I hope the hon. Minister will set down the date of the second reading later

Is the hon. member really serious? This debate will last a long time.

We will carry a motion for this day six months. I am asking the Minister to agree to make the second reading a week later.

Second reading on 13th February.

I move—

This motion is practically nothing but a simple request to the Government to seriously consider a certain report which was made about three years ago by the Board of Trade and Industries, and to give effect to it as soon as possible. I refer to report 73 of 1926 entitled: “Business Practices and Public Regulation.” The reason for introducing this motion now is the fact that the civilized world is only now beginning to properly feel the calamitous economic effect of the world war. We know what has happened in other countries, such as the crises in America, and we now again read in the newspapers of the cause celibre which has taken place in England. We also, in South Africa, are only now feeling the calamitous economic results of the war, and that is why I have proposed this motion. Let me say that the direct cause for introducing the motion was that our farmers, especially recently, have got into very bad circumstances economically. I think, though I may be wrong, that the carrying out of the motion may be very useful and even necessary for them. We are all aware that in the matter of wheat transactions, e.g., things have taken place which have injured many people, and have created a position which may be calamitous to many farmers. We all know of farmers who have grown wheat with the greatest trouble and care, and when the harvest was ready, could hardly get a price for their wheat. A part of the wheat was spoilt by rust, or ruined by the drought, but they could not even get a price for the good wheat, because there is a ring of millers. There is not the least doubt that there is a ring which has brought down the prices to a calamitous level, and has thereby brought trouble on the people. In the latest report about the price of wheat issued by the Board of Trade and Industries— and we can believe every word of it because they are clever men who have deeply studied the subject—is a statement that the price of wheat is at present 24/6d. a bag. In the Transvaal another 2/4d. has to be added for transport, which makes it about 26/- to 27/-. What price do the Transvaal farmers get today? I am not talking about soft wheat, but about good, hard Transvaal wheat. They do not get more than 18/- at the most. I know of a case where a load of good wheat did not bring in more than 12/- a bag. I am sorry to use hard words, but it makes the impression of robbery on me. If a poor man steals he goes to gaol, but the rich man, or, still worse, the rich combination, which are possibly the cause of the ruin of many farmers, and practically remove the ground from under him, and make his future impossible, do not go to gaol, but drives about in a beautiful motor car and enjoys life. An end must come to this; that is why I have introduced the motion. There is still another example of how the producers are hit. I am sorry that the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nichol) is not now in his place because he would be able to confirm how the sugar planters in Zululand are in the clutches of the millers, and that the millers are practically squeezing them to death, and will then probably throw them aside I have figures here which I do not doubt the correctness of, showing that one sugar firm made a profit of £159,680. To that must be added, for writing down of value, £57,000, thus, in all, a profit of over £200,000 is what one sugar firm has made, and the economic position of the planter —the man who is the actual producer—is everything but satisfactory. As I have said, they are now exploited, and thrown overboard. Let me now quote a case where the consumer is sucked dry by a ring. Take petrol, of which the trade, as we know, is in the hands of various companies, but whatever kind we buy, whether Atlas or Shell or Pegasus, we pay 2/9d. for it in the Transvaal, while in America it costs about 5d. There is, of course, a duty on petrol, but in proportion it is only a small amount. There is therefore a strong combination also in the sale of petrol, and all must contribute to make the rich companies still richer. I notice from a European Newspaper that a meeting was held in Chicago where the petrol king, Sir Henry Deterding, made a speech. He said that they must organize, not only the sale, but also the production of petrol, i.e., bring it under the control of a trust as well. Hon. members must understand clearly that I am not opposed against trusts, and due organisation of the trade, not at all; I can imagine that the proposal of Sir Henry Deterding may have a very good effect. It may cause economy in the production and sale of petrol, but who gets the benefit? Is it only to go to the big combines, or is the public to share? I think all will agree that it ought to go to the public, but that in practice will not be the case. Hence my motion was necessary. I do not wish to quote further examples, but to refer hon. members to Report No. 73 of the Board of Trade and Industries, which I have quoted. They will find on page 13, et seg., no less than 35 cases of alleged abuse by combines. It is further added that the Board of. Trade and Industries had received many other complaints besides those mentioned. Are we to leave the public in the hands of the big combines, or are we called upon to ask the Government to introduce legislation as briefly indicated in my motion? I want again to repeat that my motion is not intended in a hostile way against trade organization. I could quote the Chairman of the Pretoria Chamber of Commerce to prove that he takes up the same attitude. I also want to point out that the able commercial correspondent of Die Burger has pointed out that the shopkeepers of Johannesburg have themselves formed an organization to defeat dishonest competition. My request amounts to this, that, as soon as possible, legislation should be introduced with this report of the Board of Trade as a guide. I do not mean that the report must be adopted in toto. It is four years since it was published and conditions have changed considerably in the meantime, but what the Board of Trade and Industries still abides by, and also I, myself, at least, is the statement on page 63 of the report as follows—

I hope that this principle will be the basis of the Bill which we are now looking for from the Minister of Mines and Industries. The Board of Trade even went further and suggested two Bills. One of them practically amounts to giving the Board of Trade and Industries more power to go and examine matters where there is some scent and further to be able to criticize it if something wrong is discovered. In other words, the Board wants more powers, and they think that by publicity the people will be frightened. I think that it does not go far enough, and I prefer another Bill, which they have suggested, which contains the following principles—

1. (1) all practices, activities, methods or devices of unfair competition in business, which are or are likely to be detrimental to or against the interest of the public;
2. (2) all practices, activites, methods or devices in undue or unreasonable restraint of trade which are, or are likely to be detrimental to or against the interest of the public.

and I should like the following provisions to be contained in such a Bill—

1. (1) Unfair competition in business detrimental to or against the interest of the public is unlawful.
2. (2) Any practice, activity, method or device in undue or unreasonable restraint of trade or otherwise injuring trade operating by way of “combine” as defined in this Act is unlawful.

Such a Bill will be useless if injurious practices or reprobatory methods are not declared illegal. It ought to give the Minister an opportunity of interfering immediately. I return once more to the wheat illustration. If the Minister at the time when the wheat ring and the millers’ ring commenced to operate in such a, I might say, dirty way, had had the power which I now propose to give him, he could have intervened, and, e.g., have prohibited the importation of wheat. Then the harm which has been done, and the terrible consequences to our producers would have been prevented. In the existing circumstances it could only be said that nothing could be done before Parliament met, and that the Government would then undoubtedly do something. Nor has our confidence in the Government been deceived because the Minister of Finance immediately on the first day of the Session, Tabled a motion for the purpose of effecting an improvement. The position ought, however, to be such that the Government has powers, as in the case of an offender, to grip any combination whatsoever by the neck, when he persists in them to the detriment of the country. Therefore I hope that the whole House will support the motion.

seconded.

I do not rise to oppose the motion. It is a good principle which was adopted by the old Cape Parliament on a similar motion introduced by the then member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). In this class of legislation it is not sufficient to be satisfied with an Act, but the question must also be asked whether it is practicable. We know that it is very difficult. The Minister of Mines and Industries knows the circumstances in connection with the case against the butchers in Cape Town. A case was brought against them under legislation similar to that now asked for. The hearing lasted for three to four months trying to prove that the people were guilty under the Act. I believe no less than 100 witnesses were examined, but subsequently it proved such a fiasco that—I think on the instructions of the Attorney-General— the whole matter was withdrawn. The costs were enormous, and it was practically impossible to reach a point under the law to carry it out in practice. The only good the Government can do is to prevent people, who by means of combine, operate uneconomically—I might almost say inhumanly—to the detriment of the country. I fear this Bill will not be much use in practice, but I do not oppose the principle.

The question before us is not a new one by any means but has been brought before the House on several occasions, usually during the budget debate. In 1928 the question was raised during the budget debate by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) and myself. I received a letter from the Board of Trade some time afterwards in which it was said that these matters of the rings—and there is hardly a commodity for which there is not a ring—had not missed the attention of the Minister and would be enquired into. This has a distinct bearing on the cost of living. I want to bring to the attention of the House the ring for coal. Previously to the Witwatersrand Coal Owners Association of 1923 having got the collieries into their hands household coal was sold at £1, but after the formation of that ring colliery after colliery was brought in and to-day you cannot purchase coal anywhere in the Transvaal except through the ring. Household coal immediately advanced to 25s. per ton. There had been no increase in the cost of production; in fact there had been a decrease, because through the period of the war, when wages and stores were high, the coal was still sold at 20s., but afterwards when there was a reduction in the costs, the cost of coal to the consumer was put up. The association denied everywhere that there was a coal ring, but said it was simply a selling agency. I have a mass of evidence of the ring’s existence. One municipality applied to a colliery for a quotation to supply them with coal for a year. The colliery referred them to the Coal Owners’ Association. They applied to the Coal Owners’ Association, and were referred to a selling agency, and that agency could charge what price they liked. In that town certain companies had been operating, but a ring was formed, and one man is paid £40 a month for five years to sit at home and do nothing, but must not engage in the coal business. A particular firm has the entire monopoly. This municipality wrote to another company with a similar result, showing that this coal ring is operating in restraint of legitimate trade. It has eliminated competition from the coal trade. I have a mass of correspondence from a merchant in Johannesburg. He wished to deal in coal, and he wrote to a colliery enclosing a cheque, and ordering a certain amount of coal. They sent back his cheque, and told him that if he required coal he would have to apply to the Coal Owners’ Association in Johannesburg. He applied to the Coal Owners’ Association, sending them his cheque, and they sent his cheque back, and told him he could get it from Messrs. So-and-so. Messrs. So-and-so can charge what price they like. There are other commodities in the sale of which competition has been crushed, which also have a distinct bearing on the cost of living, and it is time that the Minister took this matter into consideration. His predecessor told us he was keeping an eye on it, but we want the Minister to take his eye off it and put his foot on it. Various necessaries of life are being cornered, and this has a distinct bearing on the very high cost of living. The time has come when the Government should take such steps as will bring these rings under control.

What is the price of coal now ?

25s. per ton. One or two little collieries have recently started, and they are advertising coal at 18s. per ton. They are not in the ring, and they say so. Don’t worry; they will soon be in the ring. If they are not bought out they will be squeezed out. These rings are very powerful. Mr. Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, in a speech once raised the question “what shall we do with the trusts,” to which a prominent American writer replied, it is not a question of what are we going to do with the trusts, but what the trusts are going to do with us? They can control everything, and if we are not careful we shall be in the grip of the trusts in this country just as the people are in America.

I feel obliged to say a few words on this motion. If there ever was a time to ask the Government to intervene it is now. The farmer feels that they are in the clutches of trusts, cartels and combines. When a farmer, who grows apples, wants to squirt his fruit for the coddling moth he has to pay 2/6 a pound for the poisen, when he can get it from Capex for 1/- a pound, but they refuse to supply him and refer him to the local merchant, where he is charged 2/6d. a pound. We feel that this is an undesirable state of affairs, because we are exploited, When we want a spare part for a reaping machine the same thing happens. Take the case of wheat. Bread is just as dear now as it was when wheat was very expensive, and yet the farmer cannot get £1 a bag for good wheat, the townspeople are keen on buying a few bags of wheat from the farmer, but the millers will not grind it for them. They mill it for the farmer, but not for the towns man. The farmer feels that this is an unsound position. The same considerations apply to sugar. Take legal practice; take the attorneys along the coast; the Caledon Board controls all. All the attorneys are combined and I think that the leader of the opposition is the chairman of them. They all stand together and we farmers suffer in consequence. They will swallow us all if legislation is not passed.

What about farmers’ co-operative societies ?

A co-operative society is not meant to rob other people; they merely want fair prices for the producer and no outrageous profits. But what does Natal know about it? I do not know how it is to be done, but the Government must try and help in some way or other. The Board of Trade and Industries can be consulted.

I think the words which fell from the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) ought to have some weight with the House. It is all very well enacting laws, but the difficulty is to catch the criminal. Even the police complain that the public do not bring criminals to them. A case arose in Johanesburg recently where a man stabbed another man in the street. He was arrested, and admitted that he was guilty of assault with intent to commit grievous bodily harm, and the magistrate only fined him £5, which in the eyes of the public of Johannesburg, with whom I am in fairly close touch, seemed to be a miscarriage of justice. I asked the hon. the Minister if he would obtain the reasons of the presiding magistrate for the apparently small punishment meted out to the offender. The question I ask is a very mild one. The Minister told me he could not ask the magistrate what was in his mind in giving the decision he did. I am prevented by the reply of the hon. the Minister from stating that the punishment was unreasonable. The Minister states he could not ask the magistrate the reasons for his judgement. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) has led the House to believe that 25/- per ton is the price which the consumer has to pay. Now I am an ordinary consumer of coal and I can get it for 18/- per ton. The impression produced was that the price of 25/- was maintained by reason of the combines. We know that trusts exist and the public are fleeced and that the cost of living has increased, but you have to catch your thief. The motion does not go very far. It is merely a pious one. It says in effect that the time has arrived to legislate, therefore it is defective in that respect. It also contains these words—

Now what is meant by “censurable”? There are things that my hon. friend may consider censurable that are allowed by law. The hon. member, if he set out to prepare a Bill dealing with censurable methods, would have a very difficult task. Perhaps the House will let this measure go for what it is worth.

There does seem to be something in what the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has said, and also in what the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) has said. Members of this House, especially the young members, have a very touching faith in the efficacy of legislation. They say, in effect, “Let us pass a law, and having passed it, the law will achieve the rest.” From my experience over a period of 20 years, the mere passing of a law does not attain the end you are aiming at. But we have to do something. It is no use to sit down under this kind of oppression. You cannot allow the public to be bled as they are being bled in every direction. Well then, be logical. Hon. members say it is no use to pass a law, we have to catch the criminal. But we usually find the criminal is much cleverer than we are, and he is not very likely to be caught. If you cannot catch him he goes on with his criminalities. I say to the hon. members for Caledon and Von Brandis, he honourable. If you cannot cope with the difficulty, then do what you can. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister of Mines and Industries has to say; he is possessed of not only ability and cleverness, but also courage and integrity. I am going to appeal to him to do the right thing, and also to members of this House to do the right thing, not by passing a law such as that required by my hon. friend (Mr. Oost), but by state interference on behalf of its own citizens. That is the inevitable fact that emerges. I appeal to the intelligent members of this House. The people are its people and all sections of the community have to be protected in the only possible way. It is for the State to regard itself as an executive committee of the Government—a real co-operative society—I would like to remind the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) it must be a real co-operative society, comprising all sections of the community having as its executive the Government of the country itself to look after all their interests and to allow no one interest to subvert any other interest. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) is quite wrong.

As usual.

There are occasions when I have to realize that an hon. member is wrong. We are getting more gentle with one another; we are growing mellow with time.

Speak for yourself.

I am speaking for myself.

I would not dream of speaking for the hon. member. I say the hon. member is wrong. I also am a householder. No less than the hon. member for Germiston, I have had experience as to the price of coal. I do not question his! experience, but if this is the experience that he can get all the coal he wants j at 18 s. per ton, then he is very fortunate indeed. I venture to say that the quantity you can get at 18s. a ton is extremely limited. Hon. members may close their eyes to the fact. The fact nevertheless remains that these rings do exist, and they exist expressly to mislead the public in the interests of those who comprise the ring. If any coal-dealer dares to stand out against the coal ring, he is squeezed out of existence. The same thing applies to practically every commodity used in the Union of South Africa. Take foodstuffs. The hon. the Minister of Finance has a motion on the order paper asking the House to agree to an increased duty on imported wheat. I am not going to discuss this question now, but the very fact that he has put down the motion— and I maintain he has put it down quite wrongly—I shall have more to say about that when the proper time comes. But the fact that he has put that on is in itself an example of what we have to endure. On the one hand— and this is typical of all the prime producers in this country—you have the prime producer getting not sufficient for his goods and the products of the soil he is producing. On the other hand, you have the consumer, who is paying through the nose for it. I cite this as an example. I do not propose to traverse this motion at all on the question of the wheat duties. But you have in the press to-day statements which cannot be denied with truth that the prime producer of wheat—and remember there is always a shortfall of South African wheat—the prime producer getting something like twenty or twenty-one shillings for his wheat, and the consumer in Johannesburg having to pay 46s. a bag of 200 pounds for Boer meal. There is a tremendously wide gap between the 21s. paid to the producer of the article in its raw state, and 46s. by the consumer for the same article ground. It is true that there is some loss in the grinding, but that does not warrant that tremendous increase in the price from 21s. to 46s. You could go on multiplying examples like that all through the piece: In furtherance of the argument of the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) if the coal dealer were to set his face against the coal ring he would be closed down out of existence. Then what about the fish? The Government finances expeditions to increase the size and activity of our fishing grounds. I think the hon. Minister who will have to reply to this motion, is also in charge of that particular department. We send out ships to investigate the probabilities and possibilities of our shores, for what? In order that we might increase the fishing industry, because it is becoming more realized every day that fish is an excellent article of provender for the country. I recommend fish as a provender to hon. members of this House. What happens in the case of fish? Fish, like coal, is a remarkably close monopoly. It is in the hands of one ring in South Africa. One does not want to mention the name of a firm although one could do so, but it is remarkable not only that you have close monopolies controlling, incidentally, articles of food, or other requirements of the country, but you have some section of coterie that controls serves that are connected up with some other close preserve, and when you get to the finish you have some section of coterie that controlls the whole. This fishery in itself is part and parcel of the Imperial Cold Storage of this country, and I suggest to the Minister of Mines and Industries that he gives this matter his close attention. This cannot be denied: Let any fishmonger in South Africa dare to sell fish below the price at which he is told to sell it by the fish ring, and he is squeezed out of existence. They cannot destroy the source of his obtaining fish, but through the Imperial Cold Storage company they can stop his ice.

And the butchers too.

I shall come to the butchers later. They stop his ice, and as is well know to hon. members, an adequate supply of ice is an absolute necessity in a fish business. So they get it all through. The price is artificial, and the fishmonger dare not sell at a price at which he can get a reasonable profit, because they must keep the price up. We have had instances in South Africa where the controllers of fish supplies, or their representatives, have actually gone out to sea and dumped the overplus of fish in order to enable them to keep up the price. These are the things which the public of South Africa have got to know, and they should have their effects upon the minds of hon. members of this House. My hon. friend over there interjected a question about meat. I should like to ask any prime producer who happens to be producing wheat or cattle in this country, if there are any such hon. members sitting in this House, do they ever get what they consider to be a fair price for their meat? They do not. When they come to sum up the ultimate cost of production, of bringing an animal to the stage when it is turned into meat, and they realize the price they are getting for it, they must see that the game is not really worth the candle. On the other hand, the consumer has to pay through the nose for the meat he has to consume. Why is that? It is because you have a meat ring again, and again you have the Imperial Cold Storage. The thing in private hands is a little curse, but in the hands of the Government and used for the interests of the people of the country, it would be a blessing. The Imperial Cold Storage company say to the producer “That is the price for you,” whatever his produce may be, and to the consumer they say, “This is the price for you.” That has an effect, ultimately, upon the cost, a fixed effect upon the cost, and they are able to hold up both the prime producer on the one hand, and the consumer on the other.

Why don’t they make a profit

The Imperial Cold Storage company do make a profit. I should like to leave aside, for a moment, the main argument, and answer my hon. friend. I once had occasion to investigate the affairs of the Camps Bay Tramway company. There was a strike of their employees, and somehow or other—I do not know how—I got mixed up with it. It was part of my duty to investigate various matters. They were not making a profit, but they were holders of real estate to an enormous extent. Instead of showing a profit on their balance sheet, they were using the overplus in order to acquire for themselves large holdings of land and buildings, and in the ultimate result they would have tremendous profits. In the interim they have tremendous assets. All these concerns, though they may not be showing profits to their shareholders, those who control them are either millionaires or approach very closely to it. But whether they show a profit or not, they manage the business correctly the fact remains, and it requires some explanation, that the prime producer does not get enough for his goods, and the consumer has to pay inordinate prices for that portion that he gets. Where it is dissipated does not concern us for the moment, but the facts of the position remain. In all these big matters, like the food supplies of the people of the Union, the Government should regard itself as being in the position of father of the family, and they should look after the whole of the family and not a portion of it. They should be holding the scales evenly, as between the producer and the consumer, and preventing any dissipation and waste of time between the producer and the consumer, as it is possible to do. It is the business of the State, not so much to pass laws— although you require laws—but to protect the interests of all. Personally, I should only have one law, and that is to play the game to one another.

Confiscation.

Everything is being confiscated to-day, including the hard earned 3s. 6d. per day of the railway men and the results of the hard work of the farmer. I agree that there is a need for the motion. All I ask, however, is that the hon. members should be logical and if they set out to deal with trusts they should do it conclusively. Some years ago, when there was a slump in the price of wool, the then South African Party Government made advances through the banks to the farmers on the security of their wool. When the wool was sold the advances were repaid. Why should that system not he carried a little further? The Government should regard itself as the distributing agent for all the necessaries of life, but I do not want the Government to take away the attorney’s practice or the farmer’s land. The problem is not one merely of protection from the operations of trusts or of assisting farmers in the event of floods or droughts, but the problem is one of distribution, and of dealing with the people who have a grip on the necessaries of life as they pass from the producer to the consumer. On one occasion there was a debate in the House on the fact that eggs kept in cold storage went bad during the time of the seamen’s strike. A commission was appointed and found the deterioration of the eggs due to the condition of the cold stores, and the commission recommended the immediate construction of state cold stores. That recommendation was not made by me or the hon. member for Troyville (Mr. Kentridge) but by people who had no belief in what are described as our socialistic nostrums, but the force of circumstances compelled them to realize that it was time the State took a hand in the distribution of certain food stuffs. Unfortunately the Government, despite my efforts, did not see fit to put that recommendation into force. Hon. members may sneer at socialism as much as they like, but eventually they will be forced to realize that the State must assume control of the necessaries of life. In that way only shall we accomplish our end and abolish coal, fish, meat and millers’ rings, and every other ring operating against the interests of the people.

But for two instances of alleged exploitation having been mentioned I should not take part in the discussion. If there is as little truth in regard to the coal combine as there is in the suggestion that the sugar planters of Zululand are being crushed by the millers, then I think the gentleman who have made these allegations have been indulging in sensationalism. May I draw attention to a probable change of public opinion on the matters discussed this afternoon? It has always been a popular cry to condemn out of hand trusts and cartels a3 they exist in other countries, but there is a very extensive public opinion that, after all, the trust and cartel may be most useful and desirable institutions. It is quite probable that under the trust and cartel system there would be a cheaper breakfast table than there is at present. The motion does not merely aim at the restriction of the operations of cartels and trusts if they raise unduly the price of foodstuffs, but the motion condemns all trusts and cartels. I think the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) was justified in saying that if the motion is passed it must include co-operative societies, for they are trusts. The hon. gentleman on my left has very rightly said that if you start this legislation to make it effective you have to go right on to socialism. This experiment of socialism is going on in some parts of the world at present, but this country will be well-advised to wait a little longer to see whether it is going to prove successful, as my hon. friend suggests it is going to be. It is most extraordinary that the only company to which reference has been made this afternoon as one deserving of control is the Imperial Cold Storage company. I read recently in the newspapers that that particular company was not in a strong financial position at the present time. Does it not all point to the circumstances that all these combines and trusts are not necessarily the means of making colossal sums of money? The Minister of Finance will agree with me that you have legislative powers to-day under which it is possible to take action if you are satisfied that there is a combine in existence which has for its object either the restraint of trade or unduly to keep up the price of foodstuffs. I do hope the Minister is not going to accept the motion, or if he is going to do so, he must modify it to a very large extent. I for one cannot see my way to support the motion.

I do not wish to say much about this motion, but I think that it will be convenient if I mention a few thoughts. The speeches and pleas of all the honorable members who have taken part in the debate show that they realize that it is a very difficult subject to discuss. The matter has already been dealt with in Report No. 73 of the Board of Trade and Industries, where the whole problem is dealt with fully. As I have already said, it is a very comprehensive and difficult subject. But it is clear to me from the report—and I must say that I have not yet had an opportunity to make a full study of it, as I should have liked to do—that it will be a very good thing if hon. members will carefully study that report. Perhaps they have already done so. If not, then I should like to recommend them to do so. It will then be clear to them that although in certain cases there is dishonesty, because the Board has investigated cases, and proved that many complaints are well grounded, the evil is not so far reaching on the whole. One thing immediately becomes clear, viz., that we have to deal here with a very difficult matter to rectify by legislation. It is our experience, as well as that of other countries, that it is extremely difficult to rectify these evils by legislation. I do not want to say how matters can be controlled otherwise. In one respect I want to support the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). We can only organize against these big combines in the same way as they have organized against us. When we come to foodstuffs like wheat, meat, fish and other articles, to mention a few, then it seems to me not to be impossible to organize against the combines concerned when evils exist in connection with the sale of those articles. It is my personal opinion that the more restricted method of dealing with such trusts is to, ourselves, organize against them. In the Cape Province we have the Act of 1907, which gives the right to divisional councils and local bodies to apply that Act in their areas. In the meat trade that Act of 1907 has only been proclaimed in two divisions, viz., the Cape and Malmesbury. It has only been applied in two cases during the whole period of twenty-two years, and in all that time no one has yet been convicted under the Act, nor brought to account, although the provisions of the Act are very strong and provide for a fine and imprisonment for improper practices in trade. It seems to me that that Act is sufficient. I do not know what the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost) intends. I do not know whether he wants anything more in the Act. We can surely not provide for the shooting of these people it they are guilty of a contravention. That would possibly be the most effective way, But we shall have to be content with a heavy fine and imprisonment. We have the Act in the Cape and it is alleged that meat in this town is much too dear. I also think that it is dear when we remember what the farmer gets for it, but the Act of 1907 has never yet brought anyone to account. There are still further laws which are intended to combat this evil, but they also were equally ineffective. I think, however, that there are other means. If the farmer, on the one hand, is organized, and we are constantly advocating that they should organize properly, if they can be organized just as well as those people, and if the consumers, on the other hand, also organize, which they can do under our cooperative statutes, which give them the fullest opportunities for the purpose with the same advantages as are given to a farmers’ association, then we shall do a great deal to combat the evil complained of. It therefore appears to me that there are other methods beside that of legislation. We may pass legislation here against the trusts but it seems to me that the effective administration thereof will be very doubtful. We further find that under the Customs and Excise Act of 1925 the Board of Trade and Industries can advise the Government to penalize local industries by making them pay the minimum import duty if they demand too high prices for their produce, create a monopoly, or permit bad labour conditions. This legislation also has never yet been given effect to, although it has often occurred that the Board of Trade and Industries has called the attention of industries to this question. There is still other legislation in the Union, but not one of the Acts has ever been employed in an effective manner. During the recess I should like to give my further attention to this matter to see what steps can be taken to defeat the evils complained of, although I cannot see how we can go further than existing legislation. I should like to say a few words about fishing; I am very strongly opposed to throwing fish back into the sea, because we spend large amounts in fishery enquiries. It is certainly one of the things that must be tackled. The best way of acting in such cases is the way we have adopted hitherto. We have the matter investigated by the Board of Trade and Industries, and if we find that there is cause for complaint, then we warn the combine concerned that we will publish the matter if things are not remedied. I would like to tell the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) that I cannot accept any Bill which will allow him to get poison at a 1/- a lb. when the shopkeeper sells it at 2/6d. I think that the mover has done no harm with his motion. He has, in fact, done much good by bringing the matter before the House and calling attention to Report 75 of the Board of Trade. I know it is a very technical report but it is surely a good thing to call the attention of hon. members to it. I hope, however, that he will now withdraw the motion. It is very wide. One does not know precisely what is intended. I accept the fact that the hon. member only meant the few cases that he mentioned here. We shall not, however, obtain the best results by legislation. I hope, therefore, that he will withdraw the motion so that during the year we can see what other steps can be taken when it becomes necessary to interfere in these matters. Before I sit down I want to repeat that those who buy goods must organize, that would be the best. If the farmers organize and the consumers do not, then they will suffer.

I have listened attentively to the Minister’s explanation and I must say that I am fairly in agreement with him, but I have heard so many arguments from hon. members opposite—and especially from the left wing, if I may call it so—that I must say a few words. They all agree with the spirit of the motion, but at the same time criticize it severely. I do not exactly know what hon. members opposite want or mean, whether they are in sympathy with the motion, and want to assist the producers and consumers, or not. They are so vague in their criticism that I do not know where they stand. About the motion itself I must say that I represent one of the parts of the country where it is felt that we must assist the producers. That part, viz., the North West, can, with a certain justice, be called the meat market of the Union. It is absolutely impossible for those farmers in my district, owing to their financial position to keep proper control over their own property. They have no money, and require it to prosecute their business. Therefore I think that the mover of this motion, if he has done nothing else, has done much in originating the debate on the illegal trade practices in certain industries. Doubtless we must assist the people who cannot protect themselves, viz., the farmers who produce the articles, and by means of the only method, legislation. The Minister said that it is impossible to introduce a Bill in the matter, but I want to point out that it is possible to legislate to fix a definite profit, so that the seller cannot make more than a certain profit. Think, e.g., of the price of sheep; it is so low at present that we feel sorry for the people who have to give away their stock. What is the cause of it? Of course the middle man, and, in the case of the trust, the Imperial Cold Storage and other meat rings. The big profit goes into the pocket of the middle man, and I want strongly to urge the Government to appoint a committee to enquire the best way, in the circumstances, of helping the people who cannot help themselves. Take wheat. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has rightly indicated the great difference in price between the article as produced on the farm, and after it has been properly ground and manufactured into meal. The middle men have a monopoly in this case, and it is absolutely impossible for the less privileged man to protect himself. I know that it is very difficult to apply the existing law. It is very difficult to prosecute and bring to account a man who wants to trade wrongly, but in the report of the Board of Trade—which has already done much responsible and efficient work—it is also said that the way to protect the producer is to make the existing legislation stronger, so that it becomes impossible to get past it. The Board must, of course, look into the laws, and they have found that they are not severe enough. We cannot permit people who are struggling to produce the articles to be exploited for the benefit of certain trusts. I am therefore glad about the introduction of the motion. We saw recently that the whole meat trade was in the hands of a few people in this country. They were prosecuted, but got off, and to-day the position in the meat trade is worse than it was; in other words, the farmers’ stock is cheaper than ever before. What is the reason? Hon. members opposite who say they want to assist the farmer, critisize constructive proposals that are made.

You know better.

Yes, the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Buirski) lives in this town and therefore has no sympathy for the people in the drought stricken districts who are the backbone of the country. He is supported by capitalists, and we know that the capatilists do not sympathise with the poor man in the country districts. I hope the House will support the hon. member’s motion and that the Government will consider the possibility of doing something to assist the people, and to see that their produce is not sold for a mere song, especially as the position cannot be altered by them at all. I hope that hon. members opposite will not treat a matter of this nature so frivolously as they have hitherto done, but that they will be serious and will show that they want to assist the farmer. And when there is a motion, which will assist the farmer at all, I expect that they will not beat about the bush for political purposes. The matter is of great importance to the farmer and I hope the Government will give it its serious attention, and will take no notice of the remarks of certain hon. members opposite who have shown that they have no sympathy with the population of the country.

I must thank the House, all four sides of it, for the way in which they have received this motion. It shows that the House is prepared to give serious consideration to this serious matter. I have great confidence in the Minister. He is still young in office and full of fire and zeal. The only disappointment has been the hon. member for Durban (Stamford Hill) (Mr. Robinson) who dropped a brick and therefore has doubtless disappeared. He said that such a law should also be applied to cooperative societies. Apparently he has quite forgotten that co-operative societies already come under numbers of Acts. We want to put something on the statute book which is not yet there. The hon. member said something in favour of the sugar millers in Natal. I have information Supplied me by a planter. He gives figures and facts. I do not want to go fully into them, but just point out that he says that the sugar farmers are in Very serious danger Owing to the powers the sugar trust has.

Who is the writer of that letter ?

The letter was sent to me privately, and I do not wish to commit a breach of trust by mentioning the name publicly, but I am prepared to show the letter to the hon. member after the adjournment. I want to thank the leader of the opposition for the attitude he has taken up and would like to say that this motion, and what is intended thereby, is not only asked for by my constituency but by the largest part of the Transvaal population. That is why I am so glad that it is getting the attention of the House, and that the Minister is prepared to go into it very carefully during the recess. The Transvaal population, and I think that of South Africa as a whole, wish such steps to be taken to protect the public against injurious practices of certain business combines. I know that the Minister keeps his word and will take steps immediately the recess starts. He must know that there is legislation of this kind in practically the whole civilized world, just as in other dominions, England, Germany, Canada, America and even Columbia. It is true that the Cape Act did not appear to be adequate in Court, but that does not prevent our passing effective measures to get rid of the evil as soon as possible. I want therefore with the leave of the House to withdraw the motion, having full confidence in the Minister.

objected.

I move—

On the motion of Mr. Deane, debate adjourned; to be resumed on 31st January.