the report of the Commission, which stated that in the light of what had transpired since, the choice lay between Mr. McPherson’s line and the improvement of the main line. He did not suppose there was a member of that House who had had time to read the Commission’s report, but he could assure hon. members that there was considerable food for thought in it. From a technical point of view the report was not worth the paper it was written on. The report on the coal line was a matter which the Board had already prejudged. All the Board had done was to have a hasty examination made by a competent engineer. He thought that during the limited time Mr. McPherson had had at his disposal he had produced remarkable results. The Board had had to decide between relative advantages of the two schemes when they knew only the possibilities of one Where was there any report of a technical description on that matter? There was no report on the relative value of those two schemes from their chief technical adviser Why was Mr. McPherson not asked to report on the relative values of the schemes? There would be a saving of £300,000 per annum in engine power on the coal line.

said he thought it was very unfortunate that hon. members of this House should be in such a desperate hurry to get home before the business of the session was completed. He washed to move a reduction of the vote for salaries and wages, £13,556, by a sum of £500, with this stipulation, that it should come off the salary of the Minister of Railways and Harbours. He did this as a protest against the policy of the Railway Department, of which the Minister was head, of wholesale victimisation of railway servants in the Union. They had the assurance of the Minister, when he was speaking on the second reading of the Railway Strikes Bill, that only ringleaders, or those who took a very active part in the strike, were to be victimised. They found, however, that out of a total of 6,000 men who were out on strike no fewer than 600 were supposed to be ringleaders, or 10 per cent. One had only to mention it to realise how preposterous the thing was He found that these men were taken from all the various centres and that in this regard the Durban centre came out very badly indeed. It would seem to him that many of them were victims of petty local spite. He did not think that the Minister intended that such a large number as 600 of the men were to be punished as ringleaders when he had made that statement in the House. The Departmental Inquiry which was held, he was told, was a farce of the first water. As to the Minister’s reply which he had given in so far as the men he (Mr. Boy dell) had drawn his attention to, there was not one word of truth in it, although he did not say that the Minister was deliberately untruthful, he was misled by his advisers. Men had been sacked because, it was stated, they were asleep or drunk on duty; but the real truth was that they had been on strike and the department refused to take them back again. The hon. member referred to some of these cases, and said that the men were teetotallers and had a good record. The Railway Department were now pursuing a very dangerous and a very pernicious policy of picking out men who had not been out on strike at all but were associated with the men’s organisations or Trade Unions. There was the case of driver Chapman, who was in Australia during the strike and had not got back again until after the strike was over, but because he was an official of the men’s organisation—at least no other reason had been put forward by the Minister—he had been considered redundant and dismissed under the guise of reorganisation. Other men had also been dismissed although there was no charge against them except that they were officials of the Railwaymen’s Society. It was not as if their positions had been abolished, because the work was going on and other men had been appointed to do it. The Minister would find it very difficult to deny that these were cases of local petty spite, sanctioned by the Minister of Railways and Harbours himself, and he did not know that these men had been retrenched until it was over. The whole thing was nothing but an attack on Trade Unions and the Railwaymen’s Society. The policy of trying to make the men afraid of unemployment had not succeeded in any other country, and would not succeed in South Africa. It only caused more bitter feeling. and the country would only be worse off in the long run. If the Minister thought that that weeding-out policy was going to have any good effect, he was very much mistaken. The hon. member also pointed out that if particular railway workers were discharged they could not work at a similar line of business in that country, as there was no other railway but the State railway. If a policy of victimisation was to be continued the men who were now living on charity would be refused the chance of working on the new graving dock at Durban. Their only crime was that, having failed to remedy their grievances by constitutional means, they stopped work to prevent unnecessary retrenchments. Did the Minister think that the railwaymen of South Africa were more flabby or more supine than the railwaymen in other parts of the world that they should never go out on strike? He (Mr. Boydell) hoped that the Minister would reconsider his attitude towards a large number of these men, and see if he could not bring himself to a more liberal frame of mind, and see what he could do to find a good many of them employment. A large amount of the responsibility of the strike rested on hon. members. It was true the Minister acted generously to those men he did take back, but although he made a definite assertion that only the ringleaders and those who took an active part in the strike were to be punished, 600 men had been discharged and victimised in a black list which had been circulated throughout the Union.

referred to the acceptance of a German tender for the supply of trucks and locomotives. The Railway Department always insisted on obtaining standard types of wheels and so on, which had stood the test of time. Certain firms like Vickers supplied these things all over the world. He (Mr. Meyler) understood there had been trouble because the German firm was unable to obtain the class of fittings rightly required by the department. When tenders were called for originally it was understood that the rolling stock would be required for the Christmas traffic. The English firms were ready to give delivery within the stipulated period, but apparently the German firm was not able to make delivery and had tried to avoid the use of the standard parts. He would like to know whether final arrangements had been made with the German contractors, whether the original specifications had been varied, and when delivery was to be made. He understood a very large contract was soon to be placed for trucks, and he presumed the Minister would once again give the German firms an opportunity of tendering; if so, he hoped the Minister would see that their tenders were strictly carried out. A lot of shoddy stuff had come from Germany, and it was hard on British firms willing to carry out a contract to the very letter that other people should undercut them and then not be made to fulfill the contract conditions.

said he wished again to refer to the case of Chapman, a man who was good enough to be put on the Grievances Commission, and a man with a spotless record, the only thing against him being that he was a member of the Railway Union. His case proved the vindictiveness of the Railway Department, Chapman being out of the country at the time of the strike.

said his constituents were very grateful to the Minister for the reduction of certain rates. The hon. member, however, was hardly audible in the Press gallery. Proceeding, Mr. Grobler said he had been present some time ago when a telegraphist at Vereeniging treated one of the most distinguished Transvaalers in a most impertinent and impudent manner. The Transvaaler concerned was General Schalk Burger, and he (the speaker) would never have believed it possible for any official to treat any member of the public in such an impertinent manner, had he not been personally present. He trusted the Minister would give the matter his careful attention. He was grateful to the Minister for reducing the tariff on tobacco which was destined for export.

wished to agree with what the member for Jeppe had said about the victimisation of the men. He did not think that the House intended that it should ever be carried to such an extent. He had before him two or three instances showing what terrible desperate fellows these ringleaders were. There was the case of a ticket examiner. He was seen by one of his superior officers doing picket duty, and for that reason his services had been dispensed with. The man had written to the Minister putting his case before him, but no notice had been taken; of the letter. Then there was the case of P. J. Oosthuisen, a junior clerk, living in Germiston, who on the night of the strike, when the train service had been suspended, was told that he need not report himself the following day. He stayed away for several days, owing to Martial Law having been proclaimed. He came back on January 19. In the first instance, he was acting directly under orders of the stationmaster. He resumed work on the 20th. On February 10 he was taken before the committee, and they told him he was to be discharged for absenting himself without leave. The reason given on his discharge certificate was that he went on strike, but according to the man’s statement, he did not go on strike. He was told to stay away, but, of course, if he stayed longer than he should have done, that was another point. This discharge debarred him not only from obtaining work in the railway service, but in any other place. Then there was the case of J. L. van Dyk, who was a fireman and resided at George Town. He went on strike on January 8, and came back and offered his services on January 18. Instead of being taken on, he was arrested and sentenced to one month’s imprisonment on the charge of stopping a train. He served his month, and after looking for work, he got another job as a navvy or something on a construction work at Bethal. The engineer in charge, when he hired him, saw his discharge, and was fully aware that he went out on strike, but he thought fit to hire the man. He was two months on this job, and gave every satisfaction, but on May 18 he received 24 hours’ notice to leave. If this was not chasing a man over the country he did not know what it was, and there was no doubt that these cases could be multiplied by scores. How could these men be called ringleaders, and even if they were ringladers why should they be chased from pillar to post? At the end of his letter one of these men wrote: “What am I to do? Am I to go in for illicit liquor dealing? ” He thought it was a perfect scandal that this large number of men should be victimised for what? —for having the manhood to stand up for their rights and stand shoulder to shoulder with their fellow workmen. He did not bring this matter forward in the hope of getting redress for these men. His Object was to bring it before the House so that no member could say he did not know anything about these cases. These things would not bring popularity to the Minister or the Government, and these things would be remembered at election time. That was why so many people were coming over to the Labour Party.

Are you glad?

I am not glad that this is the cause of it. In conclusion, he said the Government would be more deserving of power if they reinstated these men.

alluded to the cost of the Railway Board, and said that last year the Minister told the House that an extra £1,404 had to be added to the amount set down for the Railway Board for work done in connection with harbours. If similar items were to be charged against the Board this year the cost would amount to about £20,000. He also wanted to know whether there was any check on legal expenses, and dealing with fire insurance, pointed out that last year property to the value of £5,300, which was burned, was not covered by insurance. Had the Minister taken steps to get that remedied?

said he hoped the Minister would do something with regard to those railwaymen who had not been re-employed since the strike. He understood that at the time the Bill was introduced that only men who were ring leaders were to be visited with what he might call the last penalty of dismissal. He was told the number was 600.

It is not so.

Five hundred and ninety-one, to be exact.

Quite incorrect.

Here is your own list.

How many are there?

Two hundred and seventy six.

said he was glad to hear that the number was not so large as he had been told. He said that some of the stories told him—and he had no reason to believe that they were untrue —seemed to indicate that the meaning of the word “ringleader” had been considerably strained. Men who had been refused work could not be called ringleaders in any sense of the word, and he pointed out that being given such a discharge practically barred men from employment in this country. He hoped the Minister and the Railway Board would take a broad view of their responsibilities and make a serious effort to discriminate between men who had been loyal servants in the past, who would be loyal servants in the future, and who were led to go out on strike, and men who had been real mischief makers in the proper sense of the word. He alluded to the case of driver Chapman, whom he knew personally, and said he had not heard a convincing explanation of why that official’s services were dispensed with.

He thought it would be a most unfortunate thing for that country if the Administration gave the impression to the men in the service that it was a dangerous thing for a man to be the spokesman of his fellow-workmen. It would be a most dangerous thing for the country if the Administration acted in that way or even if they gave colour to such an impression. If that was the policy of the Administration, they were going to stop men bringing forward grievances of their fellow-men and they would not have a contented service. He hoped the Minister would say something to convince the men in the railway service that as long as they remained loyal servants they would be justly treated. The men should be allowed to form their own societies and take a prominent part in those societies without being victimised.

said he wished to make an appeal to the Minister on behalf of a man who had been a railway employee in Port Elizabeth. That man had been opposed to a strike, and had explained to the men what would be the result of a strike. He was a man with a wife and family. He (Mr. Searle) endorsed every word of what the hon. member for Fordsburg had said. He hoped the Minister would show some mercy to the men who had taken part in the strike. He reminded the Minister of the conditions a few years ago, when men who had shot down their fellow-men were pardoned.

The leaders were all punished.

said the Minister had claimed that the men he was punishing in connection with the strike were all leaders, and had said that he had reduced their number to 276. Did the Minister mean to tell them that there were 276 leaders? As a matter of fact, the Minister had punished he leaders several times over. The Amalgamated Society of Railway and Harbour servants were the leaders and they had been punished with imprisonment as well as getting the sack. What were the motives which were actuating the Minister in that regard? He had always understood that the main function of a Government was to bring happiness and contentment to the people, yet the Minister had condemned 276 men to absolute starvation. The mere fact that the men had to produce their discharge notes when looking for work was eternal condemnation for them. What were those men to do? Did they want to see them die in the gutter? He wanted to support the remarks that had been made by the hon. member for Weenen. The Minister had said that the chief reason for sending certain contracts to Germany was that they could get delivery quicker than if they manufactured the things in this country. Here they had it that the very reason advanced had absolutely failed. The Minister, in giving the contract to a German firm, this particular German firm, was penny wise and pound foolish. The tenders showed that between the English firms and the German firms there was only a difference of a few pounds, but between the English and German firms on the one hand and this particular firm on the other there was a difference of about £20,000. There must be some hanky-panky going on. With regard to this question of victimisation, the matter did not finish with the dismissal of men. There was actually a mild sort of victimisation going on inside the service at the present time.

pointed out that there were very brilliant boys indeed amongst the apprentices in the Government Railway Workshops throughout the Union, who were the sons of men of the artisan class, who could not afford to send these lads to college. Certain bursaries ought to be set apart for boys like that, who were exceedingly able, to fit them to become able to take up high positions.

referring to the punishment of strikers, said that if a man was discharged for striking, there was no end to his punishment. Surely six months’ loss of pay was a reasonable punishment. As his hon. friend had said, the strikers had lost, and they ought to take their gruel, but should not be punished for ever. He hoped the Minister would not forget to be merciful.

said as to the contract of the German firm, the hon. member for Weenen had evidently got hold of misleading information. Deliveries were to be made strictly according to specification, except that in Germany steel was made in a different way to what it was made in England, but in metallurgical sciences the Germans were very much in the van. His technical advisers were entirely satisfied, and the wheels would be absolutely up to the English standard. He was satisfied that the result would be to our complete satisfaction. The German firms could do their work perfectly well. Delivery was to be made absolutely within the contract time from the day of the signing of the specifications. As to the Board’s travelling expenses, it was impossible for him to make a definite limit, the Board having been urged to go everywhere. It was only right, in the interests of the country, that the Board should make itself acquainted with the various parts of South Africa.

That is not the point; I refer to the expenditure on motor-cars.

They travel by motor-cars.

Are there no ox wagons? (Laughter.)

Yes, and we should get much more rapid work. Continuing, Mr. Burton said that the department was taking steps in regard to fire insurance. As to the reinstatement of the men, he supposed that means making another statement, although the subject had been dealt with over and over again. (Labour cries of “No.”) Perhaps the hon. members would allow him to proceed. There had been, said the Minister, an attack on the Administration for what was called victimisation. It had been said that the Administration was coming down spitefully and maliciously on men simply because they took part in the strike or were members of the Railwaymen’s Society. He (the Minister) denied that emphatically. (Ministerial cheers.) There went out on strike 6,099 railway employees. Every one of these men rendered himself liable by the terms of his engagement to dismissal on the spot. The great bulk of these men were members of the Amalgamated Society. In fact, the Minister went on, they dismissed themselves and rendered themselves liable to the loss of every single privilege or right they had in the service. How did he victimise these men? By immediately taking back 90 per cent., or 5,465 men out of the 6,099 These had been taken back in the service. On what terms? Did they lose their privileges? Not at all.

That is a mistake.

Less than 90 per cent. of the men who had themselves placed the halter round their own necks had come back to their old position, retaining absolutely their old positions, and old pay and every right and privilege they had before. That is how I victimise them, observed the Minister. The law provided that they had left the service altogether, that they had condemned themselves. He (the Minister) provided in the Bill which he introduced in the House that this should not be so, but that the men should be dealt with, that was the men they might consider the principal offenders—for hon. members did not like the expression ringleaders. As to the rank and file, the proposal was that they should be allowed to come back into the service, but should pay what was, under the circumstances, a trifling, insignificant fine. But at the urgent instance of members on both sides of the House—much against his (the Minister’s) good judgment, reluctantly—he did not hesitate to say this—because he believed it was a bad policy—against his good judgment, but in the hope of an improvement in the position as between the men and the Administration and the people, and in the hope of better things, he yielded to the best wishes of the House and he struck out even that small modicum of punishment on the men. How had it been received? (Ministerial cheers.) How had it been received in quarters in the country influenced by hon. members on the cross-benches? With an appreciative attitude? No; but with a sneering attitude. The hon. member for Jeppe must not get excited. The hon. member himself took up that attitude, The hon. member for Greyville had readily acknowledged the attitude adopted by the House, but the hon. member for Jeppe immediately sounded another note, and instead of the Act being taken in the right spirit, it was put in the spirit that the Minister had been obliged to budge. He (the Minister) had no feeling towards the men except that of sorrow that the attempt to meet hon. members on the cross benches had not borne better fruit. He might say that something like 75 men had not come back because they did not want to. The figures which he had given to the hon. member for Fordsburg of those who were not being taken back were 276, These were on the list of exclusions, but this number had to be modified to the extent of 21. These were men who were excluded for other reasons such as ill health, old age, and some because they did not want to come back. So that the final list of men who under the most careful examination had been excluded from railway service numbered 255. He had been pressed by the hon. member for Fordsburg to make an end of it and take these men back into employment. But what he asked would be the effect of such a course of action on the discipline of the service if they did that? If hon. members knew all the reasons which led to this list being compiled they would find that the question of ringleaders had not been treated in a technical sense. These 255 men had been listed on account of their conduct, and could not be further trusted in the service. Did the House expect him to take back a stationmaster who not only went on strike himself, but also urged his men to leave their work? (No, no.) Would they ask him to take back a linesman who having occupied a position of trust went and cut the lines? Hon. members could be quite sure that the Administration who had gone into the matter were in a better position to judge as to the merits of each case than were hon. members sitting in that House. It would be remembered that when they went into this question some time ago the House decided to return these men their contributions to the pension fund. He could assure hon. members that such as were to be taken back into the service would be employed as vacancies occurred, but he could not be expected to make vacancies for men who had gone out on strike. He had given instructions that no appointments should be made until these men had been given an opportunity. The number of these men was now gradually decreasing, and it stood to-day at about 237. No amount of pressure would increase the rate at which these men could be taken back.

With the exception of 276 men—255 he had referred to plus 21—every man not reemployed by the Administration or did not report for re-employment, might be reemployed.

What about the 300 who are not to be re-employed without the consent of the General Manager?

Those men are on the list.

But that is more than 276.

You have got hold of the wrong list. Continuing, the Minister said he had got a list of men who might be re-employed as vacancies occurred. There wore instructions as to the employment of outside men as he wanted to check the growth of the service.

May I explain?

Will the hon. member be good enough not to interrupt me. It is a little disconcerting. Continuing, he said that instructions had been given at large that new men were not to be taken into the service except with the special sanction of the General Manager. He found that if that was not done the service increased in a most unsatisfactory way which, in the future, would place them in the same position as they were to-day. He was determined, come what may and no matter how unpleasant and hard his duty might be, to see that the railway service was manned by enough men to do the work and no more. He proposed to carry that out with a minimum of hardship, making use as much as possible of the wastage, so as to reduce the necessity for actual retrenchment. But, of course, it must be understood that they could not depend entirely on wastage. Did they know that one of the reasons which led to the painful necessity of retrenching was because in the past this unhappy Administration had been considered the dumping ground for every man who did not suit a private employer? Continual applications were made as though the railway service would absorb every incompetent person in the country. This had not been insisted upon in the past, and the result was they had a number of men in the railway service who were not able to do the work, and they had more men than they should have.

He told the House some time ago that with regard to the men on strike he would have their cases inquired into by a sort of Appeal Court. Sixty-two appeals were submitted to this Court, and of these 15 were upheld, 39 were dismissed, and eight were still under consideration. From the work of the Commissioners he considered that no men could have been more fairly dealt with than these appellants. Now he was asked to go back on all this work, and that was a thing to which no reasonable man could agree. It was complained that the department was victimising these people by blacklisting them. They did no such thing. They did not send lists to anybody except their own officers. Supposing a man stole a watch, surely they would take steps to see that the thief did not get into the service at some other place.

Have these people all stolen watches?

What a brilliant point. (Laughter.)

That was what you implied.

I am not dealing with thieve; I am dealing with strikers. If you dismiss a man for any cause you have to see he is not taken on again.

You do it in such a way that everybody can see.

said there was a complaint about the discharge papers. What would they put on that?

Length of service.

The circumstances under which he left the service. Are you to tell the truth?

Left of his own accord.

said they would have to say that the man went out on strike. He very much disliked this question of the discharge paper, and he had done his best to find a way out of the difficulty.

If they gave a man his discharge paper they were bound to state the facts. It was not his (the Minister’s) fault that a man went on strike and was dismissed the service in consequence, and if he sent the man out without stating the reason for his discharge he would not be doing his duty to other people. His own feeling had been one of considerable distress about that matter. As far as he was concerned he would gladly see those men get employment anywhere else. An hon. member had compared the position of those people with the position of the people who were dealt with during the late war as rebels. Really, he had never heard anything so profoundly absurd in his life. (Hear, hear.) The leaders of the rebellion were sent to gaol, some of them for 2½ and 3 years, they were heavily fined, and they performed their sentences.

They were disfranchised for a time.

said he was not speaking of the rank and file. He had taken back the rank and file of the strikers without any punishment being imposed. He was speaking of the ringleaders of the rebellion and the ringleaders of the strike. The ringleaders of the strike had not been punished in any way excepting by being discharged. They were as free as ever— they could go wherever they liked and could get employment wherever they liked. He could assure the hon. member for Springs that he had as much feeling for anyone in trouble as the hon. member had The hon. member had referred to his smiling—he had been smiling at the bombastic way in which the hon. gentleman was addressing the House. (Laughter.) That was what he was laughing at. The Amalgamated Society of Railway and Harbour Servants proposed publishing to-morrow a full fist of the blacklisted men. In that manner they would succeed in publishing to the world at large exactly what they were charging him (the Minister) with having done in the past. He hoped that that would not be done, but he was informed on good authority that that was the intention. Let him say at once that he did demur, and he thought he was justified in demurring and deprecating, the tendency in that House to introduce for discussion cases which the department had dealt with departmentally. Surely if every case was to be ventilated in that House, if a debate was to take place after departmental investigation, there should be some outstanding fact or an action contrary to regulation before they continued to bring those matters backwards and forwards in the House. He thought he was justified in taking up that attitude, otherwise every time a hue and cry would be raised because someone had been retired. The retirement of those men had always taken place strictly in accordance with the regulations. Every single right and privilege they were entitled to had been observed, and the men could not complain that they had been wrongfully dealt with. It was complained that that was more victimisation. He would take the three particular cases that had been referred to— the two men at Port Elizabeth and the engine-driver at Braamfontein. With regard to the men at Port Elizabeth, one of them had been a member of the Railway men’s Executive and he had actually gone to Pretoria as a member of that executive to deal with that question of the strike. He voted for the strike and by his conduct incited men throughout the country to go on strike. It was quite true that he did not go on strike himself. There were a good many of those men about, who were prepared to entangle others in trouble but took good care to keep their own skins safe. He had much more sympathy for the mat who went out boldly than for a man of that sort. (Hear, hear.) The pity was that the man in question was not dealt with more promptly. The other man did not actually go on strike. He was assured that both of those men had for a long time been a source of continual agitation and trouble in the service at Port Elizabeth. The Advisory Board at Port Elizabeth, which consisted of the commercial men of the town, had decided that those two men, in the interests of the service, should no longer remain there. He had consulted the officials on the spot and had consulted the Divisional Superintendent, who was one of the most humane men in the service. When he was assured that the continued employment of men of this type in the service was likely to lead to continual irritation and trouble, he was bound to back up this officer and say that these men should no longer remain there.

said they could not allow this speech to go forth to the country as a satisfactory explanation. The Minister had not insinuated a single attribute as against the character of this driver, except that somehow he was a person who through his nature produced irritation in the service. Who could produce irritation round him unless there were cause for that irritation?

I have had that experience—a very bitter experience, too.

said that if a man took sufficient interest in his fellow-workers to point out to them the way they could get redress for the grievances from which they were suffering, then the Minister did not want him. It was not the Minister who ran the railways; it was the General Manager of Railways. Hardworking and devoted servant as he was, he was a man who could not brook opposition. The Minister had no use for a man who would not be content with existing conditions. With regard to the discharge notes, the Minister, in his speech, had laid down the principle that, when the men went out on strike, they dismissed themselves. Why couldn’t he put it on the discharge notes as a statement of fact that they left the railway because they found the conditions of the service uncongenial? In the same breath, the Minister had told them that the men were not dismissed, but had left of their own accord. The Minister had burked the whole matter.

He wanted to challenge the Minister on the truth of the statement that there were only 255 men who were blacklisted. There were two lists, one containing names of 255 men, but there was another list which stated that the men were not to be reemployed without obtaining authority from the head office, and that list contained another 300 names. The Minister had avoided that point. Was it not equivalent to blacklisting? The Minister had sidetracked that issue, and unless be was prepared to say that the second list was never issued he had not been candid with that House. The Minister looked upon going on strike as a crime and as something which debarred a man for ever. He could understand some hon. members saying that a stationmaster who went on strike and incited his men to strike should not be re-employed as stationmaster, but such a man was not allowed to be taken on again in any capacity, not even as a steward.

Quite right.

said he hoped the hon. member who could say such a thing in cold blood would find himself in the same position as that man some day. Proceeding, he said let them not have that spurious generosity of the Minister. Had the Minister not been glad when the men had come back? The sooner the Minister considered strikes, and the incidents which were bound to occur in connection with strikes, without vindictiveness, the better for the country. As long as the Minister carried out his present policy, so long they would not have contentment in the railway service

said that no one recognised the necessity for discipline in the railway service more than he did, and he would be the last man to upset the authority of the General Manager; but he would ask the hon. member not to place too much credence on local general managers, such as divisional superintendents. As to what the Minister had said about the Advisory Board at Port Elizabeth, did they not have the Divisional Superintendent there?

spoke in support of the hon. member for Jeppe. He remarked that as men like Mr. Chapman were weeded out others would take their place. Was a man to be blamed because he stood up for the underpaid? He did not believe that the men in South Africa, whether Dutch or British, were going to put up with what men in other countries would not endure. Unless the Minister faced the position as it should be faced, there was going to be trouble, not only for the Minister, but for South Africa. (Labour cheers.)

withdrew his amendment.

said he heard the speech of Webb, who deprecated strikes.

said Harmer, who did his utmost to prevent the Cape Town railwaymen coming out on strike, had been victimised.

Yesterday, or the day before. I gave instructions that Harmer should be re-employed.

Mr. Boydell’s motion for the reduction of the vote was put and negatived.

declared the amendment negatived.

Head No. 5 was then agreed to.

On head No. 6, “Superannuation” £172,000,

mentioned the case of a man who had been out on strike and was discharged. He had paid £92 4s. 4d.into the Pension Fund, but he had had only £82 10s. 6d. refunded. His figures might, of course, be wrong.

asked, for particulars to be sent to his office, when the case would be looked into.

asked the Minister if he was prepared to allow a driver or a fireman to retire at the age of 50, in the event of his having served for 25 years. His pension, of course, being subject to any deductions on account of not fulfilling his full term. This was recommended by the Grievances Committee. Sixty years was considered far too long for this class of service. He hoped the Minister would make a statement.

The head was agreed to.

On head 25, Cartage Services, £46,201,

said he wished to draw attention to the case of registered Kafir porters who had been displaced in consequence of the alterations made in the public service at the Docks. These trolley owners complained that they were not allowed to go into the Docks, even if they were required by passengers from the ship. Their main point was that the Government was considering the advisability of giving back these carrier licences, but the concession was to be limited to three or four big firms. Pro ference was given to Louis Leuw and Co., and he was told that railway wagons took luggage to that firm’s offices, and passengers had to pay double. They considered there should be no differentiation between the small and big carriers. Then some tramway drivers had made application for jobs as drivers of the new Government motor trolleys. They did not receive a reply, and when one of their number went to the manager of this particular department he discovered there was an agreement between the Tramway Company and this particular Department that the latter would not take into the railway service any man who held tramway jobs. He thought this was most reprehensible, and hoped the Minister would look into the matter. Then the trolley drivers only got 8s. a day, and they had to work from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. The original intention was to give them 10s. a day, and he hoped the Minister would revert to that decision, and also arrange that they should work fewer hours.

The head was agreed to.

On head 26, Depreciation, £193,513,

said that the dredgers at Durban had to lay up sometimes for repairs, and he hoped that the Minister would allow some of the discharged railway men to do some of this repair work, and so relieve a good deal of the distress at Durban. He also hoped the Minister would allow these men to get work on the building of the new graving dock.

said he had taken a note of the matter.

The head was agreed to.

said that before the Supplementary Estimates were framed he told the House there would be a deficit of £66,000. These Estimates made it £116,808. They expected to get additional revenue to the extent of £7,375, which would bring it down to £109,433, and that would give a total deficit of £175,433.

The various heads were agreed to.

moved that progress be reported.

The motion was agreed to.

The Railway Estimates and Supplementary Estimates were reported without amendment.

The report was adopted.

Mr. Speaker appointed the Minister of Railways and Harbours, and Mr. Mentz a Committee to draft and bring up the necessary Bill in accordance with the Estimates as adopted by the House.

said that before they proceeded with the next Order, he would point out that there was still some work to be done that night, and if there was no objection he would propose that business be suspended until 8 o’clock.

asked the Minister, of Finance how far he proposed to go that night.

said it was proposed to take the Public Service Bill. Industrial Disputes Bill, Pensions Bill, and Criminal Justice Amendment Bill. If hon. members objected to go on with the Industrial Disputes Bill they could go on with some other measures.

Business was suspended at 7.5 p.m.

moved, on behalf of Mr. P. Duncan (Fordsburg), in line 8, page 4, to omit “or subsection (5).” He also moved, in line 5, page 4, after “1909.” to insert “(b) any person who was appointed to the Public Service of the Union prior to the commencement of the principal Act or.”

said that the effect of this, of course, was that persons who were appointed to the Public Service of the Union prior to the Public Service Act of 1912 would not be subject to the promotion examination. He would ask the hon. member to substitute the word “this” for “principal,” so as to read “this Act,” because the paragraph which was now inserted was portion of a clause which would take the place of the clause in the principal Act.

said that he had no objection to amending his proposal accordingly.

The proposed new paragraph (b), as amended, was agreed to.

Mr. Duncan’s amendment was agreed to.

asked why there was not an examination in 1912.

said that the Act of 1912 laid down that promotion from a certain grade could only be obtained after passing a certain examination to be held not later than December, 1913. That examination applied to pre-Union officers, as well as officers who joined the service after the passing of the Act. It was immediately represented to the Government, after the passing of the Act, that many of these officers were well up in years, and that they were not able to sit down and study a subject as a youngster who had just left school could study it. They had, he thought, a real grievance. It was thought that certain of these officers should be exempted if they drew salaries above the scale of clerical assistants, although they were graded as clerical assistants. The Government, with the concurrence of the Commission, granted this. Then it was represented that certain other officers, who through no fault of their own, were graded and were not in the same position as regarded salaries as some of the officers, were in many cases older. After looking into the matter it was found impossible to apply the section of the Act to these officers. It was felt that it would be inadvisable to hold the examination in their case.

asked whether by the promotion examinations not being held, certain hardships were not imposed on those officials who had fitted themselves for such examinations?

said it was quite true that a number of officers prepared for this examination. Many of them who would have received promotion under ordinary circumstances, if they had passed the examination, had been promoted provisionally. The effect of this clause, if passed into law, would be to exempt all the pre-Union officers from the examination. When this clause became law they would receive their permanent appointments.

Clause 4, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 5, Transfer not involving increase of pensionable emoluments may be made without the recommendation of the Commission,

moved as an amendment, in lines 16 to 18, to omit “unless the effect of the transfer is to increase the pensionable emoluments of such officer,” and to substitute “except where such officer is being transferred to a post of a grade higher than that of the post vacated by him.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Clause. 5, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 6, Special provisions as to annual increases of emoluments in certain clerical grades,

moved as an amendment, in sub-section (3), on page 6, lines 16 and 17, to omit “deserves to receive such increase,” and to substitute “is competent to be promoted to a higher grade when a vacancy occurs”; and to add the following new sub-section to follow sub-section (6): (7) The provisions of this section shall only apply to officers who became officers of the Union under section 140 of the South Africa Act, 1909.

asked whether the Minister of Public Works could toll them what the financial effect of that would be?

said it was somewhat difficult to say what the ultimate financial effect of that clause would be, but the immediate effect would be an increase of £5,000. There were from 172to 250 officers who would receive an increase that year, and as time went on more officers would become eligible to receive an increase under the Relief Bill. In course of years (the Minister was understood to say), he did not think the total would be more than £15,000 or £20,000 per annum.

The amendment was agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 7, Repeal of section 68 of Act No. 29 of 1912, and substitution therefor of new section,

moved as an amendment, in lines 40 to 44, to omit all the words from “recommend” to “employed,” and to substitute “report whether the officer in question is fitted and ought to receive such advancement or promotion, regard being had to his qualifications and to the period during which he has been employed, or whether it is of opinion that some other officer should receive such advancement or promotion”; and in line 47 to omit “recommendation” and to substitute “report.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 10, Return of contributions to pension fund in case of certain officers on their voluntary resignation,

moved, as an amendment, to add the following paragraph at the end of the clause: “Anything to the contrary notwithstanding in any law contained, the provisions of this section shall also apply mutatis mutandis to those persons who, having become officers of the Union under section 140 of the South Africa Act, 1909, are employed in the Railways and Harbours Service.”

The amendment was agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, was agreed to.

Clause 11 was verbally amended.

On the schedule,

moved, as an amendment, in the fourth item, to omit the amendment in the second column and to substitute: “The deletion after the word ‘appear of the words ‘from a report of the Commission’ and the addition at the end of the paragraph of the words ‘Provided that in the case of a person employed in the Administrative and Clerical Division the Commission shall first make a recommendation.’ ”

The amendment was agreed to.

The schedule, as amended, was agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments.

said that, if there was no objection, he would move that the amendments be at once considered.

There was no objection, and the amendments were considered.

The amendments were agreed to.

moved “That the Committee of the Whole House on the Bill have leave to revert to clause 15 ” (Industrial Disputes and Trade Unions Bill).

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the clause be deleted. He said that in view of the deletion of clause 19, to which clause 15 led up, he did not think it would be necessary to retain that clause at all. It was not a material clause.

said that as they had not agreed to an alteration to the title of the Bill the deletion of the clause would seem to cut away the groundof the Bill altogether.

said he thought the best thing the Minister could do was to withdraw the Bill altogether. There was nothing to prevent conciliation taking place at the present time.

said surely the hon. member knew what the law was in England at the present moment, and had been for 15 years. The hon. member must know that on the Witwatersrand at present there was a strong suspicion against the existing law, and unless they could get away from the present atmosphere they would attain nothing. It was necessary in the interests of the people to repeal the existing law and try a purely voluntary system. If they found that the Bill did not go far enough they could revert to the matter. He hoped the hon. member for Boksburg would not object. The Chamber of Mines and other bodies had expressed themselves in favour of that course. Let them give the conciliation part of the Bill a trial.

said there were three ways of preventing lockouts or strikes—by mediation, conciliation, and arbitration. In Australia and New Zealand they had arbitration, and he did not approve of that method, for the reason that in arbitration they always got a fight to the finish. Under conciliation they had a friendly meeting of the employers and men, and that could not but have a good effect. The report of Mr. Shanks, the Inspector of White Labour, went to prove what he had said. He thought it would be far better to drop the Bill altogether because there was nothing to prevent conciliation taking place at the present time.

said he thought a complete answer to the last speaker was that the Industrial Disputes Act was in force in the Transvaal at a time when passionate feelings prompted a strike, and a strike took place.

said that on the Kleinfontein Mine ten men had not been affected under the conditions of the law.

That related to the very commencement of the dispute.

said surely it was a travesty of the whole thing to bring the Bill before the committee in the state it was in now with all the amendments. He considered that the Bill as approved at the second reading—

(interrupting): Clause 15 is under consideration.

said he objected to the omission of the clause, and he wanted to know why it was being omitted.

said the clause was only necessary as leading up to clause 19. The proposal now was to leave the conciliation part in the Bill and substitute that for the present law in the Transvaal. The hon. member (Mr. Fawcus) was not familiar with the Witwatersrand, and he (the Minister) claimed that he was As a Minister who knew the difficulties he had had to contend with, he could tell the hon. member now that it was worth while making a fresh start on the Rand, and for that purpose he appealed to hon. members to allow them to pass the conciliation portion of the Bill.

said that what the Minister was proposing to do was something in the real interests of this country. They had had a Bill dealing with three subjects—conciliation and arbitration boards; copying the new Act of Canada, and a further provision providing for the registration of Trade Unions.

Continuing, Mr. Sampson said the introduction of the principle found in the Canadian Act would not work satisfactorily. The compulsory clauses of that Bill had not had the desired effect. He held in his hand a schedule of strikes that had taken place last year, which were far greater in number than any strikes that had yet occurred. He thought they should build up Conciliation Boards and seek to come to an agreement by round-table conferences. The abolition of this clause as proposed by the Minister would open the road to settling differences by Conciliation Boards.

said the really useful portions of the Bill wore the conciliation clauses. These he hoped would be passed, In addition to that he thought the Bill would be of great value, because it proposed to appoint an Industrial Commissioner. They knew that much of the trouble on the Rand would have been avoided if a high officer like that of Industrial Commissioner had been there, and he hoped that Dr. MacNeillie and other members would withdraw their opposition to the deletion of the clause.

said he did not believe in anyone coming between the master and the workman. South Africa was not an industrial country yet, and if the Minister proceeded in the direction he was now taking it would never become an industrial country. He failed to see of what value the Bill would be if the clause were deleted, because at present anyone could avail themselves of the opportunity of referring a dispute to arbitration. He would rather help the Minister to carry his Bill through as it originally stood, than that he should turn his back on his principles.

said he disagreed with the member for Umlazi when he stated that the Minister was turning his back on his principles, because these were what the Minister had advocated, to his knowledge, for a number of years. Nor was it correct to say that this clause was being deleted simply to please the Socialists. The feeling on this matter when he was in England some time ago was that it was far better to have the voluntary principle than to have it made compulsory. Personally, he was delighted with the decision the Minister had come to, and he thought it would be a blessing to the country and go a long way towards establishing industrial peace. He (Mr. Fremantle) was not going to be put off because members on the cross-benches were in favour of it, because they were often on the side of what was right and just. (Labour cheers.)

said it was incorrect to say that the Canadian law had been a failure. The speaker then went on to read extracts from a paper in support of his contention.

said he would be the last in the world to say that legislation ought to be opposed because it had the support of members on the cross benches. What he regretted was that the Minister was retaining what was practically worthless in the Bill and scrapping that which was really useful. As he had before remarked, they had voluntary conciliation without the Bill. He would further like to know what the position of this Trade Commissioner would be, and how much the Department would cost the country? He appealed to the Minister not to go on with the Bill as it was no longer the same measure ns when first introduced.

On the question being put, clause 15, as amended, was negatived.

On clause 16,

moved to omit the word “registered” in lines 6, 7 and 14.

asked the Minister to explain what the result would be by omitting the word.

said that some of those Unions were world-wide, and if they left the word out it would leave the Trade Unions as they were.

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

On clause 17, Application of this chapter,

With reference to the amendments to omit chapters 4 and 5 in clause 19, said the best thing would be to negative clauses as they came to them. He moved that they stand part of the Bill.

said he was Chairman of the Select Committee appointed to consider the Bill. The Bill was published in December. That was altered and they brought in another Bill which was referred to the Select Committee to be altered, and now they were passing a new Bill altogether. He thought the Bill was a surrender to the hon. members on the cross-benches. They did not know what they were passing in that Bill that night, and, as a member of the committee, he washed his hands of the whole thing.

said that after such a statement from a member of the committee who ought to know, it would appear they were working in the dark in that matter. He did not wish to oppose the hon. member in the least. It was only his extreme anxiety that they should do nothing wrong in connection with that industrial legislation that forced him to raise his voice in warning the committee. The hon. member for Berea was to be trusted to have given that matter thorough consideration, and the hon. member confirmed the view already held by him (the speaker). He appealed to the Minister not to go on with that Bill. If the Minister would look back to the second reading speeches—

The hon. member must confine himself to the clause under consideration.

said as he could not discuss the matter on the clause, he would move that the Acting Chairman leave the chair.

said that the matter before the House was of a highly contentious nature, and he would move to report progress.

The motion is that I should leave the chair.

withdrew his motion.

thereupon moved to report progress. There were several gentlemen who were compulsorily away that night who were greatly interested in that Bill, and he thought they should get on with something non-contentious, and start again on Monday. It went against his conscience altogether to allow that matter to go through, and the Minister could not carry it another stage that night.

said he was quite prepared to take the amendments on Monday, but the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, ought to know that they were only the deletion of clauses. He would appeal that there should not be second reading debate son every clause. The hon. member for Umlazi had made his protest, and he (the Minister) sympathised with him to a certain extent. His reply to the hon. member was that he was not thoroughly acquainted with the industrial conditions on the Witwatersrand. He (the Minister) had discussed the matter with all parties there, and they were all very anxious indeed to get the conciliations part through, and do away with the law which was a continual source of friction.

said he hoped the Minister would give way to the wishes of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, and deal with the matter on Monday. There were several gentlemen compulsorily absent who took a keen interest in the measure, and it was a wrong thing to do to force those amendments through that night.

supported the motion of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, in view of the attenuated condition of the House and the fact that not many members present were authorities on the question before them. That was not the time to discuss legislation of that sort, at that late stage of the session.

said he was sorry his hon. friend the member for Cape Town, Central, was so persistent in regard to that matter, for the really contentious clauses in the Bill were being omitted. (Hear, hear.) They were trying to get a measure on all fours with the Act which had been in existence and had been the means of settling hundreds of disputes. When they got that Bill through they would have machinery brought into existence for the appointment of Conciliation Boards, and in addition the appointment of a high officer of the Union, called the Industrial Commissioner, whose business it would be the moment they heard of a dispute to post off there with a view to a settlement.

said the clause he objected to had been withdrawn, but he objected to that sort of legislation, but two members of the committee strongly objected to going on with the Bill. Supposing it were allowed to stand over until Monday morning, and they could bring hon. members into line, it would go through all its stages.

said that if the hon. member insisted upon his motion now it meant killing the Bill.

said that if the four stages were put down for Monday, that day was too early.

said he was a member of the committee, and he had never been consulted about these amendments.

said it was a remarkable thing that the two members who were opposed to this matter were both members of the Select Committee.

Mr. Jagger’s motion to report progress was negatived.

New clause 17 was negatived.

On clause 19, What is a Trade Union.

said he hoped the Minister would give the committee the reason why he desired to retain this clause.

Clause 19 was negatived.

moved that the remaining clauses in Chapter Y. be deleted.

The motion was agreed to, and the clauses were accordingly omitted.

On Chapter VI., clause 42, Persons not to be prejudiced for refusing to accept employment where dispute exists.

said he Would like some explanation as to what this clause really meant.

said that they had set up in this country certain labour bureaux, and this clause was necessary.

The clause was agreed to.

On clause 45, Provision for ballots during continuance of strike,

moved to omit this clause, remarking that it dealt with the earlier portion of the Bill which had already been deleted.

said he would accept the amendment.

The new clause was accordingly deleted.

On clause 41,

moved to insert “or receive” after “charge” in line 34.

Agreed to.

moved to insert the following new sub-section to follow sub-section (4): “(5) No keeper of a private registry office shall engage or recruit employees for any employer while an industrial dispute is pending or proceedings are being taken under this Act between such employer and his employees. ”

The amendment was negatived.

moved to insert the following new sub-section to follow sub-section (4); “Any employer or agent who shall require any employee or person seeking employment as a condition of such employment to enter into an agreement either written or verbal not to become or remain a member of any Trade Union, association, or organisation, or shall threaten any employee with loss of employment, or shall unjustly discriminate against an employee because of his membership in any Trade Union, association, or organisation, or who, after having discharged an employee, either before or after the employee has quitted his service, attempts or conspires to prevent such employee from obtaining employment elsewhere, shall, upon conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds for each offence.” He said that if an employer dismissed a man because he belonged to a Trade Union it was no use trying to get a Board of Conciliation to consider the case.

said he could not accept the amendment. The matter was discussed in the Select Committee, and after careful consideration they felt they could not accept it He would suggest to the hon. member that he should not press his amendment.

The amendment was negatived.

Clause 41, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 46, Registration of private registry offices and matters incidental there to.

moved to omit paragraphs (e) and (f), and in paragraph (h), line 49, to omit “Minister” and to substitute “Industrial Commissioner.”

Do I understand that in this Bill we are passing now you are going to prevent any person from keeping, conducting, or holding himself out as keeping a private registry office?

That is already the law.

The point is that under this law we are considering now we are preventing any persons from keeping or holding a private registry office. The whole thing is to be handed over to a State department.

This clause is already the law in the Transvaal and the Cape. It is not the law in Natal and the Orange Free State, and this is merely to have uniform legislation throughout the whole Union.

The amendment was agreed to.

Clause 46, as amended, was agreed to.

On clause 47, Liability to punishment in case of offences against this Act by corporate bodies, partnership and Trade Unions.

said he took it that the Minister would not really want the penalty clause because the penalty idea had been dropped. There were no offences under this Act.

said that the point would be looked into, and if amendments were required they would be brought forward.

He moved sundry verbal amendments.

Agreed to.

The clause was agreed to.

Clause 49 was also verbally amended.

On clause 1,

In line 9, to omit “Subject to the provisions of section 19.”

The amendments previously proposed by Mr. Baxter, Mr. Andrews and Mr. Wyndham were negatived.

The amendment proposed by the Minister was agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On the title,

moved as an amendment, that the words “for the prevention of strikes by employees, lockouts by employers and” in lines 2 and 3 be omitted, and in lines 6 and 7 to omit “the registration, regulation, and management of Trade Unions.”

The amendment was agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments.

moved that the amendments be considered on Monday.

This was agreed to.

moved the second reading of the Pensions (Supplementary) Bill.

said he wished to object to the Bill, which only placed further burdens on the shoulders of the people, and stood in the way of more useful legislation.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time.

moved that the House go into committee on the Bill, if there was no objection.

The motion was agreed to.

said he wished to move an amendment to the schedule. There were the names of several people appearing in the schedule who had held positions as chief constables in the Transkei, and those offices had been abolished. He noticed that in the recommendations nothing was said about any period being added to the period of service owing to abolition of office. He moved to add the words “that a period of ten years be added to the length of the service owing to abolition of office.”

I cannot accept that, because it means an increase of expenditure.

appealed to the Minister to assist him in the matter, as there had been no time to refer it back to the committee.

wished to add two names to the schedule.

I cannot allow any additions to the schedule.

The schedule as printed was agreed to.

The Bill was reported without amendments.

moved the third reading of the Bill.

said that during the closing stages of the Select Committee on Pensions a number of cases had been agreed to, but as they could not be submitted to the Treasury in time, they had been left over till next session. He hoped that next session any such cases would be included in the Bill.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a third time.

That the fourth and fifth report be adopted, and that the fifth report be transmitted to the Hon. the Senate for its concurrence.

said there seemed to be a lot of grants of land to mission societies, and he would like to know more about the matter.

pointed out that the report only provided for the ratification of former grants. They were grants made by the Natal Government before Union.

The motion was agreed to.

The reports were adopted, and ordered to be transmitted to the Senate.

asked for information regarding the fifth paragraph of the report.

was understood to say that that land was portion of an outspan, and part of the land had been allotted to the Forest Department, with the intention that it should be planted for seed purposes.

said he wanted some further information as to the age of the trees, quantity of them, the prairie value of the land, etc.

said the land was given to the Forest Department in 1897. Twenty morgen had been planted with trees. It was going to be advertised and sold by public auction.

Has De Beers been instrumental in bringing about this sale?

By no means.

Has the department been approached by De Beers?

Not to my knowledge.

On the following recommendations by the Select Committee:

1. (a) That no reduction be made in the rent paid by the Walfish Bay Whaling Co., Ltd., for the site at present leased to it at Walfish Bay.
2. (b) That the permission issued by the Railways and Harbours Department to the Durban Whaling Co. to anchor a floating whaling factory at Walfish Bay be withdrawn, and that no right to anchor such factories be granted to any company.

said the Walfish Whaling Co. tendered £1,260 a year for the site at Walfish Bay, but shortly after starting operations a floating whaling factory entered the Bay, and the company asked the Government either to reduce the rent to £250 a year or to do away with the floating factory. No Court, however, would give the Government the right to interfere with the contract. It was suggested that the Railway Administration should give notice to the floating factory, which paid no rent, to remove.

said the two recommendations must hang together. The intention was that the Walfish Bay Whaling Co. should have the sole right. There was not sufficient whales for the two concerns to make their ventures pay. Government had power to withdraw the licence granted to the floating factory. It would be a breach of faith with the Walfish Bay Whaling Co. unless the committee’s recommendation was adopted.

said that what the hon. member said was correct. The Land Department had negotiated with the Railway Department, which had promised to terminate the agreement with the floating factory. The best thing was to withdraw the two recommendations.

maintained that as Government could not carry out the moral obligation it owed to the Walfish Bay Co., it should reduce the rent. There had been a game of shuttlecock between the Railway and Waste Lands Departments.

said the position was as the member for Three Rivers had stated. The question they had to decide was whether the Railways and Harbours Department had the power to grant such rights without consulting Parliament. That was really the crux of the whole thing. The committee held they had no such right, and it was for Parliament to say whether the agreement entered into should continue. He thought the Railway Department never had any right to go to Walfish Bay and invade the rights granted to another company.

said that if it was correct that six months’ notice had been given to this whaling company to quit, then he had nothing more to say. But if the whaling ship was going to stay, then a reduction of rent should be granted to the company on shore.

said the proper action for Parliament to take was to call upon the Railway and Harbour Department to withdraw the notice, and for the House to pass the recommendation of the committee. It was very evident that the Railway Department had been exercising the power which belonged to that House.

The recommendations were agreed to, and the report was adopted by the House.

moved in line 14 to omit “pays to” and to substitute “deposits with”: in line 17, after “payment” to insert “within one month”; in line 18 to omit “the fine within one week” and to substitute “any fine which may be lawfully imposed by the court in lines 26 to 28 to omit “to have been sentenced there for to a fine equal to the amount which has been paid” and to substitute “the court shall forthwith proceed to pass sentence in accordance with law”; and in line 29, after “of” to insert “the.”

The amendments were agreed to, and the clause as amended was agreed to.

On clause 2, Powers of inferior courts as to dealing with convicted offenders liable to punishment for minor offences,

moved, in line 26, page 4, after “may” to insert “upon the order of a magistrate.”

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

On clause 3, Powers of superior and inferior courts as to dealing with convicted offenders liable to imprisonment for serious offences.

said that the member for Newlands (Mr. Struben), who was not in his place, had moved an amendment to the clause which the Minister of Justice had accepted. How did the Minister propose to deal with it?

said he had made the subject of the amendment into a new clause. He moved, in paragraph (d), line 59, to add at the end of the paragraph, “or reprimand ” and in lines 8 and 9, page 6, to omit “by the court before which the offender was convicted.”

The Minister’s amendments were agreed to.

The clause as amended was agreed to. New clause 6,

moved a new clause 6 as follows, in terms of an amendment given notice of by Mr. C. F. W. Struben (Newlands): “6. Any person convicted of an offence may if under this Act or any other law the Court (a) has postponed the passing of sentence; or (b) discharged the offender with a caution or reprimand, appeal to the Court to which an appeal would lie if sentence had been passed in the same manner and subject to the same conditions and provisions as are prescribed by law in the case of appeals to such Court from a sentence and such Court shall have the same jurisdiction on such appeal as it possesses in the case of appeals against a sentence.” He said that the object of this amendment was to avoid a hardship. At present a man might come before a Magistrate, the Magistrate might convict him and reprimand him, but in such a case he had got no right of appeal and the conviction would stand against him for the rest of his life. The object of this amendment was to give a right of appeal where deferred sentence or a reprimand had been imposed.

The new clause was agreed to.

On the schedule, Offences excepted from section 6,

moved to delete “sedition” and “public violence.” He said he thought, in view of the fact that the definition of sedition and public violence might mean almost anything at all, these crimes, which were technical crimes very often in the discretion of the Minister or police, should come under the provisions of the Act.

moved, after “fraudulent insolvency,” to insert “culpable insolvency.”

said he was prepared to accept the latter amendment. With regard to the other amendment, after all it was only a question of suspended sentences.

said they must be very careful before they accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Central. The definition of culpable insolvency was very wide.

said that a man might be carrying on for years knowing that he was insolvent, and should he benefit by a suspended sentence?

said he would like the Minister to delete the words “sedition” and “public violence.”

said he did trust the Minister would consider the deletion of those words. There was no reason why a Magistrate should not give a suspended sentence for sedition and public violence. He did not like to see these more or less technical crimes rank with the most serious crimes on the calendar.

said if you had a schedule at all they should have serious offences on it, and these were serious offences. Sedition was only high treason in a lesser degree.

Mr. Andrews’ amendment was negatived.

Mr. Jagger’s amendment was negatived.

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