as chairman, brought up a special report of the Select Committee on the Subject of the Riotous Assemblies (Amendment) Bill, requesting leave to bring up an amended Riotous Assemblies (Amendment) Bill.

Leave granted accordingly.

When I began to address the House on the subject of this motion a fortnight ago, I explained there were two main classes of low-grade ore; first, ore which is slightly above the limit of payability, and which occurs in all mines, both rich and poor; secondly, there was ore which was just below the limit of payability, and which is not ordinarily mined, but of which large quantities are available on the Witwatersrand, both on producing and non-producing mines. I may in the first instance give some particulars as to the first class of low-grade ores in the producing mines, that is, ore slightly above the limit of payability. Every mine, however rich, has ore of this character, and it will perhaps be remembered by hon. members who visited the Witwatersrand, that they had seen on assay plans certain light areas which indicated where the reef was unpayable. Now I do not refer to the rich mines, but to the low-grade mines, so-called. There is no definition of low-grade mine; it is one that works with a low margin of profit. There are a couple of mines to-day which work at a loss. I will, for the purposes of my address, limit low-grade mines to such mines as have a profit of not more than 4s. a ton. I find that of the 32 mines on the Witwatersrand, and in the Heidelberg district, including the Sub-Nigel, there are two which operate at a loss; nine which operate at a profit of less than 2s. a ton, and six which operate at a profit of between 2s. and 4s. a ton. These figures relate to the year 1929, not to the present day; so that out of 32 mines, we have 17 on the Witwatersrand which may be considered as low-grade mines working at a profit of less than 4s. a ton. These mines crushed ore and extracted gold from 14,300,000 tons in 1929. Together they paid a dividend of £210,000, a comparatively negligible amount. Now the importance of low-grade mines to the State is almost as great as that of the rich mines. To illustrate this, I will give a few figures. It is calculated that on the average a mine on the Witwatersrand yields in direct and indirect revenue to the State a sum of 4s. 2d. per ton of ore. If we take an average mine which pays a dividend of 5s. per ton of ore crushed, we find that of the 4s. 2d., 1s. is due to the profits tax. Being a payable mine, it makes profits, and therefore pays 15 per cent. income tax, 1s. roughly, to the State. The sum of 3s. 2d. is indirect revenue derived partly from the mine and partly from sources of revenue which owe their existence to the fact that the mine is in existence. A large number of people throughout the country are dependent upon the markets of the Witwatersrand, and they sell goods to it, and in various ways their income is increased and they also pay taxes to the State, which indirectly are to be attributed to the existence of the mine. From this source 3s. 2d. per ton is derived. The 4s. 2d. is split up into the sum of 1s. as profit tax, and 3s. 2d. from other sources than the profit tax. Every mine furnishes the latter amount irrespective of whether it is a low-grade mine or a rich mine. It will be apparent at once, therefore, how important a low-grade mine is to the State, It pays three-quarters of the revenue yielded directly and indirectly by an average payable mine. In respect of the

replied to Question XV by Mr. S. D. de Wet (Col. 1060). Reply should read:

My attention has been drawn to rumours in the press alleging that certain South African fertilizer concerns are attempting to procure from Dutch manufacturers of superphosphates the sole right to supply such superphosphates to South African consumers, to the detriment of South African co-operative suppliers.

I am reliably informed that local producers, who have a capacity large enough to supply all the requirements of the Union, have nothing to do with this alleged move to “corner” the supplying of Dutch superphosphates to the farmers of the Union of South Africa.

Other large importers representing Dutch superphosphate manufacturers regard the rumour as being without foundation. The situation, therefore, does not call for any Government action.

The hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) speaks with a good deal of authority on the motion, but in looking around the House, I regret that he struck a note which would make one think that the bottom of the Rand has dropped out. I want to commend the hon. member for bringing forward the motion, But why does he worry us about the details of low-grade mines? If he had said that this big primary industry—which produces. £44,000,000 per annum, and in this time of slump it is the one thing we can depend on, and could look forward to in the future— demanded considerate treatment, I would have been with him whole-heartedly. But I do not agree with the hon. member in his dismal tone when dealing with the low-grade mines, giving the impression that the bottom has dropped out of the industry, and that the only thing we have left is in the vicinity of 4½ dwts. and under. I notice that the hon. member, when he brought forward his motion, put it in general terms, and it took me some time to find out what it meant. As the hon. member has pointed out, the object is two-fold; first of all, he wishes to deal with that class of ore which is 4½ dwts. or under, or low-grade mines providing a profit of not more than 4s. per ton; and, secondly, dealing with mines below the margin of payability, he holds that if the Government gave them a little assistance, they could be brought into payability. The hon. member has not been here before, but we have already had a select committee to enquire into this very question— on April 5th, 1918—presided over by the right hon. F. S. Malan, and there was Mr. J. X. Merriman, and a number of champions of the mining industry backed up the report. I want to refer the hon. member to Article III, which states that—

That is the crux of the whole matter. The hon. member knows that the policy of the Government has been to interfere as little as possible with the working of these mines, and if they did what the hon. member asks them to do, they would have to exercise supervision. I think the policy this Government has followed in the past is a sound one, and they are not prepared to interfere as to what should be a high-grade or a low-grade mine. It is laid down definitely as mining practice on the Rand that during its life a mine must work itself out. It would be fatal for the Government to hold out any encouragement that with the development of your mines we advise the spending of more money on their further development. It is a mining axiom that the less you have to spend on your mines the higher your profits will be, and if you are to put in your money to keep up low-grade ore that at some time may be worked, you are taking from the dividends of the shareholders. The select committee reported that this question was of such importance that they advised the Government to appoint a commission to go into the whole question of mining on the Witwatersrand. The commission reported on the 5th April, 1920, and the chairman was R. N. Kotze. The report laid down certain definite points in regard to the industry, and made certain recommendations. It dealt very extensively with the low-grade mines, and that is probably why my hon. friend put his motion in such general terms, so that it should also carry the low-grade mines which could be brought within the purview in the future. I join issue that many things we have not done we ought to do, and we have done things we ought not to. I think he would get a more attentive hearing if he had asked the House to review the mining position with a view, not so much to bring out unpayable ore, or deteriorate our stock on the Witwatersrand, but with a view to whether we could not double the production of our premier industry. The hon. member knows as well as I do that the outcrop was governed by what constituted the East Rand mines, which have never come to the Government yet, and said they could not get more ground to come out with. They are producing handsome dividends, and some phenomenal dividends as far as the gold mines are concerned. The factor determining the East Rand mines, in which the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) has rendered such valuable assistance, is limited by the question of native supply. The hon. member for Kimberley will probably be prepared to support more mines on the East Rand, provided he saw he would not be interfering with the work of his present mines on the fixed quota of the native labour supply. In all these years we have arrived at a factor of 200,000 natives per annum which is available, and try however hard we may, go north of latitude 22 degrees south, or absorb South African natives, we cannot go above that. I have it in mind that outside of the east Rand there are more east rands, that on the west Rand there is plenty of room for development, right down to Klerksdorp and at other places to which we can prove that the main reef expands. We are limited to-day not so much by governing groups of capital, as by the determining factor of labour. If the hon. member had moved to bring the Government into line for the increase of the gold output, if he had told us that we should ask the Government to return a portion of that £1,900,000 that we have taken from the state mines last year, he would have had my whole-hearted support. But he struck a note of pessimism when he told us he wants the House to go into the question of low-grade mines. Low-grade mines are finished, as far as we are concerned, and in generations to come, possibly when the ancients come and dig up those old sand-heaps, that will be the time to talk about low-grade mines. At the present time we should concentrate on the high-grade mines, and ask the Government to treat them liberally. The atmosphere is good, political influence has been withdrawn from the mining industry, and this Government should be very sympathetic, as far as the industry is concerned. I hope the hon. member will not persist in this motion, and if he will bring up a motion asking the Government to extend its patronage to the industry and to the whole of it on the Witwatersrand, I shall be wholeheartedly with him.

I regret very much the line which the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) has taken up, and I venture to think that when our ancestors come here and read his speech in Hansard, they will have something to say about it. The question of low-grade mines is not to be brushed aside by the old tag of native labour. The working of a low-grade mine, may I remind the hon. member for Vredefort, is something which hon. members may understand better, if terms are used with which they are more familiar—the terms of farming, instead of the terms of mining. You want to increase your output, and the hon. member wants to increase the output too, but what he wants to do is this. He says: “Let us concentrate our attention on the rich patches, and get a huge income for the present, and let the future take care of itself.” That is the economics underlying the hon. member’s speech. A more reckless and spendthrift policy was never enunciated, even in this House, and to advocate that is really enough to make our ancestors weep. Surely it stands to reason that it is only possible to get out of the soil what lies in it. If there are only so many tons of gold ore, you cannot get out more than that. What you want to do is to get out as much gold as you possibly can, but if the cost of getting out that gold exceeds the value of the gold, nobody is going to spend money in getting it out. The position is like that of the owner of a potato field, who has planted his field and reaped his crop, but the cost of planting and of gathering the crop and marketing it and paying his agents, exceeds the return. What we want to do is to recover that crop for the purpose of marketing. Gold is the crop of our Witwatersrand just as potatoes or wheat or mealies or milk is the crop of the farmer. You are limiting the amount of the crop, and the amount you can take to the market. You are limiting the amount you are able to derive from this asset when you raise the cost of working it beyond the economic limit. I quite agree that the question of the supply of labour is one of the problems of the industry, and the question of the supply of labour lies at the root of farming also. But are farmers going to let their barren lands go? Are they going to concentrate all their labour upon the rich ground? Not a farmer in the country would consent to such a policy. It is equally fallacious that we should extract only the rich veins of gold and let our poor ones rip. The hon. the mover pointed out that when you have extracted from your mines the richer veins, up to the limit of payability, there may be a large amount of lower grade ore left which, if once passed by, will never be recovered. We know that a good deal in the way of pickings may remain when the major operations of mining have been carried through, but there will still remain behind a vast amount of gold-hearing ore, which might have been won at the same time when the richer ore was extracted and taken to the mill.

How many tons of gold are there in sea-water ?

The question is an idle one. The problem the hon. mover has brought before us is a very near one and a very grave one. The character of the legislation which has been introduced to us during the past few weeks should give us reason to take the motion that is now introduced by the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) very seriously, and to regard it as extremely well-timed. Let me take, for instance, the agricultural Bills which have been introduced into this House. They have been introduced—sometimes it has been confessed, as in the case of the Witwatersrand—merely because the industrial end had been badly organized. Time had not been taken by the forelock, and measures had been sprung on the House suddenly. Arguments of that kind, however potent—as they sounded to me—should make us grateful that the question of low-grade ore has been so timely brought forward. We are afraid from cases like the New Kleinfontein mine, that, although there may be a remedy the task is to find the remedy. We should seriously consider all measures to enable as much as possible of this crop of gold-bearing contents of the Rand to be profitably mined to the advantage of the state. I do not understand the remarks of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) in questioning the importance of the gold mining industry to the country. This is not a question of a group of mines, but of a group of huge towns extending from Springs to Randfontein, dependent on the wages which are paid by and the goods which are carried for the purpose of supplying these mines on the Rand. All that would come to an end when this richer grade of ore has been mined out. Is it not, then, common sense that the life of the mines should be prolonged to the utmost extent? The suggestion of the hon. member for Vredefort is not that we should extend the life of the mines, but that we should denude them of their contents. The true value of the gold mining industry is in the money saved out of earnings for re investment. When you cut it short you are cutting short the continuance of the industry. It is necessary, therefore, to take measures, to see there is no disparity between the cost of production and cost of marketing; and applying that to the gold industry of the Witwatersrand, you have to reduce your mining cost to the lowest possible extent. The hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) carefully abstained from any particular remedy. He has asked the House to adopt a modest and prudent course; he has asked for an enquiry. The enquiry was held a short time ago, but it should now be reviewed and brought up to date. There has been a great-advance on the technical side of mining in recent years, and I welcome a suggestion to appoint a select committee to go into this matter with a view to taking measures that low-grade ore may be turned into a source of profitable exploitation to the immediate advantage of employment, increased purchases of South African products, and the extension of the life of the mines. Now, is that not prudent; is it not right? The hon. member for Vredefort said there was a commission held some time ago, and the only suggestion made there was that subsidies should be made by the state to the gold mining industry. I never heard any suggestion of that kind from the hon. member for Springs; so that this is a point which probably the hon. member for Vredefort had prepared beforehand in anticipation that the point would be raised. Unfortunately for him, the hon. member for Springs did not make the point, but still the hon. member for Vredefort could not resist the temptation to put it un and knock it down. With all respect to the hon. member, this does seem to show a certain amount of barrenness in his criticism of what the hon. member for Springs has said. The hon. member for Springs suggested a wide field along which enquiry might be made. Some suggestions may be found to be of no value, but, nevertheless, why not make them? We have been told before that if there had only been adequate consideration of a measure beforehand, how much evil might have been avoided. Is the case so clear that a lower grade of ore cannot be won than at present. Technical developments have been great, and have achieved striking results. There is no reason to despair of the future. The pessimism is not on our side, but on that of the hon. member for Vredefort, who thinks the case of the low-grade ores so desperate that he would close the door to all enquiries. We think there is a fruitful field, one which could be investigated with advantage to this country, and that a select committee should be appointed. I have the greatest respect for the hon. Minister of Mines, and an enquiry into its ways and means, its successes and failures, will, I hope, cause him much pleasure, and cause us, who depend on gold, very much profit. We should regard the mines, not as a milch cow which has got to be drained, and made the source of paying out, but as a vast field for development, a farm capable of infinite expansion and of yields much greater than at present. £1,000,000,000 worth of gold has been extracted, and 70 per cent. of this sum has been spent in this country. It is a staggering figure. No stone should be left unturned in order to secure something like that return for the years which lie before us. I submit there has been no room to suppose that the enquiry suggested by the mover of this motion will be other than fruitful in its results. I suggest a select committee would, perhaps, be better than a departmental enquiry. After all, it is, under democratic institutions, a very necessary thing that members of Parliament should be acquainted with the chief industries of the country. A select committee of this House going into the question of mining on the Rand, realizing its importance, mastering its technique to some extent, would be bound to have a beneficial effect on the legislation and the administration of this country. I hope the Minister will accept this motion, and I hope he will do it, not in the spirit of pessimism of the hon. member opposite, but in following the spirit of optimism which has assured that what has been done in the past may be done in the future, that where there has been advance, the doors of that advance are not yet closed, and there is every reason to suppose that by taking prudent measures they will continue again.

Those of us who have some acquaintance with the mining industry have a clear idea what this proposition means to-day. I consider the motion is of very great importance indeed, as it affects not only the mines concerned but practically the whole country. As has been pointed out, whether a mine is of low-grade ore or whether it is a rich-grade mine, the amount of money expended in the way of salaries and stores is practically the same, and therefore, it is of the utmost importance that every mine should be kept going as long as possible. If mines start to close down owing to working costs being too high, as there is a risk that they might do, that reduction of work will be felt right throughout the country, not only in the mines themselves, the subsidiary industries connected with mining, but also right throughout the length and breadth of South Africa. We remember at the time of the great strike, business throughout South Africa was practically paralyzed, and a similar thing will occur again on a smaller scale as mines close down. The mines, when they come to this House for sympathy and assistance are certainly under a great disadvantage inasmuch as they have been crying wolf” so long that hardly anybody believes what they say now. Ever since I have been in this country, over thirty years, those in charge of the mining companies and their newspapers have been predicting one catastrophe after another, but instead of the mining industry collapsing as predicted we find it goes on with record outputs month after month, and no one would be a bit surprised if in the following month one finds there has been even another record output. The hon. Minister’s predecessor introduced a Bill to insist upon a representative of the Government being appointed on each mining directorate. I am sorry that that Bill was not persisted in, for the simple reason that if it had been the general public would pay more attention to the statement of companies regarding their economic and industrial positions. It would have given the public more confidence in the reliability of statements regarding the real position of the mines. A mine really commences to close down when it stops developing and we have had instances on the Rand where mines for years have paid handsome dividends and then perhaps they have lost the Reef, and when they want to go in for further development they cannot do it because all their money has already been expended in dividends. In such a case it would be a good thing if we had somebody with a hand on the purse who said: “This is a good market move to pay these big dividends, but you must hold some money over in case you need it for extra development later on.” Experience proves that such advice would be very valuable indeed. We have had companies who have paid millions in dividends and later on having got into poor ground have required a lot of cash for development. They have appealed to the public for fresh capital, and have had difficulty in getting it, for a mine on the down-grade has little appeal to investors. Whether a mine is rich or poor it must not close down if it can be kept going, for certainly if a mine closes down the chances are that it will never reopen, because mining is not like an ordinary business. You cannot close down to-day and in two or three years’ time start afresh. Everyone who has studied the question knows that when a mine has been standing idle for some time, it costs a considerable amount of money to recondition it. If a big mine closes down for five or six years it may cost anything up to £500,000 to start again and as very few people will risk their money to do this, once a mine closes down that is generally the finish of it. In these circumstances, it "behoves the Government to do everything they can to lengthen the life of mines now on the boundary line of payability. It is very easy to express sympathy, but it is very difficult to say what practical means can be taken So far as we know, there have been very few changes in affairs since the Low Grade Mines Commission reported. In regard to assisting in the technical developments as has been suggested, we know that the mines are keeping abreast of them, themselves, and they do not want any advice from this House in regard to that matter. The question of a subsidy, I think, can be left out of account. The Low Grade Mines Commission decided against it for the reason, no doubt, that if we gave a subsidy to the low-grade mines, we would also have to give a subsidy to every unpayable business in the country. There are, however, a number of points with which I think we might profitably deal. I think it is necessary for us, if we are calling upon the Government to appoint a select committee, to mention a few details on which they might pin their attention and see that on those particular points the select committee is advised. With regard to direct taxation any relief given to the poor mines will have to be extended to the mines which are rich to-day, but will have their difficulties later. One question which might be discussed is that of pass fees. The pass fees on the Reef amount to £240,000 per year, I think this is one of the points with which the Government might deal. The pass fees were originally imposed in order to provide fees for running hospitals. That allocation was discontinued years ago and the pass fees went into general revenue. Here we have a case of £240,000 for pass fees which is altogether out of proportion to the cost of running the Native Affairs department to conduct the business. The Government should say: “Cannot we help the mines by reducing this amount by half.” Then there are claim licences. This is rather an important item especially to low-grade ore mines. It may cost a big mine from £8,000 to £9,000 a year to pay its claim licences. That is a substantial amount. There is a great anomaly in regard to claim licences in respect of prospecting licences, each of which costs 5s. a month. The prospecting licence is supposed to stop people from holding a lot of ground which they do not work. The anomaly is that as soon as they start working, the 5s. licence fee goes up to 20s. Even if the claims are worked out the licence fees have to be paid, and in the case of a big mine, these may amount to £8,000 or £9,000 a year. The Government gets half of these fees, but it should remit them as it did in the case of stand licences. This would be a very considerable help and the Government could bring pressure to bear on landowners who get the other half of the licence money and who have made a lot out of these licences. The next question is that of railway rates, which have frequently been discussed in the House. I think the figures which have been given to us on this point have been very misleading. The revenue from the transport of coal to the whole of the Rand last year came to £1,000,000 sterling, that sum including revenue derived for the conveyance of coal not only for the mines, but also for the power stations, for power, for electric light, power for trams, coal for domestic purposes and industries generally. Yet we are told by Dr. Frankel’s pamphlet that although the whole of the revenue for the carriage of coal to the Rand is £1,000,000 the annual profit made by the railways on coal supplied to the mines only is £510,000. In other words, the profit on carrying coal to the mines on these figures must be about 75 per cent. The carriage of coal to the mines was considered by the Low Grade Mines Commission, which pointed out that the traffic on payable lines was charged at a very high rate to make good the losses incurred on the running of non-payable branch lines, and it was contended that the general public should bear a share of these losses. This aspect of the question has been brought up time and again, but neither the present or past Minister of Railways would agree to the loss on branch lines being borne by the general revenue, and it was useless to further discuss this contention. There had been complaints, and with very good reason, that, although the Minister of Railways declares that the figures supplied by the mining companies regarding coal traffic and profits are not correct, he does not produce any figures himself. The absence of reliable figures gives rise to all kinds of criticism based on a want of knowledge. I would like to suggest to the hon. Minister of Mines that he should use his influence with the Minister of Railways to ascertain the correct financial position. If after that it were found that the railage charged on coal to the mines is fair then this would once and for all lay the complaints now constantly made by the mines, but if it be found that the charges are unreasonable then there would be no justification for maintaining them and they should be reduced. To keep low-grade mines running is very important, but I think what is of greater importance is the opening of new mines. As mines become unpayable, the Government is being asked to assist in carrying them on. In other words, the mining companies having taken the cream off the milk, the Government is now being given the skimmed milk. While I would like present mines to get help to carry on, I think it will be far better to assist in the opening up of new mines. Five years ago I proposed a motion asking the Minister to consider the advisability of opening up state mines. The Minister did not commit himself definitely, but he expressed the hope that more areas would be leased. In the interval, not a new mine has been leased although small pieces of ground have been taken over by existing companies to increase their working area. On the other hand, several mines have been closed down, and all the existing mines are five years nearer extinction. Has the Government any policy in this matter? The position roughly is this. During the last ten years, 15 mines have closed down and in 20 years time, it is certain that many of the existing mines, if not actually closed down, will have materially reduced their working operations. This would not be so serious if we had new mines being opened up, but there is no sign of these. It may be said that the Government’s terms for leases are not attractive, but that is contradicted by the very handsome profits made by the mines which the Government has already leased. Mining areas are not in demand because conditions on the Witwatersrand have altered entirely. In the early days the promoters of mining companies were more concerned in market manipulation and other methods than they are to-day. For instance, it was not unknown for the vendors of a mine to receive from £250,000 to £500,000 in cash or shares for merely handing over a piece of ground for which they might have given a span of oxen, or some such other paltry consideration, but to-day such a thing is not possible. To-day a deep level mine costs something like a £1,000,000 before it reaches the production stage. Share investments are no longer very attractive to the big mining houses, and much of the money which used to be invested in the Rand mines has been diverted to Mexico and Northern Rhodesia. Despite the fact that no new mines are being opened the Government has quite a considerable area of ground crying out for development which is very rich indeed, according to all the experts. Take the area adjoining the Springs mine, which is the only mine which paid an increased dividend in the past year and the Government’s share of the profits of this mine already amount to over £1,000,000. Meanwhile, mines are closing down and the Government remains dilatory. We want to know whether the Government will work the mines on its own account or otherwise. I am afraid we shall have to face the position of mines closing down and unemployment becoming general, and then there will be such a great outcry that people offering to develop a mine will obtain ground on their own terms. We might go in for state mining, or give state guarantee as was done in the case of the Iron and Steel Act. The late Sir J. B. Robinson offered to float a company on a five per cent. commission basis. I am sorry the Government did not accept the offer for we would now have had one new mine being developed. It may be said, “Where is the money to come from for state mines?” I would reply that the Government has done exceedingly well out of mining profits, and apart from the diamonds of Alexander Bay, £24,000,000 is our participation of profits from gold mines and the Premier Diamond mine. If the Government were to say, “We will devote our share of profits from mining companies to opening up new ones,” they could easily establish another six in the fashionable area near the Springs mines. The Government mining engineer, who is rather more optimistic than his predecessor, says that from the present mines it is estimated that from £400,000,000 to £500,000,000 worth of gold will be mined, and that the undeveloped areas are likely to produce £250,000,000. A definite decision of tile Government to have undeveloped areas worked is long overdue, and with the record output we are getting, the present mines will be worked out all the sooner. I would ask the Government to take action immediately. Although it may be said there is any amount of time, it must be remembered that if the Government were to start a new mine in one of these areas near Springs, it would take seven or eight years before it produced an ounce of gold. It is not like going into a shop and ordering a suit of clothes, which can be obtained without delay. The importance of opening new mines is that it is the only way to ensure the stabilization of mining, which is our one industry not influenced by drought or oversea competition. Any setback in the mining industry would quickly be reflected throughout the whole country. What is of importance is to start new mines. If the Government is not entirely wedded to the principle of private enterprise, and their action in regard to Alexander Bay shows they are not entirely hidebound in the matter, I would say, rather than hand over these rich areas to companies at their own price, the state should work them themselves. If this policy does not commend itself to the Government there is no alternative but to let private enterprise have its own way, but whatever action is taken it should be taken immediately for our gold deposits are valueless unless mined and for the stability and progress of South Africa our mineral wealth must be developed.

Almost from the very first day the gold mining industry has had its antagonists. There seems to have been, during all these years, an inborn enmity towards the mines and the mining industry, and the leaders have been looked upon as foreign adventurers—men who have come to this country to get rich quickly, and then get out as soon as they can. This antagonism still exists today. Last session a speech was made by an hon. gentleman who counts for something on the other side, which gave me to understand that if any country was to get any advantage out of the Mozambique Convention, it should be Mozambique. This policy of cutting off your nose to spite your face is lamentable, bet us see who are the people who have discovered and worked these mines. They are captains of industry who have risked their all, men of foresight and courage, men with the highest sense of civil and economic responsibility, upon whom depend the wages, welfare, happiness and destiny of tens of thousands of working men in this country. We should be proud of our industry, its history and the men who made that industry. It was only when the diamond mines of Kimberley and the gold mines of the Witwatersrand were discovered that this country discovered prosperity, and if they closed down that prosperity would also cease. The mines have put many millions into the coffers of the Government; as much as forty per cent. of the total revenue comes from the mines, and farming pays something like 1 per cent. If the mines are not treated with all the consideration possible, what would be the burden on farming and on other sections of the community? These leaders in the mining industry have not stopped there, but have gone further and have been leaders in industry and agriculture. It was a mining concern which established one of the greatest factories south of the equator—the explosives works at Somerset West. It was a mining concern which started fruit farming and put it on a scientific, payable export basis in the Western Province. It was a mining cencern which pioneered cattle, sheep and horse breeding, built new railways, and developed our coal mines. The cost of a plot of ground which was £25 40 years ago in Johannesburg is now £25,000, and land which once cost 2s. 6d. per acre is now worth £10. The country has flourished. They have gone as far north as Rhodesia, and further, mining has become a fine art, and requires most careful consideration, and careful nursing. The question of the low-grade mines is one of national importance. The native and the poor white questions are important, but that of the low-grade mines is equally as important. The mining industry has produced up to the present £1,000,000,000. Five mines of the central group have closed down, which is a serious state of affairs, and five are on the way to closing down. We should begin to think what the remedy should be, and what we should do to save the situation. The matter has been freely spoken of and written about, and a variety of suggestions have been made. It has been suggested that customs duties on mining material should be reduced. Reductions have been made on articles on which people can well afford to pay duty, such as carpets, gloves, antiques and electric stoves. If the Minister will concentrate on the mines, and give them the consideration they deserve, he will do better. There is also the question of mining leases, and native pass fees. But what I attach importance to is the fact that our greatest help should come from the Minister of Railways and Harbours. The Victoria Falls Power Company pays £17 14s. 2d. on 50 tons of coal costing £4 7s. 6d. Take the cost of the Witbank coal to the East Rand Proprietary Mine. That mine pays in railage £95,140 annually, and the Government makes a profit on the haulage of that coal of £58,194. What does that mine pay the shareholders? It has been in existence for I don’t know how many years, but for the last ten years the mine has paid one small dividend, and the Government has made over £58,000 on coal traffic. That was the profit last year. It is the Minister of Railways and Harbours that we have to look to for consideration in this matter. The mines, on the other hand, pay railage on their stores to the extent of £1,750,000 per annum. The railage on their coal is £472,000 per annum. This industry is the very life blood of the country, and should have every consideration. Perhaps it is not well known that of the £100,000,000 worth of gold extracted, £640,000,000 have been expended in this country, an average of £16,000,000 per annum. A quarter of a million Europeans, men, women and children, are dependent upon the gold mines, and 200,000 male natives are also dependent upon them. What do the railways make out of the gold mines? The gold mines consume 5,000 tons of coal a day, £1,000,000 worth per annum. They consume 800 tons of timber a day, and the railage on coal and timber amounts to about 60 per cent. of its value. The mines use machinery of the value of £1,500,000 per annum, and explosives of the value of £1,750,000. What does the farmer get out of the mines? Half-a-million bags of mealies per annum of the value of £369,000 are consumed. The farmer also sells to the mines 100,000 lbs. weight of meat a day and £60,000 worth of vegetables per annum. What does commerce make out of the mines? Four hundred tons of soap per annum, eight tons of candles a day, 2,200 bags of lime, and 17,000 pounds weight of beans a day; in all, South African produce £8,000,000 per annum, and imported £5,000,000 per annum. What is going to happen to this country if the mines close down? The country would go to rack and ruin, and our whole economic fabric would crumble. It is only on account of the existence of the mines that the country is able to keen its head above water. I realize there are difficulties, and I look to the Minister of Railways and Harbours for relief. I know that the Minister has his difficulties. His revenue is falling, and he has to contend with motor competition, and in the future with air competition. He has genuine demands for increased wages, and, on the other hand, demands for decreased tariffs. I contend that the railways have been the scapegoat of the Government of this country for many years. There have been unfair and unnecessary burdens placed on the railways. The loss on the South West railways is borne by our system. The Minister may tell me there is no loss on the South West African railways, but if the South West railways ran on their own wheels, they would certainly not be run at a profit. We are bearing the loss, they are sapping the energy of our railways. It is on that account the country is not giving the consideration to the mines which they deserve. There is another factor. Civilized labour is costing something like £600,000 per annum. Some say it is costing over £1,000,000, but let us take £600,000 per annum as the cost. The mines suffer. The Minister could put some of the best of these men on the land. You have 300,000 acres of land under water, crying out for occupation, and there is room for 12,000 settlers. Take the best of the men from the railway and put them on the land. How can you continue to give a man who comes from European stock 5/6 or 6/6 per day, when he has a wife and six children? How can he live? The Minister must take the best of those men and give them land which is under water, and in this way relieve the railways and in turn the mines. It does not follow that because there are all these men on the railways that they are efficient. I had the advantage of inspecting the Italian railways six years and 18 months ago. I found six years ago that the Italian railways employed 240,000 men. The railways were then run at a loss. To-day they are employing 180,000 men, and the railways are better run and run at a profit. The conveyance of farmers’ stock should not be a charge against the railway. At present farmers’ livestock is carried at 1.28 pence per truck mile. I think it should be cheaper. Rut we lose about £150,000 a year when we move it at this price, but by all means let us do it; let it be a charge on general revenue. The railways also are over-capitalized. In 1928 there were 70 branch lines, 10 of them operating at a profit, 32 paid working expenses, and 28 did not cover expenses. That is another very serious question. The railways to-day are paying interest on capital contributed from railway revenue; they are actually paying a double charge. Also there are contributions towards the reduction of interest-bearing capital. These over-contributions from railway revenue are not only a strain upon our railways and an unsound principle in times of economic depression, but have a severe adverse effect upon the mines.

The hon. member cannot go so closely into these matters.

I am pointing out the various factors in regard to the railways, which, at present, operate against the mines. I want to ask the Minister of Railways if he can remedy these matters? If this were done, it would mean a reduction of railway rates so far as mines are concerned of 10 to 15 per cent. At present, we are heading for a national calamity. I wonder if the Minister of Mines and Industries will use his influence with the Minister of Railways and Harbours in order that we may no longer pursue a policy of fiddling while Rome is burning.

I regret that the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Humphreys) should have struck a discordant note in his remarks. When we have to deal with a great national industry like gold mining, I do not think there should be any talk about political antagonism.

On a point of explanation, I think I was clear on that point. I said it was not political antagonism; I am sorry the hon. the Minister has misunderstood me.

I quite understood the hon. member did not mean what he said as to political antagonism. I think most of us at this stage have got past the use of such remarks. The mining industry is one of the biggest industries of the Union; speaking for members on this side of the House, I am prepared to admit that the mining industry is one of the most important factors of our economic life in South Africa. It is an industry which, up to the present, has produced £1,000,000,000 worth of gold, and more than half this sum has been distributed in the Union. It is an industry which demands our constant attention, like farming or any other very large industry. It is, moreover, an industry which has the attention of the Government. It produced last year over £42,000,000 worth of gold. It paid £14,500,000 in wages and salaries in the Union; £10,000,000 for stores and manufactures— mostly South African—it yielded £3,000,000 in revenue to the exchequer; £4,500,000 to the railways. So that when we deal with the mining industry, let it be understood we recognize it is an important one, which demands our serious consideration from time to time. I rather deprecate the opening remarks of the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Humphreys). I forgive him because apparently he burned some midnight oil over that speech in anticipation of an attitude of this House which did not eventuate. I admit what was said by the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) and by the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard). There are serious questions connected with the industry which demand the attention of the Government and members of this House. The hon. member has mentioned some of the difficulties which beset the industry. There is no industry in the Union which has no difficulties. The farming industry produces more (than double what is produced by the gold mining industry; but, although it employs a large number of people, and has a huge expenditure, it also has its difficulties, and we pay attention to them and endeavour to alleviate them as far as we can. I listened very carefully to what the hon. member had to suggest, and I must admit I did not get much enlightenment. When I deal with the mining industry, I am, of course, not so closely acquainted with its inner details as the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé); nor have I the intimate knowledge of the industry which, as a mining engineer, the hon. member has. But this is, perhaps, not a disadvantage, because I am able to view the position with an open mind. The few points mentioned by the hon. member seemed to me to resolve themselves into some recognition on the part of the Government as to the manner in which they exact revenue from the mining industry. He gave us some figures to show what the revenue was that we obtained from the mines per ton, and how much the Government could afford to remit and still keep the industry going. Well, that is a statement that I heard in this House, I would almost say, many years ago, but I have not yet found that any treasurer has been willing to remit any taxation. Of course, it is very difficult for this Government, or for any other Government, to remit taxation to one mine and not to another. It is a very difficult matter, an impossible matter, for the Government to remit income taxation to the farmers in the drought areas when it does not do so to the farmers in other areas. Unfortunately, it is not possible for us to differentiate in our taxation. That cannot be done. Well, this matter has already been investigated, as has been pointed out this afternoon, by a select committee, and the recommendation that was made in 1918 or 1919 was that some allowance should be made on the part of the Government by way of taxation. That shows to me the futility of a select committee investigating this matter and making recommendations. The select committee which sat and made that recommendation finds that it still remains on the paper; many of us may have forgotten that such a recommendation was made. I do not think that we are going to achieve very much by recommendations to the Government to remit taxation over and above what is already on our statute book, and what is already, by way of statute, being remitted. I refer, for instance, to all claim licence monies, and matters of that sort. Now, with regard to railway rates. I do not know that a select committee would bring us very much further. That is a matter which should be put before the Railway Administration. There is also the question of coal rates. That also has been considered, and I have tried to ascertain from the hon. member whether there were any other matters which could yet be investigated by a select committee of this House. But beyond a remission of taxation, beyond a reduction of railway rates to the mines, I have not heard any other suggestions. What a select committee is going to do to assist us in that direction and other directions in which assistance can be given, I cannot for the life of me see. No, I was hoping that the hon. member, with his intimate knowledge of mining, would have been able to give us some other directions in which the life of our mines would be prolonged, in which we could extract more ore than we do at present. I must admit that I did not get it. There is no doubt about it that our mines, or rather the whole mining industry, is a subject, and can be a subject, and should be a subject of constant and close, scientific investigation. I think if we can, by scientific methods, reduce our working costs, and in this manner obtain more ore from the mines, we shall be going a long way. I am prepared to admit that in the working of our mines we have almost reached the last word in efficiency, yet I think there are other avenues which could be explored for the more scientific and better working of the mines. I know that I am talking to scientific men when I say that. But I was very much struck when reading the “Round Table” a little while ago on the question of coal, coal mining in Great Britain and also in Germany, I came across this—

The same hours of working?

The same hours of working. I do not suggest for a moment it is possible to do anything of that description. I am prepared to admit that our mines may be much more highly equipped and more scientifically worked than the mines over there, but this is a matter which no select committee can investigate, but which, I hope, only highly technical men can investigate. I know also that the mines are constantly keeping their eye on better methods. They have practically their own school for determining new methods of mining and the working of the mines. I know all that. But there are other ways. I do not like to suggest too much, but there are other ways by which the mines, say, by a process of amalgamation, can reduce their working costs. I feel, however, that if, in a matter of this nature, the Government itself pursues its investigations, if the mines in conjunction with the Mining Department can pursue investigations in the direction of greater efficiency and better equipment, I think it may be possible that, in that manner, we can reduce our working costs. I feel with the mines and the mining industry that some step or other should be taken to reduce working costs in order that a greater percentage of low-grade ore may be worked. But my objection to the suggestions made this afternoon is, from what I can see, that the demand is made almost entirely upon the Government by the remission of taxation, the reduction of railway rates, and the reduction of coal rates. Well, you can get to such a stage that in the end you will ask the railways to transport the coal free of cost. I am afraid we are not going to achieve very much by having a select committee to enquire into the points which have been raised during the debate. I am perfectly willing to assist if I can see a reasonable prospect of the House discovering some line which has not been previously investigated, in order to achieve the object which the hon. member has in view. Then I should be absolutely with the House; even now, if the House thinks that a select committee might usefully—although I cannot see it—explore the position, I am prepared to leave the appointment of such a committee to hon. members. But whether a select committee is appointed or not, I have asked the Mines Department to use every means in its power to explore the position from time to time, in order that we may work as much of that low-grade ore as possible. There is a vast amount of this low-grade ore—the figures the hon. member gave are correct—but there must be a limit below which it is impossible for us to extract gold from low-grade ore from an economic point of view. Whether we have reached that limit or not, I cannot say this afternoon, nor do I think a select committee would be able to decide that point. Perhaps the hon. member, as a mining engineer, may be able to tell us. The Low-grade Mines Commission dealt with native labour, taxation and coal rates, so, if we cannot see the likelihood of something new arising, is it worth while to have a select committee on the same lines as before? I do not wish to oppose the motion, but I do not see that it can result in any good, so I would ask the House to hesitate before going to the trouble and expense of appointing a committee to investigate a matter which has been investigated over and over again. However, II will leave the matter to the House.

What is the alternative?

That my department will investigate the matter from the technical side, for this is a technical matter.

I am glad that the Minister has not yet made up his mind on this question, because it is not a question on which the Government ought to return a negative answer. It is a matter of very great importance indeed, and, although it is a fact that it was investigated by a select committee, that was 12 years ago, and during the last 12 years the problem of the low-grade mine has become a very much more serious one. Indeed, it is on the road to become one of the greatest problems of this country. In the next few years the position of the low-grade mines may become one of our greatest economic problems. It is no answer to say that we bad a select committee 12 years ago. The situation has developed considerably since then, and the least we can do is to bring our facts up to date. The hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) has argued the matter on calculations made in 1922.

When there was a gold premium.

The least public opinion requires for its guidance is to find out what the position is to-day, and what are the considerations governing the position to-day. Many of the mines are petering out and closing down, and when that happens we leave behind millions of tons of ore that will never be worked, and the damage done to the industry is irretrievable. The House, in the interests of the country, ought to have an enquiry. From the point of view of state finance, the economic importance to the country in having a large market on the Rand and the support of a big population, there is no industry in this country which is of such a concentrated force as the mining industry. Yet we see it is in a position to-day requiring the most careful consideration by the Government. I am sure the industry is doing its best to improve its methods. Technical apparatus has been in a continuous process of improvement, but we cannot wash our hands of all responsibility. I do not think we in the public interest and with the responsibility resting on us as a Parliament, ought to wash our hands and leave the responsibility on the mining industry. Nor is it a fair and full answer to say that the matter must be left to the technical officers of the Mines Department, which is putting an onus on them which they should not bear. They can advise and give expert information, but we should bear our share in the matter, and do our best to realize for ourselves the importance of the question, and see what can be done to overcome the difficulties. To my mind, it is clear, and I would urge the Minister very strongly to accept this request made by my hon. friend for the appointment of a select committee. By this you would get the evidence of the experts of the Mines Department and of the mining industry. Let us see what the facts are, and what should be done by the mining industry and by the Government. It may be the recommendations are difficult or impossible to carry out, but let us know where we are in this thing. If ever an important matter came before us, this is such a matter. I do not think the people of this country realize the economic importance of the mining industry to this country-important to our state finances, our markets—and they do not realize its fundamental importance to the whole economic structure of the country. Do not let us say that nothing can be done. I assure my hon. friend, as things are to-day in the mining industry, we should not say that.

The mines have not asked us.

The mines may have many reasons for not pressing this matter, but to us it is one of very great importance. I would rather see money put into the low-grade mines of the Rand than to see it put into exploring other areas. There has been a tendency, as the Minister knows, for a good deal of our capital to go abroad, and many people who were interested in mining in years gone by have been quietly pulling out, and started elsewhere. That should not be so. We have an enormous asset, which it is our most solemn duty to protect, and do not let us leave this matter to the mining industry. Let us do it— it is our duty. I notice a paragraph of the report of the last select committee of 12 years ago, which was read, and in which it was stated that any action of the Government might lead to a great deal of interference in the mining industry. Ideas have changed very much since then. I know what our old friend, Mr. J. X. Merriman, said. He was a Liberal of the strict old school, who was against the state interfering in industry in any degree whatever. We have moved on since the last 12 years, and learned that the state must bear its share in these big responsibilities, and certainly a report which would have been made quite readily 12 years ago would not be so easily endorsed by the men of the temperament of this Parliament to-day. The mining industry, to some extent, is a state industry. The very first article of our gold law declares it a state industry, and, therefore, we cannot wash our hands of this. We must explore avenues to keep this industry going. There is the whole population of the Witwatersrand dependent upon it, and beyond the Witwatersrand, we have an enormous number of farms who find it their market. We have every necessity to keep this industry going. We have, to-day, this most unusual state of affairs, that a large number of mines on the Witwatersrand have worked for years without paying dividends. Millions have been sunk in those mines, arid the people who have put their money in them have not got one penny dividend, and yet those mines, which are no good to their owners, are of benefit to the country, because they give much employment, pay a large turnover, and help to create an enormous market for our farmers. I would like to see the select committee and my hon. friend (Sir Robert Kotzé) on it, who has a life-long experience of this industry, and has not now gone into the details of what should be done, but no doubt he must have made up his mind on the question when he bore the great responsibility of chief technical officer of the Government. There are other hon. members who could also bring their minds to bear on this question. The difficulties in the way may be great. One difficulty is: there is a shortage of native labour for working the mines, even on the present basis, but we will have that difficulty always with us, and it has been continuously overcome. The improvement in technique on the mines has alleviated the drawbacks and the difficulties of the situation, and that will continue to happen, The difficulty of native labour will be a continuous spur on the mines to improve their methods. It is quite possible, when the mines and the state join hands and help each other, it may be very necessary in the interests of the country in the very near future to work lower grade ore than we have worked hitherto. We do not know what is going to happen in a certain number of mines, which are petering out in the next few years. What other industries are there to turn to? The number of industries is naturally limited by the small market we have—we have less than 2,000,000 white people, and a larger number of native people, who, however, are not great consumers. Therefore, we should do our best to keep the great primary industry going, and see that a large population should continue to be employed. There is sufficient expert talent in this House, and sufficient width of view for the House to make a contribution to the solution of this question. In the next five years the question of the low-grade mines is going to be more important than it was in the past, and we should prepare the field, make proper enquiries, and not argue in the dark. I will not be discouraged by previous failures from making another attempt. I think the question is becoming daily more urgent and important.

My hon. friend was perfectly clear in what he said. He could see no use in Parliament going to the expense and the trouble of appointing a select committee from which there could be no outcome, but he was prepared to leave it to the House. This matter is a very old friend of ours. There are some diseases like anno domini for which there is no cure. I do not wish to be pessimistic, but we, all of us, know that from the inception of any given mine the time must come when the ore which can be profitably worked will have been worked, and that the ore is irreplaceable. On the Witwatersrand I do not think you have any mine which you can call throughout a high-grade mine. There are gradations in the value of ore throughout a mine until gradually the ore is no longer worth mining. Hon. members spoke of some relief being given by the railways. Besides the low-grade mines there is an enormous amount of low-grade ore in mines which are not classed as low-grade mines. Supposing you gave a reduction of rates, who is going to keep watch in order to see that a particular stope is low grade, and that particular stope is not below the limit? That sort of suggestion of really subsidizing a mine, in the vain hope that you are going to keep it alive always, would be pursuing something that cannot be done. The only security we have in connection with the possibility of keeping mines alive is the continual improvement of method, the continual attempt by better layout to continue to work lower grade ore. I think the hon. the mover will remember the Vogelstruis Deep, the Roodepoort Deep, and many another mine in this connection. The ultimate fact is that if there is not a sufficient number of grains or dwts. of gold a mine cannot be profitably worked. That has been the history of every goldfield. Hon. members know the steps that were taken in connection with the Kalgoorlie Fields. These difficulties have often been spoken of here as being due to labour demands. The hon. the mover would be interested to read the report of Mr. Kingsley Thomas, who used to be the consulting engineer of Barnato Bros., who went to Kalgoorlie to enquire into the question of the mines there. According to Mr. Thomas, their troubles were due to managerial difficulties and to lack of skilful organization. You have certain basic facts. You cannot subsidize a mine. I do not think anyone suggests that we should dish out money from the public treasury to keep a mine operating where there is no hope of making any profit. Are we to refer the matter to select committee to provide reasons why the public treasury should be drawn upon to keep mines in operation which cannot possibly pay the expenses of extraction of ore? When any hon. member asks for an enquiry he usually supports his request by giving some definite method, which, in his opinion, will lead to certain beneficial results. In this case no fruitful suggestion for exploration was made. Long ago there was a proposal to extract the silver from sea-water on the coast of Britain, and if we could extract silver from sea-water around our shores, it would no doubt increase our prosperity. Should we appoint a select committee to enquire into the possibility of extracting silver and gold from sea-water? I personally have no objection to any amount of enquiries, but an enquiry such as this will simply hold out hopes that the impossible can be done, instead of impressing upon those concerned that the only way in which a lower grade of ore can be mined successfully is to achieve greater skill in more efficient organization and more brains and skill in extraction. These are the only considerations which are practical, and no enquiry can alter this fact.

[inaudible].

Those interested are much more likely to make progress along these lines, than if they think that some magic road can be discovered by a select committee by which low-grade ore can be made payable.

I much regret the tone of the hon. Minister’s speech. I have for years held similar views, but, unlike the Minister, I have always been prepared to consider the world development which is going on in order to determine whether an idea which was once right in its application, is right still. The Minister should take into account changing conditions; but he has made up his mind that because an enquiry held twelve years ago was not helpful, no enquiry can serve to obtain any useful information. The position to-day is that many ideas held—especially before the war—are no longer held to-day. I remember that people used to believe that there could never be any interference with industry on the part of the state. To-day we do not believe it. Everything had to be done by unfettered private competition. To-day, that has come to an end, and some of the greatest industrialists advocate rationalization. A few years ago the Liberal party in England issued a yellow book in which it was said the time had arrived when the differences between private enterprise and public enterprise were not very great. In the light of this change of ideas, I think the Government should welcome an enquiry, in the hope that something helpful may eventuate. Whatever may have been our views, as regards the mining industry, so long as the world is using gold as a medium of exchange and to control business arrangements, so long as we are in a position to supply that gold and be paid for it, and can use the money for the development of South Africa, it is important to extract every ounce of gold possible, subject, always, to safeguards in the interests of those engaged in the industry. The Minister says it is better to leave the whole question to the industry. He will surely not welcome the industry taking advantage of his permission to do whatever it liked. There must be an enquiry as to whether, by general co-operation, some methods may be devised by which low-grade ores can become payable. The Minister has mentioned subsidy. When we impose a tariff on industry, is not that a subsidy? We are merely protecting the industry at the expense of the community. But it always reacts to the advantage of the community in the long run. This is the case in the wheat industry, and the same thing happens in almost any agricultural or secondary industry if we subsidize them. The select committee might consider the question of a greater supply of native labour. I agree with the Minister—although his analogy about extracting gold from seawater is absurd—that no subsidy can be given where the amount of the subsidy exceeds the yield of the product. But so long as the revenue from the industry exceeds the subsidy, so long is it good business to see that every ounce of gold should be extracted and the money used for the general benefit of the state. The men on the mines themselves are concerned as to the disastrous possibilities of the low-grade mines being closed down. They will welcome whatever can be done along these lines. The attitude of the Minister that he holds an opinion, and will stick to it in spite of world development and the advance of technical knowledge, is an unreasonable one.

As the Minister has stated that the Government leaves it to the House to decide whether an enquiry shall be instituted, I want to speak in favour of an enquiry. The mines are carried on in the interest of the whole country and its people, and not only in the interests of the mine-owners and shareholders. We have two large industries in the Union, agriculture and mining. Those who have worked for years in the mines know more or less the way the mines work, but we admit that we do not know so much about it as mining engineers like, e.g., the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé). I am very sorry that the matter was not investigated before at the time when the shallow mines were still working. There are thousands of tons of low-grade ore in those mines, but, unfortunately, the mines have been filled up and the machinery removed. To open and develop them again would cost thousands of pounds. There are, however, 35 or 37 mines that are still working, and if schemes are prepared to lengthen the lives of those mines, it would be of great value to the country. I am not exactly in favour of a Government subsidy to keep those mines working, because every member in the House will understand that they can only go on for a time, but not for long. Why not? Because they will, of course, work ore for less than the cost of production. The mines have greatly improved during the last thirty years; they not only use better machinery, but better methods have been discovered to develop the mines more cheaply, and if we appoint a committee of experts who may possibly make recommendations to the House and the Government indicating the way how the mines that are still working can develop ore of low grade, and make it pay, then, in my opinion, we ought to appoint such a committee. I am not only in favour of extending the life of the existing mines, but also to make an attempt to develop the ore in the areas that are still unworked. If this can be done, there will be much work for a large number of unemployed in the country, and, therefore, I favour it. As I said in starting, this is not only in the interests of the owner and the shareholder, but of the whole country, and of every man, whether he is a farmer, or trader, or what not. If the mines of Johannesburg fail and close down, we can realize what the position of our country will be. Not only shall we lose the Johannesburg market, but the thousands of people who lived there, and the business places will also be ruined. Therefore, in my opinion, it is the duty of the Government to enquire what can be done to prolong the life of the mines. To-day, there are thousands of people sitting with folded hands who do not know what to do, because they can get no work. I am in favour of the large number of reefs that there still are being developed. In the first place, we need capital for it. Things no longer are as in the old days when a mine was started with £500,000 or even less; to-day £1,000,000 is required to sink a shaft to the deep level ore. In the first place, we must, therefore, try to find capital for the development of new reefs. The difficulty of getting native labour has been complained of. About 35 to 37 mines are working at present, and there are complaints from time to time that they cannot get enough labour. I remain, however, by what I said last year. There is enough labour in the country, but what is needed is proper organization. I pointed out last year that the mines introduce 80,000 natives annually from Portuguese East Africa. We have insufficient people to work on our farms, and yet there are many white people in the country whom the Government has to keep alive by money payments. On the one hand there is not enough labour, and on the other there are thousands of white people who cannot get work. I maintain that organization alone can bring about a change. Enquiry is needed. If reorganization takes place, there will be many workers required, but we have them at hand. This is an important matter to the whole of South Africa, and every section of the people. I think the Government ought to decide to appoint a committee of capable men who can go into the matter, make enquiry, and report to this House. It is in the interests of everybody and the whole of the Witwatersrand.

I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Mines and Industries, when he has time to listen to me, on the broadminded view he has taken of this motion, and his decision to take the sense of the House as to its fate. I think he is quite right in that. Undoubtedly, it is a motion of such far-reaching importance that it should only be decided on the broad-minded views that the Minister has given utterance to. In other respects, I regret I am unable to congratulate him on his speech. To begin with, I listened very carefully to the remarks of the hon. member who moved this motion, and I did not hear a single suggestion from him as to the meaning by which the present position and the future position of the mining industry might perhaps be improved. The Minister’s speech in the main was devoted to disproving certain imaginary suggestions made, such as the subsidy and the remission of taxation. I do not know where the hon. the Minister got those ideas from. The motion is couched in very wide terms, so if the committee can make any practical suggestion it will be at liberty to do so. The Minister’s experience of raining is not very great. A few months ago he said he had never been down a mine, but perhaps he has since remedied that defct. He will derive a great deal of information from the evidence given before a select committee. It is curious that all great reforms come from outside. One hundred and fifty years ago there were 130 or more offences for which people could be sentenced to death in England, but with the advance in civilization that number was reduced to three or four; but this reform was due not to the judges, who strongly objected, but to the general public. It is the same in the domains of religion and education. Generally, it is the public that brings pressure to bear for the carrying out of reforms. I do not think we shall get the best results from a departmental enquiry. I have no doubt that the heads of the mining industry do their best, but if the heads of a great mining industry employing the best brains sometimes makes mistakes regarding the future, it is time that a broader based enquiry should be made. Much improvement is likely to be effected by having the matter enquired into not only by experts, but by those who will bring to the subject fresh views, and thus supply new food for thought. I endorse all that has been said of the importance of the mining industry to this country. We all say, and we believe it is true, that agriculture is the foundation on which this country can be built up, but the mining industry is the framework of our whole economic system, and if it collapses, weakens or totters, the whole country is in very grave danger indeed. I am sorry the Minister of Defence is not here. He made a pathetic appeal, which I suppose comes home to all of us who grow grey hairs—that we cannot live for ever—that we must die, and that the mining industry must die too; but how do we act? We endeavour to prolong our lives as long as possible, and we ought to do the same with the industry. It is surely our duty to keep them in life as long as possible, and that is what we want the select committee to enquire into—is it possible through any feasible recommendation to prolong the lives of these mines, and as the mover said, to enable this low grade ore to be worked properly. There is no need for me to endorse or repeat what he said about the financial results. What I would put to the Minister for consideration is, little has been said about the possibility of giving more favourable coal rates, which may have a beneficial effect on the lives of the mines. I put it to the Minister of Finance, if the Minister of Railways and Harbours saw his way to make a remission of £100,000 per annum in coal rates, the Minister of Finance might collect, say, a quarter of a million more in dividend and income tax revenue which would be good business. The remarkable thing of this country is that all our main railway lines were originally designed to deal with the mining industry; their direction is what it is owing to the existence of the diamond and gold mines. The constitution of a railway is its direction, and if the direction is sound the railways will probably prosper, but if the railways are built with an unsound direction, they will never prosper. If our mineral wealth ceases, or is considerably reduced, we will be hampered with many useless lines on which we have spent a good deal of money. I was surprised to hear the Minister talk about the expense of the select committee, and surely he was not serious. When we consider how important a matter this is, what does the insignificant cost of a select committee matter? Our gold mines produce £44,000,000 per annum: a select committee would perhaps cost as much as £100. This select committee may be of invaluable service. The more one thinks of the course advocated by the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) the more one sees it is a sound one. There are many other reasons I could advance in favour of the appointment of a select committee. I would warn the Minister again that departmental enquiries rarely result in much good. I hope that the House will agree to the motion, and that a strong committee will be appointed.

On the motion of Mr. Rockey the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 7th March.