I wish to draw attention to the Milnerton Railway (Junction Alteration) Bill, which has been set down for second reading for to-day. Although the Bill deals with a question of public policy affecting the South African Railways, it affects the private rights of the Milnerton Estates Company, and the Cape Town and District Gas Light and Coke Company, and must therefore be proceeded with as a Hybrid Bill. The order for the second reading should accordingly be discharged, and the Bill referred to the examiners for report under Standing Order No. 182. Subsequently, if allowed to proceed, the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee after second reading.

Ordered accordingly.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

Every farmer knows that it is necessary, as far as possible, to keep correct account of his business transactions, namely, of the sale of his produce. It is difficult for the man living 500 or 1,000 miles from the market to do so, because it is hard for him to get the necessary information. For this reason it is necessary for us to introduce legislation to assist him in keeping his hooks. I said as correctly as possible, because on account of his absence from the market he cannot always get the information. Moreover, the market does not always turn out in the way expected. Certain people who sell goods there are not always honest. It often happens that the farmer who is ruined, or one who has made a failure in his other business, takes up this calling. These people are not always properly au fait with matters, and it also happens that they are not in the sound financial position to be able to make a success of the work. It has come to our notice that farmers, and even farmers’ associations, have made a loss on the produce they have sent to market. My department has made enquiries and ascertained that loss is suffered in this way because the people who handle the produce on the markets are not properly controlled, and I therefore considered it necessary to introduce legislation to minimise that kind of loss as much as possible, and I think that every hon. member in the House will support me. We have already passed the Act of 1925 in connection with this matter, an Act which lays down that if anyone sells stock at a sale, he is obliged to send the necessary information about the matter to the farmer who sent the stock to him. In this Bill we want to go further than that Act. The 1925 Act works well in connection with livestock, but we find, as I have explained, that the other agricultural products are not being properly-handled, and we now want to extend the provisions of the Act so that it will be necessary for the market agent, if he sells something else, such as vegetables, etc., to send information about it to the farmer. It happens too often that such a person handling farming produce buys such vegetables or produce himself, and we want to prohibit the agents from doing so. There are people who have no conscience, and who buy the produce themselves if they can make a profit. Rings have actually been formed. People are asked not to bid, the stuff is sold cheap, and they share the profit. That has taken place, my department investigated matters and found that sort of thing going on. In such cases we must insist on protecting our people. We have another difficulty, and that is with the people I shall call mushroom agents. They are people who have failed at something else and it appears easier for them to become market agents. They do not need capital for it, because the farmer delivers the produce. I will not say that the agents are all dishonest. I am only speaking of a section of them. But nine out of ten fail because they do not possess the necessary capital, and therefore it often happens that when they sell produce they do not immediately pay the farmer. They use the money for prosecuting their business. It has occurred in one case, and the answer the farmer got from the market agent was that the was unfortunately in difficulties, and had unfortunately been obliged to use the farmer’s money, but that he hoped that the farmer would not take steps against him, and that he would pay the money next month. Nine out of ten fail in business, and I think they ought to be properly controlled. Then there is a further provision making the market agents’ books accessible to the sender of the produce. It has often occurred that someone asks for a report on the sale of his produce, and then the books are lost or mislaid. We provide here that a man has the right within ninety days of examining the books with regard to his transactions, and to ascertain whether he has been honestly dealt with. I do not think it is an unfair proposal, and I hope there will be no objection to it. Then we come to an important question, that is the sale of the balance of the produce. It is the case at Durban that if anyone puts up a thing for sale there the buyers have the right of buying one or two cases. But what takes place at other markets? The auctioneer demands three shillings a case, if he does not immediately obtain it, then he sells the whole lot together. It then occurs that the man with capital buys the whole hundred cases together at one shilling or one shilling and three pence. At the same time, there are people there who pay two shillings and the man makes an immediate profit of 50 per cent. I do not think that is fair. Durban is an example to us in this connection, and I think it is quite fair for us to lay down here that it shall be obligatory to sell in small lots as well. I therefore hope that the House will support me on this clause. Then there is another provision which, I think, is also very fair, namely, that the market notes, which are sent to the farmers, shall be signed by the market master, when certain produce is sent to a commission agent. The commission agent sells a part of the produce on the market at a low price; he sells the rest at a higher price, and he then writes to the farmer that he has also sold the rest at the low price. It is already a practice at Bloemfontein and other places for the market master to sign the market notes, and it does not appear to give any trouble. That is more or less what the Bill I am here proposing contains. I do not think it is necessary for me to enlarge any more on it. I hope that all the members representing the countryside will regard the matter from the point of view of the farmer on the countryside who needs protection. I have no feeling against the agent and the people who are selling our produce, but there are people who are dishonest. Perhaps they do not do it wilfully, but because they are in financial difficulties. They feel obliged to use the farmer’s money, and because the latter is 500 miles off we must help him. We did it in 1925 in connection with livestock, and the Act answers well. That is what I am now proposing in this matter also.

I am very glad the Minister has introduced this important Bill. It will solve many of our difficulties, but I do not think it goes far enough. I want us to look facts in the face, and justice should be done to us on the countryside, who have all the troubles as sellers. I only want to mention a few points. I may tell the Minister about those who send their stock to the Johannesburg market. There are twenty or thirty auctioneers there who put up all our best stock at the same time, the result is that the buyers are spread out over the market, and there is no proper competition. The Minister ought to provide that at a market like Johannesburg, one auctioneer should follow in turn after the other, and not all at the same time, so that there shall be competition by buyers. An attempt was once made to introduce such a system in Johannesburg, and the buyers struck for a whole week as a result thereof. In the end the auctioneers had to return to the old system. Here in the Peninsula the market is at Maitland. Absolutely no public sales are held there. The poor farmer who sends his stock there from, say, Burghersdorp finds that it is sold privately. This cannot continue. I hope the Minister will bear these points in mind, and I should be glad if he would agree to the Bill being referred to the select committee. Our farmers on the countryside know the difficulties, and we should be able to make improvements so that we shall get a better Bill than that which has been drafted by the officials.

I was very much surprised when I heard the explanation of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. I am perfectly convinced that the hon. Minister of Agriculture is very anxious indeed to assist the farmer and the primary producer in so far as marketing his products is concerned, but I think that the hon. Minister has made more difficulty if this were placed on the statute book than if the measure were left alone. The Bill first of all, sir, lays down that an auctioneer shall give certain security to the Commissioner for Inland Revenue that he can at least meet such liabilities as may be involved, but the societies are exempted and certain market masters that, are not under local authorities are also exempted. Now I think that is wrong. You make fish of one and fowl of another; if you make a law for any auctioneer or any agent that law should apply to anyone who is interested. Then this Bill makes provision, as the Minister has so ably explained, for a good many kinds of produce, and I take it, as far as I understand the Bill, it will apply to livestock as well. Livestock is to be submitted to auction and sold in single units. If that applies to livestock I believe the Minister will see that that is absolutely impossible.

It does not apply to livestock.

Very well, then. It applies to agricultural produce. Take, for instance, the farmer who grows potatoes, for the sake of argument, in large quantities. Is it necessary for him to sell the whole lot in bulk— wholesale? If he has 1,000 or 2,000 bags of potatoes to sell it is impossible for him to distribute them. People come on to the market and buy these things by the single unit instead? of handing them over wholesale to one buyer. They are sold perhaps to 100 or more people. This Bill makes it a very serious inconvenience, and is absolutely impossible. Take the case of wool. The Bill lays down that it shall be sold in single units as described in the Bill. Now it is not possible for every broker to sell wool by a single bale. I think you will find that instead of this Bill being a blessing it may possibly turn out to be a curse to the country. I can only speak for myself. I sell things, when I am lucky, in a good season, and I can tell the hon. the Minister that if I am done down by an auctioneer, I shall be very angry with him. If he does me down a second time, I shall take my hat off to him and think that he is a better man than I am. It is, however, my business to see that I am not done down. I should not like to see the Bill now introduced into the House placed on the statute book as it is. First of all, it is very inconvenient, a great trouble, and a nuisance to the farmers. It is more that than it is a blessing. Then you get old auctioneering firms in this country who are honest men and have carried on this work all their lives and their fathers before them. Why should these people have to submit to the provisions of this Bill? Why should these people be subject to having their books preyed into? If it is a man or a firm doing a big business, their offices will be inundated with men all day long, and it will interfere with their work. Therefore, I welcome the statement of the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler). I think it would be wise for the Minister to refer the Bill to a select committee before it finds its way on to the statute book.

I think we all agree that there are a good many irregularities and possibly even dishonesty, especially in the bigger centres, so far as the sale by auction of farmers’ produce is concerned. I feel, however, that the Minister has realized to the full what I call the irregularities which obtain in Johannesburg, Durban and the other bigger centres, and in consequence has drafted a Bill which is going to impose on auction sales especially throughout the country districts a tremendous number of difficulties, in order to meet the irregularities which arise on the urban markets. I think that we all agree that a measure of some sort is necessary, but I feel that the Minister should take this Bill to a select committee. I do think there is a tremendous hurry for it. This is not a matter of vital urgency, and I think it can be improved considerably if we could sit round the table and talk it over. For instance, the first clause of the Bill goes too far, or it does not go far enough. The Minister only says that any auctioneer selling agricultural produce or livestock shall find security. It seems to me that you may have the anomaly of a farmer selling his livestock and his agricultural produce, and the auctioneer who sells land or implements or furniture, apparently, does not have to find security. You should apply it to all auctioneers or you should go a little further or not quite so far. Then it is provided that the Government has the right to insist that the books of the auctioneer should be submitted to an accountant. Why not let a farmer, or even an attorney, go through the books? Why limit it entirely to an accountant? That is another little matter to be put right. There are many more serious matters than that I think in sub-sections (5) and (6). Why are we to agree to the principle making it compulsory that the auctioneer shall only sell livestock consigned to him by each person separately? That may be all right on the municipal markets, but in the country markets the practice is for the bigger buyers who represent the butchers to buy stock by the truck-load. They will not be bothered by buying little lots. Often it is very convenient for two sellers to put, say, two parcels of bullocks together, or to put their hamels together and make up a truck-load. They do that because they say they will get more competition on a truck-load than by selling half-a-dozen animals or so. The clause is an absolute bar to this. If it passes in its present form each lot must be sold by itself. In order to meet the position, which, I believe, exists in many cases, the Minister is going to penalize a lot of other people. Let us take Clause 6, the unit system. I take it that wool is an agricultural product, and it must be sold by the unit. Now, if you look at the definition of a unit it at once becomes apparent that the unit where wool is concerned is the pound. If this clause passes all wool will have to be sold by the single pound, an absolute absurdity. I am sure the Minister does not mean that. The proviso giving the buyer of the first unit the right to take the whole consignment at the same price is most dangerous to the interests of the seller, is absolutely in favour of the buyer, and not of the consumer.

Quite right.

If a line is put up and the first unit of mealies, or grain, or whatever it is, goes cheaply, then the buyer is going to take the lot. If it goes at full market value, he will take one unit and then bid again for a second. I hope the Minister will agree that this is a matter for further discussion. I know that he is out in the interests of the farmer, but this Bill will hit back in various ways which we do not quite see at the moment. Let us take a very common matter—the selling of oat hay, which, unfortunately, owing to the growth of motoring, is not sold so extensively as in days gone by. Oat hay is sold in lots of 100 bundles in many markets. Why on earth when a farmer brings in, say, 500 or 1,000 bundles of oat hay on his wagon, should he not be allowed to sell the whole lot out of hand to one man? That, however, will be absolutely barred by the Bill. The more you consider the unit system, the more far-reaching it appears to be. The only solution is to discuss the matter in select committee, where the measure can be knocked into shape, and something of real value evolved. You can multiply, ad infinitum, the difficulties and inconveniences which many of the clauses in this Bill are going, quite unwittingly, I am sure, to impose on the seller. It would be very much more satisfactory to all parties concerned to refer the Bill to a select committee.

The present conditions under which agricultural produce is sold are by no means satisfactory. I was in Australia in 1926, and I attended the largest stock sales in the world, which are held at Melbourne. I was amazed to see tens of thousands of slaughter stock sold on the unit system. On inquiry, I found that this system was greatly approved, as it gave universal satisfaction throughout Australia. I am in favour of the Bill, and the Government is to be commended for introducing it, especially sub-section (3), for at present a man has to wait for from two to three weeks to a month before he receives his account sales.

The few defects in the Bill can easily be remedied at the committee stage, as the measure is a very short and simple one, and I am not satisfied that it is necessary to send it to a select committee. The Bill will serve a very useful purpose and provides very necessary safeguards to the primary producer which, as far as possible, ensure that he shall receive the proceeds of the sale of whatever produce he sends to market. At present the farmer is not able to keep his produce under his own control, as very often he has to send it hundreds of miles away, and for that reason his interests should be safeguarded. It has been asked why not make this applicable to auction sales generally, but it is not necessary in the case, say, of a man who sells his furniture by auction, as he is able to be on the spot, and the sale is under his own control. With regard to Clause 5, I am in favour of agricultural produce consigned to markets by the primary producer being sold separately, but I agree there should be a proviso, that where such producers agree in writing to a joint sale, that should be permitted. This is a small point which can be dealt with in committee of the whole House. All the clauses up to No. 5 are, in my opinion, in the best interests of the primary producer, but I take the strongest objection to Clause 6, which should be deleted. I fail to see how this clause will assist the seller. On the contrary, I think it will be of assistance only to the buyer and particulars to the speculative buyer —a person we have no desire to help in matters of this kind. The speculative buyer, when he can get the first unit knocked down to him at a low figure will take the lot and then proceed to profiteer to the detriment of the genuine consumer. The Minister should favourably consider my suggestion to delete the whole of Clause 6. I shall move the deletion of this clause at the committee stage, and then, with a few minor amendments to other clauses, a workable measure will be evolved which will benefit the primary producer.

I do not want to waste the time of the House by enlarging on the Bill, because it has already been efficiently done by hon. members. I think the Minister’s intentions are good, but as has been said, the Bill either goes too far, or not far enough. It seems as if the Minister wants to see that the farmers get a good price for their produce, and because they have sometimes in the past got too little, I can understand it. We are prepared to give him every assistance in the matter if the Bill is referred to a select committee: In Clause 2, inter alia, exemption is given to co-operative societies. Why is that? Is it because in the past they were free from any financial embarrassment? Is it not a reason for the antipathy which exists here against co-operative societies, that they have not fulfilled their financial obligations. Why should not the same be demanded from them as from any auctioneer? Then there is another objection I have to the Bill, namely, that it only touches the small man. The man who is already on his feet will not be affected by this, because the Minister can demand any security from an auctioneer, but the small man will suffer because he is not able to deposit security for that purpose. It will benefit the well-off, the capitalistic class. I want to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on the fact that he no longer has such a repulsion for the contemptible capitalistic class. Many of the auctioneers in our country started without capital. All the capital they had was their honesty, and consequently they became well-off and respected citizens. That will no longer now be possible. I advise the Minister to send the Bill to a select committee, and then he will receive our full support.

I just want to say a few words with reference to this Bill. A few days ago the Minister of Agriculture moved the first reading, and set down the second reading for to-day. I then asked him if it was not possible to postpone the second reading. He replied that it was a short and unimportant Bill, and he even spoke cynically about a postponement being asked for. Well, there is more in this Hill than we think so far as practical difficulties are concerned. If the Minister accepts the suggestion to refer it to a select committee, then it will be possible to get rid of those practical difficulties, and if he refuses it will not be possible to have a proper enquiry. Take, e.g., the question of security, the highest amount which is laid down is £2,500. The people will get the impression that if they give their produce to the auctioneer, there is adequate security. But an auctioneer sells produce worth possibly £30,000 or £40,000, what then is the value of £2,500 security? In practice it is therefore inadequate. It is, so far as I understand the Bill, not a fact that the auctioneer must give security for every sale he holds, but that he must only provide general security for all sales, so that the Minister, if he wants to protect the farmer, does not go far enough. If he wants to do that he will have to lay down that a guarantee must be given for every sale. Take, e.g., Clause 7½ what is a unit which is being discussed in that clause? If an auctioneer, e.g., sells a thousand bags of wheat, I assume that as a unit one bag of wheat is taken. Then Clause 6 lays down that if anyone buys a bag of wheat the seller can be obliged to sell his thousand bags of wheat, under the same conditions, to the man who has bought the one bag. It is simply impracticable. It is entirely against the interests of the seller and to the advantage of the capitalist. I cannot understand how the Minister can include such a provision in the Bill, and can say that it is in the interest of the farmer. It is true that in practice not much corn is sold by auctioneers, but it may happen in an estate sale, when a man dies, or gets into financial difficulties. In such a case a man who buys one bag of wheat can demand that the thousand bags shall be sold to him at the same price as the one bag. That is, at least, how I read the clause. I cannot understand how the Minister permits it.

That is not the case.

I do not want to attack the Bill on principle, but if the clause bears the construction that I have given to it, it is sufficient reason for opposing the principle. In the circumstances I hope that the Minister will agree to the motion of the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler), to refer the Bill to a select committee, to see that we pass an Act which is really in the interests of the farmers.

I do not want to give the impression that I am opposing any measure which is to the benefit of the farmer, and protects the sale of his produce. But there is a very serious and dangerous omission, and that is the right of the producer himself to say in what quantities or units he shall sell his produce. The Bill makes no provision for the producer or the owner of the produce being able to sell in such and such quantities through his agent or auctioneer. The Bill says, “the auctioneer shall sell in units,” and it may not be in the interests of the producer to do so; why should he be debarred from giving instructions to his agent or auctioneer as to how it is to be sold? I do plead with the Minister to refer the matter to a select committee. I think the Minister has very largely taken into consideration the danger which exists in the larger centres, such as Cape Town and other large centres. This Bill, in other centres, may, however, lead to very serious complaints, and injure the very people the Minister is trying to assist. I would plead with the Minister to give it a little further consideration.

I wish to take up the point made by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) and also by the last speaker. There are many farmers who send produce to the market for the purpose of obtaining ready money, and they very often incur expense in sending it there. A man sends one thousand bags of grain for instance. There you have a man saying: “I must have £100, and I am prepared to sell a certain amount of my grain at a loss, for I must have the money.” Under sub-clause 6 of Clause 2 he has to sell that as a lot. I hope the Minister will agree to the Hill being referred to select committee, so that we may have a chance of altering this provision.

It seems to me that the Government in introducing this Bill is committing itself to a policy of building up vested rights in favour of auctioneers which it will be very difficult at any future time to modify or cancel. The present system for the sale at markets of goods of the primary producer needs thorough overhauling. In most of the large centres grave abuses exist, every one of which operates to the detriment of the farmer. If the Minister were as good a friend of the farmer as he is thought to be I feel sure that he would not be perpetuating the system of auctioneering which exists to-day. He would go rather in the direction of establishing, as the best medium of sales between the primary producer and the consumer, co-operative societies and exchanges and bodies of that kind. But what is the Minister’s attitude towards these societies? We have the case in the Transvaal of the South Waterburg Farmers’ Association, which is being charged licence fees as an ordinary auctioneer because in the past it has been disposing of the products of its members to the best advantage of those members, and to the advantage of the consumer. Those people are put on the level of the ordinary auctioneer, and are being required to pay heavy licences. I know the Minister is a genuine supporter of the co-operative system, and I have looked to him with confidence to enable the farmers’ societies to go forward with the policy of marketing the goods of their own members. We have the encouraging feature in Durban of the Pinetown Farmers’ Association taking into its own hands the produce, fruit and flowers grown by its members. They have applied to the municipality to give them space in which they can establish stores to compete against the licensed holders of stores in the sale of the produce of their members. That development is one that needs encouragement. I find little encouragement for it in this Bill with the exception that it exempts the co-operative societies from providing securities. I am in favour of a movement which will replace the present cumbersome and unsatisfactory system of marketing farmers’ goods in the larger centres. I do not believe it is good for the farmer that the municipalities should have a monopoly of marketing in their centres. Most of the profits which accrue in the municipalities are used for the relief of rates. The primary producer receives nothing whatsoever. He is charged very high fees for the marketing of goods, and whatever profit accrues goes in relief of the rates of the consumer. I would have preferred the Minister to introduce a Bill which would do away at one fell swoop with the monopoly which municipalities hold to-day for the marketing of produce and livestock, and I hope the day will soon arrive when the Minister will have sufficient courage to take that step. As regards the present Bill, it merely aims at putting right certain anomalies that have arisen through the introduction of the principal Act. I raise no particular objection to the specific amendments which the Minister has brought forward, but I do think that with the division he has in his own department of marketing and economics he should be better advised than he appears to be on the question of marketing. If his officials went throughout the country and made observations on the marketing of the Union every one of them would be convinced that the present system is one which deserves wholesale condemnation and deserves to be swept away.

I would not have spoken had it not been for the remarks of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), but I want to deny outright that the municipalities run their markets in order to fleece the producer. The corporations do not relieve their rates out of profits. They do not make profits. I am going to support the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) that this Bill be referred to select committee for the reason that I think the tendency of markets to-day, and of the primary producer getting his goods direct to the consumer, is to sell out of hand. I make an appeal for this Bill to go to select committee in order that that aspect of the question may be studied

I think we are rather expecting too much from this Bill. One of the main reasons for its introduction, I gather, is to protect the farmer from fraud being committed upon him. Far be it from me to say that frauds are never committed. What I doubt is whether the machinery provided by this Bill is calculated to have that desirable result. The chief machinery indicated in this Bill is the requirement that auctioneers, factors and agents shall have to give security to a certain amount, and that their books shall be open to inspection by a chartered accountant or a registered accountant. It seems to me that neither of these provisions will really carry the matter very much further. What you need is to take steps to see that the detection of fraud shall be facilitated. Now how is it facilitated? By the security required to begin with. That is not a protection against fraud. It is a step likely to prevent any person going in for the profession of auctioneer who has not the financial resources to do so. I know very few cases—not a single instance in my experience—in which the farmer has been defrauded through the auctioneer not having accounted for the money which he had received. Indeed, that would involve a fraudulent act on his part if he did not properly account for moneys received. The necessity for putting up security militates against the small man in favour of the big one. The small man who has to provide the resources necessary to establish a business with the prospect of possibly very few operations while having to put up security of this kind will cripple his activities. I am confident that no one in this House will like to see the small man handicapped in this way. The auctioneer may be perfectly honest and may be safely entrusted with goods that may be put in his charge; but he may not be able to put up the ready cash or an insurance policy by way of security. What really then is the object of the Bill? What do we achieve; what do we secure by it? Unless there is some very definite aim to be achieved by legislation we are better off without it. It is more likely to produce a huge mass of cases which will prove an embarrassment to the most learned lawyer and also the most learned farmer. I can see very little good that is likely to result from the putting up of this security. Now what is the fraud against which this is aimed? I suppose it is a fraud of this character. That an auctioneer or agent will make a fraudulent bargain with a buyer or member of the public and knock down for a small sum goods which might have been sold for more money, and divide the difference between them. Now this is, of course, a gross fraud; it amounts to the commission of a crime, and therefore you must suppose you have a group of criminals ready to take advantage of an opportunity to rob when it occurs. Now who is to suppose that a man would be willing to do that, that he would risk his liberty and reputation to secure a paltry gain? Moreover, who is going to preserve the necessary tracks and traces of it by leaving entries in his books to expose the matter. You need much more carefully designed legislation to catch that type of criminal than the Bill which is before the House. I do not believe that one single crime of fraud will be detected by this provision. If there is no definite gain to be achieved by passing this Bill, you are branding in effect what, as far as I know, is a most respectable section of the community—auctioneers, factors and agents— branding them as a class which should be compelled to submit their books for inspection whenever a customer required it. I submit that to legislate for that class of customer is very unjust indeed to auctioneers and agents. I know of no reason for singling out that class as being specially fraudulent. Then, for the honest auctioneer, what an embarrassment it is to him to have at any time his books exposed to the scrutiny of any chartered accountant or incorporated accountant. What merchant would care to have the transactions of his books exposed in that way, because a customer wanted to see the prices at which he bought and those at which he has sold? I submit that a scrutiny of this kind at the mere instance of a customer is going to expose that trader to very grave embarrassment. Then how are you going to limit the scope of the accountant’s enquiries? Is he to have a roving commission? Is the chartered accountant to be allowed to pursue his enquiries into the transactions of other customers or is the enquiry to be confined to this transaction? I can foresee a large amount of litigation outstanding to decide all the knotty points which may arise. It seems to me that the current market prices are sufficiently well known and if you are going to confine your enquiry simply to the entries which relate to that particular customer, then no end will be achieved and time will be wasted. On these matters I submit that the principle of the Bill therefore is ill-conceived. Better machinery could be devised for preventing these wrongs between a group of buyers and customers than possibly the connivance of auctioneers with the public to beat down the price of goods. The machinery will have to be something else devised on different lines. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) seemed to regard this Bill simply from the point of view of the seller. Well, there are two parties to a bargain, and the citizens of South Africa comprise buyers as well as sellers; and the interests of the consumer must be regarded if not as paramount as of equal importance with those of the seller. Now the suggestion that we should hold up selling until one auctioneer has disposed of all goods of one kind before another factor or agent is allowed to sell the same thing, would be impracticable in operation. If the price is higher then the seller gets the benefit, otherwise it is the consumer who gains. It is just to secure competition that markets are established. You do not get it carried out in a perfect degree, I admit, and we should give attention to designing machinery to better these conditions. I am putting it to the House that the machinery which is tendered to us in this Bill is not designed to have that effect. So far from attacking municipalities and municipal markets, I should like to see the question investigated. As we know, we might use the vast facilities which municipal governments offer for marketing their goods to better effect than is done at the present time. It may be that what is good and desirable in one place is not good or desirable in another. The great advantage of municipal government or local self-government, is this, that it does allow enormous free play and differentiation of conditions and differentiation of methods as between one part of the country and another. When you have such a Bill as this, of universal application, you are striking at the root of it and at its flexibility. There is the possibility of dealing with the problem in one way in one town, and in another way in another town. That is a retrograde step. The municipal life and the municipal enterprise of South Africa are one of the things of which we are justly proud. The energy and ability put up by the different municipalities in their markets and in other spheres of municipal life is one to be encouraged and commended and helped, rather than to be struck at, as I think it is struck at, at any rate, by the provisions of this Bill. I would urge that this matter, as well as the machinery set up for the purpose of preventing fraud, may be thrashed out in select committee, and that might result in a more effective Bill being placed on the statute book.

I have listened attentively to the objections which have been made to this Bill, but it appears to me that on main principles there is no objection. I agree with the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) that there is no reason to send this small Bill to a select committee. It has only four clauses, and practically only two objections have been raised. The strangest one is what the acting leader of the Opposition, Mr. Krige, said about the objection that the £2,500 security was insufficient, while all his followers argued that an encroachment was being made on vested rights, and that we ought not to ask for the security. They do not want us to protect the farmers in that way. And the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) went so far as to say that the security meant nothing, and that the man if he gets leave could still go to the Criminal Court. He says that the security means nothing, but his acting leader wants to make it still larger. I have thought the hon. members opposite always spoke with one voice. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), also made a great fuss about the “units” and said that, if a farmer had a thousand bags of wheat for sale, the buyer could demand that the whole quantity should be knocked down for the price at which the first bag had been sold.

Yes, the same price.

That is just what we want to prevent. We really want to compel the sellers to sell by unit, and only if they can no longer get a bid per unit, to sell the whole lot. What, however, happens to-day? They announce they will sell by unit, but for not less than, e.g., 3s. If there is no bid of 3s., the whole lot is sold in bulk and produces possibly 1s. 3d. per unit, while buyers would willingly pay 2s. or 2s. 6d. per unit. The buyer of the bulk can, therefore, readily make a profit of 50 per cent. Hon. members on this side of the House agree with the hon. member for Caledon, that the farmers should be protected by a guarantee. If he will move in committee to increase it to £10,000, I will welcome it. He must, however, first obtain the agreement of hon. members on his side. It has further been said that a difference is being made here between market masters and commission agents. Market masters are officials of municipalities, and I am not intending to interfere with them. You will, moreover, not be able to mention many cases where market masters have committed fraud or caused damage. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) argued that wool came under agricultural produce, and it would, therefore, have to be sold by the bale. If the hon. member will move an amendment to the committee, I will gladly consider it. It is, of course, not the intention that in all cases the wool should be sold bale for bale. Hon. members really should proceed from the standpoint that we must protect the farmers, who have the hardest lot in life. For the rest I will gladly meet objections. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) expressed much sympathy with the poorer auctioneers, because they are exposed to having their books examined by accountants. He is much more sorry for those auctioneers owing to their actions being gone into by our giving a right of inspecting their books, than for the men who earn their bread by the sweat of their brow. The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) would like to see an alteration in Clause 5, and allow Clause 6 to drop. That is a matter for the committee. I have an open mind about the Bill. The hon. member for Dundee (Mr. Friend) made out as if the Minister felt that the prices of produce were so low that he wanted to protect the farmers. Is he not a farmer? Why is he opposed to it? I regret that hon. members representing the countryside should act in that manner. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) asked whether I considered the marketing conditions in our country ideal. No, we must try to improve them gradually. He mentioned the Waterberg Farmers’ Association, and wanted us to allow them to sell without a licence. The co-operative societies have already been exempted, and I do not think the hon. member is serious that we should further exempt all such persons. I think that a select committee is really superfluous. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) wants to go further and to provide that at the big Johannesburg market the auctioneers shall sell one by one. That is entirely impossible. It will not be a matter of days, but they will never get finished.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee on 27th January.

I move—

Hon. members will see that the object of the Bill is to remove misunderstanding which has arisen in the League of Nations, if hon. members look at Section 1 of Act 20 of 1922 they will see that the railways and harbours of South West Africa were transferred in full right of ownership, but no mention is made of the mandate under which the Union controlled what was formerly German South West Africa. The Mandates Commission has pointed out that misunderstanding may arise about the ownership rights of the Union to the railways of South West Africa. Hon. members will see that we retain the full rights of administration and legislation. There is no encroachment from them. The administration and legislation are merely subjected to the terms of the mandate of 17th December, 1920. There will be no alteration in the position; in other words, the railways will be controlled just as in the past. I want to make it quite clear that it is only provided that the terms of the mandate must be properly observed. I hope hon. members now understand the position.

This is a very simple little Bill, but what difference is it going to make to the present state of affairs ?

None whatever.

Then why introduce it?

We hold the railways in South West Africa under the mandate—we have no other title, and this Bill simply says the Governor-General, in whom the property is vested, is to hold the railways subject to the mandate. Under Act 20 of 1922 (section quoted) all receipts are put into the Railways and Harbours Fund of the Union. I should have thought that if we held that railway not under our full dominion, but under some sort of trust subject to the terms of the mandate these revenues would have been paid to a certain trust account. Are we going to bear any losses there may be on these railways? Is any loss to be defrayed by the Union?

We do so at the present time.

And do we keep separate accounts and books?

We do keep separate statistical accounts, as in regard to the branch lines.

We know it is almost impossible for the Minister to give statistics on the branch lines.

On the same basis.

Do you render any separate accounts to the mandate committee? What I really want to know from the Minister is whether, if this Bill becomes law, we are going to treat these railways any longer as a branch of the Union railways, as, for example, the line from Cape Town to Simonstown; and set up separate bookkeeping, so that we may be clear from time to time what losses have been sustained on the working of these railways or what profit is being got from them; so that any losses or profits could be carried to a separate fund, so that, in the event of these railways having to he handed over to another power or mandatory, it would be quite easy to furnish a statement of accounts to the successor. What I take it that the mandates committee means is that we do not own these railways in the same way as we own our railways; that they are not under full dominion, but subject to the mandate, but some day it is within the bounds of possibility we may have to account for our stewardship under the mandate and that they may possibly be handed over to somebody else. That, I take it, is why they want a change to be made. We all hope and believe that a change will not have to be made, but if a change has to be made we want to know whether we shall have to render an account and whether we shall be able to do so.

I should like to follow up what has been said by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). What prompts me to draw the attention of the Minister to the matter is that recently some of us must have noticed how the Permanent Mandates Commission has been extending its functions in criticizing the administration of South West Africa. It seems important that we should understand what is the effect of this declaration in this Bill. There must be some reason for it. The Minister says it leaves the position unchanged, but I doubt that. The Union has asserted, by what I believe a doubtful exercise of jurisdiction, the right to enact that the railways of South West Africa were vested in the Union. We know a great deal can be said for and against the right of the Union to legislate in South West Africa, but, apart from this, it is still more doubtful whether the appropriation of these railways by the mandate Act of 1922 was valid, having regard to the nature of a mandate. Apparently discussions have taken place between the Government and the Permanent Mandates Commission whereby the Government has been induced to introduce a Bill containing this formal declaration. It must bring about some modification of existing rights. I should not be surprised, following on the passage of this Bill, that the demand will be made that a reference thereto should be made in the titles to land held in South West Africa by the Railway Administration. Now, to come to the point made by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), that the Government stands in the position of trustee, it seems that once that is admitted it follows that the Administration can be called to account for the details of its administration. What I would like to know from the Minister is whether, by passing this Bill, he is going to recognize the right of the Mandates Commission and revise his railway budget for South West Africa. A large deficit occurred in the working of the railway system up to the end of March, 1922. I do not know what the figure was, but it was quite a considerable one. According to a further section of the Act of 1922, provision was made regarding the ownership of lines constructed with Union money in South West Africa. There might also be profits and losses in the working of these railways. Will it be possible for the Union at any future date to raise the question of the refund of moneys paid on capital account or any debit balance there may be on the working of these railways? As I read the declaration, notwithstanding what may have been spent in South West Africa on the construction and reconstruction of any lines there, the Union nakedly acknowledges by this Bill that all these assets are held solely under trusteeship without any consideration being taken of what may have been spent upon them. If it be true that a mistake was made in the Act of 1922, the expenditure of the Union upon this railway system would be that of a bona fide possessor. I think some statement should be made in this Bill which would prevent it from being construed at some future date as an acknowledgment that the Union can make no claim at all for a refund. I suggest to the Minister that there should be something in the Bill which would enable this country at some future date to assert its rights.

I do not propose to reply to all the questions put to me except to say with regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) that we are advised by the law advisers that the present legal position will not be changed in any way under this Bill. As I indicated in my opening statement, the position will remain exactly as it exists at the present time, and we will continue to deal with the railways and harbours in South West Africa as an integral portion of our railways and harbours system. A very important point has been submitted by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), namely, whether we are bearing the losses on that system. We do. He also asked me on what basis we are framing the accounts. The accounts are kept on the basis of our branch line statistics. That may not be a very satisfactory position, but surely my hon. friend does not suggest that we should deal with the accounts in connection with the harbours and railways in South West Africa as if they did not belong to the Union. For example, our trucks and coaches are freely used in South West Africa, but we do not raise any charges for such use.

Deal with it as a private line.

We are not dealing with the system as a private line. Hon. members will realize that if we were to deal with the South West African railways and harbours in such manner it would mean that with the present application of Union railway rates in South West Africa the loss upon that system would be very great. Our rates it must be remembered are very much lower than under the former German regime. It certainly might be considered whether the time has not come for as to treat the system there quite separately. I am not prepared to commit the Government on this point. It is a matter the Government will very carefully consider, but it is necessary to pass this Bill in order to meet the position raised by the Permanent Mandates Commission.

Will that satisfy the Mandates Commission ?

We are very hopeful that it will.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee to-morrow.