I move—

With reference to the proposal in my name, I want at once to say that I am opposed to the building of new branch lines, at any rate under existing circumstances. It is not advisable to start such work before it can be said with certainty how much competition there is going to be by road motor services and lorries, but the motion is a horse of quite a different colour, because it contemplates the joining up of a branch line with a main line, and if hon. members will just look at the railway map they will see that it is only proposed to build a small length of line, viz., only about 32 miles. The branch line to Bredasdorp may possibly not quite pay to-day, but it can be very much increased in value. I shall return to that. The line was surveyed first of all in 1897 by Mr. Owen, and hon. members can read the report that he made on it. I have it here. Another report was made in 1904 and others in 1906, and 1907, and ultimately the line was built to Protem. In my opinion Protem is actually an artificial destination, because it was not even a village, but the railway was built to that point. They could have joined up at Swellendam and doubtless that was actually the intention. The report makes it clear. At that time, however, the old Cape Government had a contract with the N.C.C.R., a private railway, and they could not build nearer the N.C.C.R. line than 25 miles. Therefore they did not go further than Protem at that time. I do not want to delay the House. The Minister knows all the facts, and I went and saw the Railway Board the other day to explain everything. I do not wish to suggest what point of the line the new construction should join up at, but will leave it to the decision of the Minister. If hon. members look at the map they will see that the line goes from Cape Town via Worcester and Swellendam, and passes George and Oudtshoorn to Port Elizabeth, on the one hand, and to all the northern portions of the Union, and there is a further line from the Cape to Caledon, Bredasdorp and Protem. Protem is only 32 miles from Swellendam. As things are to-day I do not think the branch line from Protem to the Cape actually pays well, and it will become worse in future if the railway administration does not give us a better service. I can understand that it is not so easy to give us a better service, but if our line is joined up with the main line at Swellendam it will assist us. Passengers wanting to go from Bredasdorp to Swellendam, a distance of 32 miles, have to go via Cape Town and Worcester, about 303 miles. It takes almost a day and a half and the price of a return ticket which would be 12s. 3d. for 32 miles is now £5 7s. for the detour. The goods service is still worse. Take tariff No. 1, 100 lbs. via the detour now costs 123d., but if the little line which I propose is constructed it will cost 16d. Tariff No. 7 brings the cost for one ton at 196d., but if the new line is built the cost will be 53d. Many of our farmers would like to send their wool to Mossel Bay or the Port Elizabeth market, but at present it has to travel 270 miles extra by train, which can be deducted by building the little line. The districts of Bredasdorp and Caledon are among the greatest grain districts and practically our only market now is the Cape. We cannot send our grain away to Port Elizabeth, or the northern parts of South Africa, because everything has to go round by the Cape and the expense is too great. Hon. members must know that from April to December when all the grain from the other parts had already been removed, at Klipdale, Bredasdorp, Reitpoort and Protem there were still 32,567 tons loaded on the railways. As matters stand the service is so bad that lorries and road motors have the whip hand.

In what respect is the service bad?

I am coming to that. When one wants to go from Bredasdorp to the Cape he has to entrain before dawn at Bredasdorp, and he arrives in Cape Town just when the shops are shutting. He can do no business but has to remain until the following day. He has, however, to remain over the following day also, because there is only one train a day which leaves between 8 and 9 a.m. The following day he can leave between 8 and 9 a.m. and he arrives home in the dark. It therefore takes three days and two nights to do one day’s business in Cape Town. If one happens to want to do business at the week-end in Cape Town and go and see a football match it is necessary to entrain on Friday morning, travel the whole day, do your business on Saturday morning, see the match in the afternoon, remain over the whole of Sunday,— because there is no train on Sunday—and sit the whole of Monday once more in the train. One has, therefore, lost four days. It can easily be understood that people hire a lorry, start early in the morning, do all their business on Saturday morning, and leave Cape Town at 5 p.m. to get home the same night at 10 p.m. That is the great distinction (hat there is at present between the railway service and the lorry. If the little line I suggest is built those difficulties will no longer exist. Then many of the trains between Worcester and the Cape can be diverted via Bredasdorp and Caledon, so that the blocking of the line, Worcester-Cape Town, can be decreased. Without more trains being added for us those trains which are diverted in that way will serve us. It is necessary to build the line quickly otherwise young fellows will buy lorries and put them on the road, and when the Minister eventually builds it those young fellows will go bankrupt. Another point is that the coast from Bredasdorp to Caledon is daily becoming more popular, and thousands of people are going to the watering places, Struysbaai, Wagenhuiskrantz, Gansbaai, Cape Agulhas, Mossel River, Onrust, Hermanus, The Riviera, etc. If a railway is built the coast will develop more. The farmers would all like to support the railways, but as things are to-day with us it is made impossible for us to do so. I warn the Minister, therefore, to wait no longer.

I have much pleasure in seconding the proposal of the hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl). I can only tell him that I hope he will be more successful this session than I have been in previous sessions. Everything he has said is absolutely true. Perhaps he may have great influence with the hon. the Minister of Railways and Harbours, and the project is certainly worthy of consideration.

I move as an amendment—

I rise to plead for a part of the Cape Province which is still entirely without a railway. These parts are not only without a railway, but they have been entirely neglected. It is not only the previous Government that completely neglected them, because we now have a different Government, but I fancy the present Government also want to leave us in the cold as far as railways are concerned. If it is argued therefore that there are railway lines, as has been done here, then the speakers are entirely ignorant of those areas. If there is one railway which is necessary to assist the people, then it is this line I have proposed, viz., from Klaver Station through Bushmanland to Kakamas. When I say that I want particularly to point out to the Minister of Railways and the Railway Board that gradually the whole fruit trade is being done in those parts. We know that Kakamas is one of the most fertile parts of the country, oranges are produced there in thousands, but we find that it is impossible to sell them at a fair profit on account of the high cost of transport. I want to point out that the citrus trade will become one of the greatest sources of revenue to the country. Our oranges fetch the highest prices on the London market, and it is therefore the duty of the Government to encourage and assist the people, and this can only be done by extending the railway to those parts. I know it is argued that we ought to produce first, that we ought first to show what we can do to justify a railway and that then our wishes will be met. That is a wrong principle in relation to that part of the country. It is no use for those people to produce because they find that the cost is higher than the price they get for their produce. I therefore urge the Government to assist those parts. The farmers there are starting to enclose their farms with jackal-proof fencing. What, however, is the good of their fencing if they are not able to transport their stock? It will make it practically impossible for them to farm. Hon. members will possibly ask why a railway is necessary. There are certain times of drought in those areas, and as there is no water it is impossible to remove the animals except by rail. The result is that thousands and thousands of stock die. According to the latest returns on the drought, stock to the value of over one million pounds died. If we had only used that money to build the railway it would not have happened that the farmers would have to suffer such heavy losses in future. Hence I urge this so strongly, and I hope the Minister and the Railway Board will open their hearts and come to those parts so that they can, themselves, see what can be done there if a railway is built. It is possible to develop those parts, and if there is a railway then the future of South Africa lies in those fertile areas. Then there is another line which I think ought to be built. It is the second line via Ceres to the north. We know that the goods traffic over the main line is at times so heavy that the people cannot send their goods away, and the consignment often takes days en route. The result is that sometimes the ships that have to carry the produce have left when the stuff arrives. The big business men in all parts have strongly urged that it is absolutely necessary to develop that part of the country by a second railway to the north. If that line is built I do not doubt that it will not be a branch line, but one of the main lines to the north; which is of so much importance to the development of the country. I hope the Government will have pity on those parts of the country. They have had a very bad time recently, but we must not think that that is a reason why they should now be left in the cold. I hope the Government will remember that those parts are just as much entitled to a few facilities because they pay just as many taxes as other parts of the country. When I think how the Free State, Transvaal and parts of the Cape Province and Natal are a network of railways, then I think it is almost criminal the way these north-western districts are being neglected.

What are the trains to carry?

I am glad the hon. member asks that because it shows his ignorance. If he ever comes there he will see what there is to be carried. The whole wheat market of the Union is supplied by the North-Western districts.

Then they can take the stock by road.

The hon. member can easily say that as he has railways in his constituency. I can understand that he is unsympathetic with those people because he has had no experience. It shows, however, how selfish hon. members are. I want, however, to point out that there, if one part of the country suffers, the whole country suffers. If the hon. member were to come to the northwest he would see what we produce. There is, e.g., a farm, Doorn River, with some tenant sowers which did not produce much grain during the drought, but which has now in one year produced more than 4,000 muids of wheat; that shows how fertile those areas are. If, however, the farmers want to take their wheat to the nearest railway station it costs them 3s. a muid. It is true that the Minister has slightly reduced the rates, but it was only 10d. How can we expect people who get 17s. a muid for wheat to pay 3s. for its carriage over 41 miles, when for six times the distance, between Caledon and Matjesfontein, only 1s. 6d. is charged, but the interior has to pay 4s. and more for the same distance where there is no railway and the lorry has to be used. Is that not a scandal? I hope that the Railway Board will, themselves, come to see how much the people are suffering, and what can be done to assist them. It is impossible for them to make a living. The matter deserves our earnest consideration. If the people get reasonable payment for their work, it will encourage them to further develop the country. I am sorry to see that some hon. members have no sympathy for the country-side population. We must not always regard the matter from the point of view of whether the line will pay immediately, but we must look to the future, and provide for developments. I want to assure the House that there is no part where the people work so hard as in that part of the Union, but it is very discouraging to them to work so hard and to find that they get nothing for all their trouble.

seconded.

I move, as a further amendment—

The difference between the line proposed by the hon. member who has just sat down and the one I am now proposing is this. He appealed to the pity of the House, my claim is based on justice; that is the only difference. Apart from any fact in connection with this railway, it appears to me a waste of time year after year to introduce railway proposals of this kind. Some alteration or other must be suggested that it will not be necessary for constituents to expect their representatives to introduce and agitate these proposals. Other members and I, myself, am in the position of being compelled to do so, because our constituents think that that is the way to get a railway.

And it is all chaff.

Yes, absolutely, except the one I am here proposing, in which there still is a little wheat. The time has come that we must do the same with these motions as is done with ordinary petitions. We draft the motion, write out our speech, and hand them over to the Clerk of the House, so that the Minister and the Railway Board can study them, and come to a decision. The line I propose is, of course, the most important that could be proposed. I can talk of asbestos, of mountains of it, and of wheat. An hon. member has referred to 5,000 bags of wheat; with us one wagon disposes of that quite quickly. But, Mr. Speaker, we feel more and more that such speeches and motions are a farce, and that we are wasting the time of the Minister and of the Railway Board. A line can only be agreed to after proper investigation by the Railway Board, to whom we have to submit all the facts. The misfortune, however, is that our constituents do not know what the position is, and they expect it of us. Hon. members find it difficult to get a seconder because every member has his railway. It is waste of time, and we must not be guilty of it any longer. I move the railway in my name because I feel that it is the only one of importance.

seconded.

I move, as a further amendment—

While I propose this I fully agree with what the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé has said this afternoon, and I shall be very glad if a different practice can be arranged. We are here all debating motions, but we know beforehand what it means. I have often said what I want to say again to-day. I and others before me have pleaded for this line for 20 years and the Minister and the Railway Board know it. I hope, however, that this is the last occasion when it will be necessary for me to repeat it. The line I am proposing is not a new one, nor a branch line. It is simply the carrying out and completion of a line which was recommended and of which a portion has already been constructed to connect the north-western parts of the Free State with the railway. We have already got a portion and if we do not get the rest now, it will not assist us much having got that portion. In the interests of the neighbourhood of the country, and of the railway administration, that line ought to be completed to join up those parts with the Koffiefontein Springfontein line to East London. There has always been considerable difference of opinion in my constituency about the line. Recently, however, the difficulty has been removed because a large majority have settled the route. I want, however, to request the Railway Board to visit my constituency because there is a small difference in the neighbourhood of Boshof and Dealesville. It is not only the interests of these two villages, but also the parts of the district connected with them, and if the Railway Board investigate the various interests and if they can be met, complete satisfaction will be given.

seconded.

I move, as a further amendment—

It has been explained to me that the Government does not want to build any railways this year. I, therefore, know beforehand what the value of my motion is. My object is, however, to point out that these two railway lines are good ones, and I want to keep them before the Minister and the Railway Board. Hence the motion.

seconded.

I move, as a further amendment—

This amendment comprises two railways, the first is the extension from the Maclear and Umtata railways to a mutual junction, and from there to Kokstad, in order to get direct communication with Natal. The other is a line from Dordrecht to Bitterplaatvlakte. The last mentioned line is of local importance and the intention is to develop an important and of the Cape Province. I did not think it necessary to again bring this line to the notice of the Railway Board because they know about it. The other is a line of national importance, it contemplates joining up the Cape Province and Natal. At present there are two lines in that direction: the one goes along the coast to Umtata, and the other to Maclear via Sterkstroom. The object was originally to join up with Natal, and hence I move the amendment for the Government to carry out the original intention of the line. There were always two sections who differed about the line; the one wanted the railway along the coast, the other, of which I am a part, asked for the extension from Maclear to Matatiele. We, however, realised that the Government would not build two lines in the same direction. A sort of conference was accordingly held between the members of Parliament, and the result was that the members for the Cape, Natal, and the Free State, who took an interest in the Free State, unanimously resolved to suggest that the line should be extended as I have explained in my amendment. We suggest that the lines from Maclear and Umtata should be extended to a junction of them, and from there an extension to Kokstad. I do not wish to elaborate the possibility of those areas, but those who are acquainted with the neighbourhood will be convinced that the possibilities there are such that there can be no doubt about the payability of the line. I should be very glad if the Minister would visit those parts. That would convince him that the line is necessary. I do not wish to delay the House further.

seconded.

I move, as a further amendment—

It was interesting to listen to the speeches this afternoon about the various fertile areas in our country, and it seems to me that we have a very merciless Minister and Railway Board, seeing they have not yet complied with all the requests. When, however, I speak about the few lines I propose, I feel that I am in quite a different position to other hon. members inasmuch as one of the lines has already been approved by the Railway Board, and, if I mistake not, the sum to make a start with was already on the estimates, but the start was not made. I want particularly to plead for the line because it connects the east and the west. The last speaker spoke about communication with Natal, but communication of the east with the west is much more important. If we want to go from east to west to-day we have to make a detour of at least 200 miles. I also plead for the small line from Kirkwood to the Port Elizabeth-Graaff-Reinet railway. It is only a few miles. I am sorry that the Minister did not accompany the Railway Board there recently because then the line would already, doubtless, be under construction. I do not think that there is a part which has been more developed than that little spot, and the people producing things there have to send them to Cape Town for a great part. They send their oranges to Cape Town for export and they go a hundred miles detour by rail. I hope the Minister and the Board will seriously consider my amendment.

seconded.

I move, as a further amendment—

It is noticeable that almost all the speakers have been very pessimistic in regard to the purpose they were discussing, and nearly all gave the impression as if they had to apologize for daring to move the proposals and amendments. I can well understand it, because they probably realized that they have not the least right to ask for the extension or branch lines. I feel in quite a different mood, very optimistic, because I am convinced that the Minister, just like myself, realizes that the extension I am here proposing is absolutely necessary, and will mean no sacrifice to the Treasury, but that the line will be economically sound. The original line from Nylstroom to Vaalwater was built by the last Government, and I think they made the same mistake as Moses, or rather they were in the same position. Moses also merely regarded Canaan from afar, and by building the railway to Vaalwater only the edge of Canaan was reached, which possibly is the reason why the line hitherto has not quite paid. I am convinced that if it extended in some direction or other, and actually reached Canaan, that it would pay very well. Along the Palala and the Magol (or the Pongola), there are extended fertile lands, rivers which are perennial for the greater portion of the year. It is possible to have irrigation schemes there that will pay, and on which the Government will not have to write off amounts from year to year. If we build the irrigation works in connection with the branch line, while the people already have for the most part an adequate supply of water, there will be no difficulty as regards irrigation any more. I know that there are two big principles governing the construction of new lines, the one is that the farmers must first produce, and that they then get a railway, and the other is that the line must be built so that the farmers can produce. I am agitating the latter principle. The areas are far distant, and the Government must, first of all, build a line to enable them to produce. Thousands of people can then be established there as farmers, and successful land settlements established. An enormous area will be opened up for settlement. Apart from the fact that the farmers are practically deprived of all means of transport, it is practically impossible to make a living there to-day, but if the railway is built, that area will be one of the most flourishing in the northern Transvaal.

seconded.

I move, as a further amendment—

These are both lines to develop the country. I thank the Minister and the Railway Board for the short extension of the line from Ceres to Prince Alfred Hamlet a few years ago. It has resulted in the planting of many trees. When I say that two farmers, when they heard that Parliament had proposed the line in the railway programme, which would bring them 6½ miles nearer the railway, commenced to plant fruit trees, and that they have planted 70,000, then hon. members will see what enterprise exists amongst the people, and if we further extend the lines I have mentioned, it will lead to tremendous development. I do not want to suggest in what direction the lines should be extended, but I request the Railway Board to make enquiry, and then extend the lines, even if it is only by five or six miles a year.

seconded.

I move, as a further amendment—

The Minister has visited the place, and seen what tremendous development is taking place there. Marble Hall has a great future, not only as an industrial centre, but as the centre on which the future architecture of South Africa will be constructed. It will be an inspiration to young architects to recreate the architecture of South Africa in the spirit which conforms to South Africa. In consequence of the sympathetic attitude the Minister has already shown, development commenced at Marble Hall, and the results are not only satisfactory, but brilliant. A new kind of marble has been discovered such as the world has not yet known, and a great national possession is in this way coming into its own. The only thing lacking is a railway. Development in other directions can, however, take place along the Olifants River. Great schemes have been established like the Hereford scheme, which puts about 3,000 morgen of first-class land under water, and if the railway is built, and the development of the Loskop scheme is connected up with the development of the Hereford scheme, by which the number of morgen irrigable can be multiplied ten times, then the development is immeasurably great. This is a fact. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) will be able to enlarge on the possibilities for development between Bronkhorstspruit and the east Rand. Agricultural development there promises great things. The east Rand has practically always been the market for the farmers in that district, and still is to-day. Benoni and Germiston are still our best markets. The Minister has assisted development, to a certain extent, by establishing lorry service for which we are very thankful. The development, however, will only be perfect when we get a railway. Besides all the development I have referred to, further tremendous developments can be effected in mining. There are copper, gold and other metals on the boundaries of the Springbok Flats. Prof. Molengraaff’s theory is that every area may look forward to tremendous mining developments.

I would like to second the amendment asking for the construction of the line from Bronkhorstspruit down to the line on the east Rand. It would open up an important part of the country down to the east Rand, and would convey the commodity of an important industry. Recently a company was formed which took up a part of the ground there and planted trees on it. The company’s timber is now maturing, and in about a year or so they will have mining poles for delivery, but unless they can get a railway, all their pioneering work is going to be brought to naught. The necessity for this line has been brought to the notice of the Minister on several occasions, and I hope he will consider it favourably now, and not regard the request for this line as merely part of a lively afternoon on railway matters.

I move, as a further amendment—

Hon. members who have never yet been to Hofmeyr at Nagmaal have never yet seen anything. I think that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) knows what happens there at election time, although it is not so good as at Nagmaal. He, however, was also there during the War of Independence, and he presumably had a warm time under enemy fire. I think that members of the present Government have also visited it, and therefore I think that they can understand how important it is to have a railway from Hofmeyr via Klipkraal to Tarkastad, a line from Klipkraal to the south of the Tarka River to a point above Mortimer, on the Port Elizabeth-Cradock line. It would be very-valuable if we could take lucerne, salt and wool which is produced there to the Eastern Province and have quick communication between east and west, I am certain that if the Minister travels through that district, he would be convinced of the necessity for this line, but I hope he will not find things so warm as the hon. member for Standerton found them under rifle fire during the war. The former president of the Senate has already struggled hard for this line, and I think it will give him much satisfaction if the line is built. I hope that the Minister and the Railway Board will realize how necessary these two lines are.

seconded.

I move, as a further amendment—

I know that the Minister is very sympathetic towards this line because he has visited that area, and knows what a great future it has. It will go through 80,000 morgen of the most fertile land. To-day, lucerne is mostly frown there, but it is possible to grow anything else there. Everyone knows what splendid grapes come from Calitzdorp and Ladysmith, and the production could be much increased, but the main object of this proposal is to use this line as a link whereby the distance from the north to Cape Town can be reduced by 70 miles. Then it will not be necessary to build the line from Protem. I consider that line absolutely unnecessary, and a loss to the treasury.

Have you ever been there ?

Because the line from Ladysmith to Calitzdorp is 36 miles shorter. If the line is built right through, it will form a link with Klipplaat and Kokstad. Then we shall also have the right communication with Durban and with East London and Port Elizabeth. I know the whole House agrees with me that it is necessary to build this line, and if the Minister and the Railway Board agree to do so, then the existing line which now shows a loss will undoubtedly make a profit.

seconded.

I move, as a further amendment—

I want to join up with the Kroonstad-Vierfontein at a point between Rendezvous and Vierfontein, or one or other of those two stations. I want to point out that there was a misunderstanding in connection with this proposal when the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) originally introduced it. The hon. member made the proposal when we were informed that the railway was already under construction. Subsequently, however, it appeared that it was only the end of the line to Vredefort. The Minister and the late Railway Board undertook to build the line, but in the meantime a new Railway Board has been appointed, and the line has not been built. Hence we have to come to the Minister again and ask him to consider the proposal. He will probably reply that circumstances have changed, and that most of the new lines can be replaced by road motor services, but that is not the case here. I hope that this line which has already been surveyed from Vredefort to Bankfontein, and on to the Kroonstad-Vierfontein line, will soon be built.

seconded.

I move, as a further amendment—

I do not want to say anything more, because the Railway Board knows the circumstances. Enough has already been said about this railway, and I know a debate is useless; for this reason I merely move my amendment.

seconded.

I move, as a further amendment—

I think it may also be said about my proposal, “the last shall be first.” Here we have a railway line which the Minister himself has often advocated, and I hope that his former convictions still exist, and that he will carry them out. Among all the proposals that have been made, there is only one line that is as important as this one, viz., the line from Calitzdorp to Ladysmith (Cape); these two lines are certainly the best the Minister can agree to.

seconded.

I move, as a further amendment—

In this case we are concerned with an economically sound line, and not, as in other cases, to spend the country’s money unproductively. By this proposal the distance from Cape Town to Durban will be reduced by at least 30 to 40 miles. It is the main line on which there are no less than 27 trains daily. It will, therefore, affect the saving of about £5,000 to £6,000 a week if the line is shortened. The proposal will result in the traffic being expedited, and a considerable saving being effected. I, therefore, move the amendment in the fullest confidence.

seconded.

I move, as a further amendment—

On the principle of keeping the best thing until the last, my motion is to build a line of railway from The Strand to Muizenberg. In every case the lines that have been asked for are to open up private land. In this case, the line asked for will open up Government land. The Strand to-day is a suburb of Cape Town. Thousands of people live there, and I am sure that, if this line were built, instead of having one special train in the morning, the Minister would have to put on three special trains daily. The Minister of Lands, I understand, contemplates having a big sale of land at a seaside resort named Strandfontein, and if this line is built, he will get £50,000 more for the land than he will get to-day. Last, but not least, we have the tomb of Sheik Joseph there, which is visited every month by hundreds of Indians and Malays from Cape Town, and if this line is built, I predict that double that number will go out from Cape Town each week-end and stay there. I hope that the Minister will start with the last amendment first, and that this will be one of the first lines to be built.

I second the amendment because I live at Muizenberg. I also expect the support of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Waterson). He, personally promised me during the recent election that he would support such a proposal if it were introduced in the House. Every year thousands and thousands of people, and especially young people, come from the countryside to Muizenberg, and there is sometimes nothing for them to do. But, if a railway is built, then they can go to Strandfontein and Somerset Strand. I am convinced this line would pay. Another point I want to make is that if the Minister accepts this amendment, he will have an opportunity of employing thousands and thousands more white labourers. It will help considerably in easing the problem of unemployment.

I move, as a further amendment—

The Railway Board and the Minister know that this line runs through the coal region, and also through one of the most fertile parts of the country.

seconded.

Might I ask the hon. the Minister in his reply if he will be good enough to indicate, in the case of the passing of any of these proposed branch lines, how the losses on them are to be met ?

I may say at once that I have no objection to accepting the motion and all the amendments, but under the distinct understanding, however, which I will subsequently explain. The members of the Railway Board have listened to this debate to-day and I am convinced that they listened very attentively to what has been proposed and said by hon. members. I want, however, to mention two things of which I have heard nothing this afternoon. The first is that I heard not a word of support to the existing branch line. Some hon. members live in districts that already possess branch lines, which are not properly supported, yet they ask for new branch lines. I am talking about members who have branch lines. The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) says that he has no branch lines. He says that there are no railways at all in the north west. He puts the matter a little too strongly, but I am concerned here with members who actually have branch lines in their constituencies. In the second place the speeches show that hon. members have not given sufficient thought to the financial side of the matter. Is the administration to go on building branch lines although there is no mention of financial guarantees being given for those lines? We cannot continue the policy of the past. There are losses, and the development of modern traffic is such that unless hon. members, the public, or companies who want the branch lines are prepared to talk about guarantees, the administration cannot go on with them. In view of the development of modern transport, we cannot go on in that way, and build all these lines, if the public does not contribute. We must remember that there is invested by the public, the owners of the railways and harbours, about £150,000,000, and on part of that money no adequate interest is paid. The word “development” is a very nice one there is certainly no better word for raising the enthusiasm of the elector. Moreover, we all agree that we would like to see development, but those who study the development of systems of transport will see that another factor has appeared on the scene, and that is the lorry. My colleague here refers me to the report of the commission on competition between the railways and motors. I take it that every hon. member has read that before, because if ever a valuable document was published by a commission of enquiry then it is that report. Hon. members will see there that this question is not confined to South Africa alone. We are only on the fringe of it. There is hardly a country we can mention where the motor has not entered into competition with the railways. In some countries it has been decided to pull up the branch lines. Hon. members will have to seriously consider the matter, and when I say that the Government is prepared to accept this motion and the amendments I want to add that there is little hope that a railway programme can be introduced. It will certainly tremendously shock the House, the country, and especially certain constituencies when I say that the position has become so serious that some of the lines which were passed in 1925 will probably not be built.

But have they not all already been started?

No, there are some that have not yet been commenced. The administration is, however, considering whether it is desirable to build all those lines, and I will make a statement about it later. I only mention it here to show how serious the position is. Take the line to Bredasdorp, I do not reproach the hon. member, because I know he is doing his best for the line, I only take it as an example. He rightly said that the people who came on business to Cape Town make use of the motor. I do not blame them for it, but it is tact which we have had to face. We have this contradiction in connection with the branch lines. When the line is built then the farmers want a halt every two or three miles, and sometimes even a siding with all the usual facilities. The train must then stop there. The Stationmasters never know what there will be for the train at the halts. Une day there is nothing, the next a few bags of potatoes, and then once more ten bags of wheat, etc., they must allow enough time for the train to stop there every day. That means a slow service. We simply cannot have a fast service on the branch lines. If we do not do that then the branch lines cannot properly service the farmer. It is therefore not at all the case to say that a better service will solve the difficulty. There are persons who say that we ought to have separate trains for passengers and goods, but when we have only a few passengers a day we surely cannot do so. It is an impossible thing to institute a quick service on the branch lines. We are now making experiments with all sorts of lighter vehicles like the “railcar”, which can be cheaper and which will be suitable for passengers and lighter traffic like cream. If we succeed them we shall be able to give a quicker service. There are various types of these vehicles. There are petrol, oil, and steam vehicles, and we are still experimenting with them. We already have several and we now have ten in course of construction of the best type, and we hope this will assist us in connection with the whole question. Hon. members who are interested in the matter can go and look at the one which is running between Cape Town and Milnerton. It is worked by steam, and is called the Clayton coach. It is, however, not yet certain that this will be the best type. I only mention all this to let hon. members understand that the whole question of branch lines is of the greatest importance. Hon. members so easily ask for a branch line, but do they know that branch lines cost from £4,000 to £5,000 a mile? That, however, is not all, for we have to add the cost of maintaining the permanent way. Hon. members will therefore realize that the administration is not prepared to build a large line unless the public, the companies, or the mines who demand the branch lines, are prepared to give us guarantees. If they have to give guarantees then we shall get the interest which so often is lacking in the branch lines, and which cause the railways to be left in the lurch, and the motors being supported, although they are built up loosely at the expense of the railways.

But you frequently release people from the guarantees.

Where was that done? The hon. member is possibly thinking of the Ceres case. I am not responsible for that, it was before my time. Perhaps Zebedelia is intended. The hon. member surely does not suggest that those people were let off. There is a line to Posmasburg for the development of the manganese fields. No, I have already proved that the guarantee system is applied where the public, or companies, come to the Government to do the railway.

What about the Sea Point line ?

The hon. member who has just interrupted me will surely not say that we ought to have continued the Sea Point line. I want to say this, though I do not do it as a threat against any particular district, that there are some of the branch lines that have been built which will have to disappear if they are not better supported. If the Government did not do that, then public opinion would demand their being scrapped. The owners of the railway system, the taxpayers, are hot prepared to bear the burden if the public support irregular motor lorry services, who run at any price, take no stock of depreciation, etc., and pay ridiculously low wages. I want to mention a case of a farmer who wanted to put his son in the motor section of the railways, but he demanded the very best conditions in the service, and the highest wage for his son. The same farmer who demanded all that for his son from the railways supported a lorry service that used coloured people, or natives, at ridiculous wages. The branch lines, and the railway system in general, are not in a position for us to talk lightly about an extension policy, but we must think of serious enquiry to find out whether our branch line system cannot be entirely changed. Although we are accepting the motion and the amendment, I may say that there is not the least intention to introduce a railway programme this year. As for the future I cannot bind the Government, but no programme will be introduced this year, and I even doubt very much whether some of the lines authorized in 1925 will ever be built. I do not think that the House will expect me to go separately into all the various proposals. I have already covered everything in my general remarks, and I do not think it necessary to say any more.

I thank the Minister for the careful way in which he has gone into the matter, and given us all the details. I must say I can understand that the Minister has taken the line he has because there have been so many amendments, and I hope he will treat the amendments which were afterthoughts as frivolous. Their movers thought they must have a little talk to their constituents, and that they had to put their amendments entirely as an afterthought to my motion. My motion is most important. The point which I want to make the Minister understand is that the passengers are not supporting the trains as much as they might in the Bredasdorp district because it takes four days sometimes to go from and to return to their homes, and the reason is because the service is so poor. The Minister said quite fairly that the traffic did not warrant increasing the service, but if you only extend the line to Swellendam you can divert traffic from the Garden Route to this branch line and increase it tenfold without extra cost. It is in the interests of the railway itself to join the two lines. We ought certainly to be very careful about building new railways. But it is like having a coal-burning ship. You would not think of building a coal burner now because oil burners are more payable, but if you have a good coal burner you would be very foolish if, for a few pounds, you did not put it in order and so have it as an asset and not as a liability. These lines are an asset if only they were linked up with the Garden route. I have made it quite clear that I do not say from what point in the Caledon-Protem line the joining line should start. That must be decided by the railway board and the engineers and their decision must be based on economic principles, keeping in mind the interest of the public, who are to use it.

I would like your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wish to draw your attention to Section 130 of the South Africa Act, which deals with the construction of any new harbour works or railways being submitted to the board. There is no evidence before the House that these proposals have been considered by the board. Has the section of the Act been complied with?

The motion is a simple request to the Government to consider the advisability of what is asked for. It is in general terms, and is quite in order.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to, viz.—

I move—

I am very sorry to see that the Minister of Agriculture is not here this afternoon; I only hope it is not from any want of courtesy. I felt sure this motion was of importance enough to claim the attention of the Minister, to hear our views and give us some explanation.

He is in the Senate.

Is there any other Minister who will deal with the motion ?

Yes, I will.

Then I beg the Minister’s pardon. I hope hon. members will treat this motion with the attention that is due to it. It not only affects the citrus industry, but also every other branch of the industry which is governed by such regulations. The Minister has made a regulation which is not in the interests of this important industry. It is to allow us to export sour or tart oranges which are below maturity. By making a new regulation the Minister has made worthless previous regulations that were in force, laid down by the citrus exchange and approved by the Minister. One of our grievances is that the Minister has made this regulation without having consulted the citrus industry as a whole. He has never given them the opportunity of putting their views before him, nor is it likely he is going to do so before this regulation comes into force. I do not wish to make any party capital out of the action of the Minister. We members on this side of the House have always treated farming interests as above party interests, and our actions during this present session when the Minister introduced a number of agricultural measures speak for themselves. We have given the Minister every assistance to put through legislation which is in the interests of farmers, and whenever any criticism has been offered it has been with a view to being constructive. These Bills are more or less framed on the same principle, that is, the introduction of a levy on the industry concerned and the appointment of a board which will act as a management or advisory board, and power to the Minister to make regulations to regulate that industry in its own interest. We on this side were nervous and stressed the point that we were giving the Minister unlimited power, which may react to our disadvantage, but members on the other side assured us that the Minister would never do anything that was detrimental to our interests, that we must trust him and allow him to make these regulations. The Minister also has from time to time assured us that he would never do anything detrimental to the interests of farmers—he was a farmer himself, and had the interest of the farmers at heart. I have raised this question because this is the first time we can say that the Minister has directly framed a regulation which has been to the detriment of one of the big industries in this country. Not only has he made that regulation, but he has never given the people who are most interested in this industry an opportunity of voicing their views. We can only come to the conclusion that he does not wish to hear what they have to say on the matter. I am sorry that he is not here this afternoon because he would have been able to throw some light on his actions. I have no personal feeling against the Minister, and I may say that we on this side of the House all like him, and admire him for some good qualities. I would even go so far as to say that the Minister is not as black as he is painted. Still we all know that he has made serious mistakes, but we thought that by this time he had learnt wisdom. It appears, however, that the Minister is going on making mistakes. These mistakes are being brought to his notice, and I feel that the farmers are the best people to tell him how to further their interests. The position with regard to the citrus industry I can best place before the House by reading a letter I have had from the general manager of one of the largest co-operative citrus factories in the country. The gentleman who wrote this letter is also on the Citrus Exchange, so that he does not speak from hearsay, but from first-hand knowledge. He says in this letter—

I have read that letter because it places the whole position before the House, and I do not think I need say anything more on that point. There is no doubt that the Trades Commissioner in London, and all the salesmen at Covent Garden have stressed the importance of only oranges of the best quality being sent over. They want sweet oranges. Sour oranges only injure the reputation of good quality oranges sent from here. Let me tell you what one of the big salesmen travelling the country says about sweet oranges on the London market. This man, Mr. Bradley, whose family has been in the business at Covent Garden for over 100 years, says that they are definitely in need of good sweet oranges till the end of the year, and that these cannot be found anywhere else in the world. Spanish oranges at the time South Africa exports are sour. From what Mr. Bradley says it is clear that if we are careful, and send good sweet oranges overseas, we should have a monopoly at a certain time of the year, but if we are going to export sour oranges and put ourselves on the same level as the Spanish exporters, we shall only receive the prices paid for Spanish oranges, which are very much below the prices we hope to get. Last session there was a Fruit Export Further Control Bill before the House, and it was passed. When that Bill was before the House many members on this side spoke against the policy of giving the Minister unlimited power to make regulations. These are some of the remarks made by the hon. the Minister to satisfy us on that point. On page 99 of Hansard, vol. 13, the Minister says—

There is a definite promise that the Minister will consult the fruit industry and the fruit exchange. A little further on the Minister says—

On page 106 the Minister says—

Then on page 110 the Minister proceeds—

The hon. member for Albany then said—

The last word the Minister said was—

If promises count for anything, the Minister has made enough promises to set our minds at rest, but on the first opportunity when the interests of the fruit industry are at stake, he makes a regulation which is not in the interests of the industry and will do it great harm. I will ask hon. members to vote in favour of this resolution to show the Minister we are in earnest, and we wish him to stand by his word.

I beg to second this motion. I also regret very much the absence of the hon. Minister of Agriculture, but I realize he cannot be in two places at once. I feel, however, that his deputy, the hon. the Minister of Lands, is sympathetic, and hope he will endeavour to convince his calleague that this is a matter of considerable importance. I speak as the representative of a constituency which produces some of the finest citrus in the Union, and the growers in my constituency view, with great alarm, this relaxation of the regulations which the Minister has agreed to. Our citrus industry is now making rapid strides, and we must be careful that in assisting the few, we do not cause irreparable harm to the great bulk of the citrus-growers in this country. Last year we exported 1,250,000 cases, and the returns were by no means discouraging. One co-operative company returned over 7s. a case nett, which, I think, was a very fair return indeed considering the unprecedented competition. This year we look forward to exporting 2,000,000 cases, and everyone in the industry feels that the future of citrus growing in South Africa very largely depends on the impression our fruit makes on the overseas market next season, and that is the reason why only the best fruit should be exported. Unfortunately, in South Africa, many thousands of unsuitable trees have been planted and many orchards have been established in localities which cannot grow fruit fit for export. I agree it is very hard on a farmer after working for years to establish an orchard to find that his fruit is unsuitable for export, but everyone must agree that where orchards are established in localities which are climatically unsuitable for growing fruit for export, the sooner the attention of the owners is given to other branches of farming, the better. That is the doctrine the Minister of Agriculture has preached himself on many occasions. I hope he will be sympathetic and take a broad view looking at the matter from the standpoint of the growers as a whole. The hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) has made it very clear that the citrus exchange is against the relaxation of the regulations. The citrus exchange represents over 95 per cent. of the citrus growers in the Union. I understand the experts of the Agricultural Department also hold that view. It is, therefore, hard to understand the attitude of the hon. the Minister, who always preaches organization and making full use of our experts. Does the hon. the Minister think that sour oranges, after a time will fetch such a high price that there will be a profit for the producer? Does he not realize the danger to the rest of the industry? Overseas it is easy to imagine the slogan that will be used: “Why buy sour South African oranges when we sell sweet sun-kissed Californian citrus?” It will do an immense amount of harm to the industry. We are told the boxes will be labelled “sour,” but what protection will that be once the fruit reaches the retailer? A friend of mine, well-known in the industrial world, went to Europe and was asked to make enquiries with a view to the establishment of a trade in citrus juices in bulk from South Africa. After careful consideration, he came to the conclusion that, owing to the keen competition from Spain, the project was hopeless. Yet the Minister intends to allow sour fruit to be exported by the expensive and uneconomical way of wrapping the fruit and packing it into cases in the hope that a trade in citrus juices will be done. Surely if it is impossible to build that trade up in a proper manner in bulk, how much more so will it be if we are going in for it in this expensive way? The whole idea is preposterous. If the regulations, as amended, are to be carried out, they will do incalculable harm to the citrus industry. It will also ruin many hundreds of young farmers who have been strenuously working for years to establish orchards with one view only, namely, the exporting of their fruit. Anyway, I hope even at this eleventh hour, the Minister of Agriculture, through the advice of his deputy, will give very serious consideration to this matter before he embarks upon a policy, which, I am sure, will mean the death blow to our citrus industry of the Union.

There is really a fear that the trade will be damaged. That cannot be argued away. Whether the fear is justified or not we should like the Minister to tell us, and I think that he, and his experts, can inform us about it. There are farmers who are dependent on selling that kind of sour oranges, and to-day there is no market in the country. We realize that they will possibly be hit a little hard if the market is suddenly entirely closed, or, rather, if this means of disposing of the oranges is cut off. On the other hand, the Government must realize that land on irrigation works is very expensive, and since the collapse of the ostrich feather market the people fall back on anything they can produce on the ground, in order to make it pay rent on the capital. Many, in my district especially, have gone in for citrus fruit, and, as far as we know, there is still an unlimited market on the other side of the water, but the fear exists that if sour oranges were exported, it would injuriously affect the market. They have built up a large citrus industry here, and grown the best fruit for export, and we must be careful not to spoil the market. The Kat River oranges are known throughout the world, and have a good name on the European market, while the oranges from the Sundays River Valley need not take a second place to them. As we have such an industry we can understand that they are afraid when they see that inferior oranges are exported from our country which threaten to damage the trade they have so carefully built up. I hope the Minister will give his attention to the matter, and will see that the market, which has taken so long to find, is not ruined in that way.

I rise to support the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) in the motion which he has placed before the House. The Minister cannot get away from the fact that there are a number of farmers in South Africa to-day who depend entirely for a living on the sale of oranges by means of export. The Citrus Exchange, which represents 90 per cent. of the exporters and commercial growers, have advised the Minister over and over again that if he persists in allowing sour oranges to be exported, it will endanger the market that has been built up in London. Now let me tell the Minister that there is this danger: Although the Minister may impose a regulation that the sour oranges have to be labelled “sour,” the danger is that the people buying these oranges may ask for South African oranges, and may not know that they are marked “sour.” In this way they may condemn the oranges that come from South Africa. There is another view to take. That is, the man who is selling California oranges and boosting them in London, or who is selling Brazilian oranges, may buy a few cases of South African oranges and use them to show what sort of oranges are produced in South Africa in order to boost the sale of Californian oranges. I cannot imagine anything being done which will be more detrimental to the export of oranges than this relaxation of the regulations. When the regulations were first introduced, the Minister wanted to go very much further than the regulations which then existed with regard to the maturity test, and the total solids in comparison with the acids. The Citrus Exchange pointed out to the Minister that the regulations should not go too far, but should aim at the gradual and progressive improvement of the quality of our oranges. We cannot overlook the fact that we have to compete against very strong competition from California and Brazil. Unless we improve the quality of our oranges, we shall lose our London market. If we allow sour oranges to go there from this country to be sold on the London market, there is every likelihood of our damaging our market. Once you lose a market it is a most difficult thing to regain. It is easier to gain a market than to regain a lost market. I want to impress that upon the Minister. If once the public turn against the oranges from South Africa, because of sour oranges being sold there, we shall have the greatest difficulty in regaining that market. Therefore, I impress upon the Minister that we should go very carefully over this matter. He may inform the House that he will only allow sour oranges to be exported for the purpose of extracting the juices. I may tell the Minister, and I have it on good authority, that it will cost at least 4s. per gallon in England to use these sour oranges to extract the juices at any factory. Orange juices are being imported into England to-day at 2s. 6d. per gallon. If the Minister tells us that he will only allow sour oranges to be exported to the London market for the purpose of extracting juices, then I say that that argument is one which cannot hold, because you cannot possibly send oranges from here and have the juice extracted at a factory in England when orange juice is actually being imported into England at 2s. 6d. per gallon. I think it is advisable to point out to the Minister what he said in regard to the export to Brazil of apples and other fruits, when he introduced a Bill last year, namely, the Fruit Export Further Control Bill. This is what he said—

That is exactly what is going to happen if you allow sour oranges to be sent to England. The public will be frightened and South African oranges will get a bad name. As it is, our oranges have to compete with oranges from California, which takes every possible precaution to ensure that only the very best fruit is sent to London. If we permit sour oranges to be shipped to London, we shall ruin the market, which has taken a long time to build up. I hope the Minister will withdraw the proposal to allow the exportation of sour oranges.

I hope the Minister will be very careful if he is going to follow the advice of hon. members opposite, and will not lightly accept it. There is much more behind the motion than we realize. Hon. members must remember that there are two kinds of oranges, one with a very high sugar content, and another white kind which also has a fairly high sugar content, and then there is the so-called “Valencia Late,” which has less sugar content. If the Minister were to prohibit the export of the Valencia Late, then we shall not be able to export a considerable part of our citrus crop. What has happened on the London market? Two kinds of oranges arrived there, viz., the “Washington Navel” with a high sugar content, and the “Valencia Late” with a lower sugar content, and did the buyers select the kind with the high sugar content? No, the sour oranges fetched the best price. The Washington Navels reached a sugar content of 11 points, while the Valencia Late’s sugar content was 6 to 7 points. But the result was that the Valencia Lates already fetched 5s. to 6s. more than the Washington Navels. It is a question of taste, and how do hon. members know the taste overseas? What is possibly an attractive fruit to us is not so for them overseas. If the Minister fixes such a high sugar content that Valencias are prohibited from export, it would do much damage. The Minister must not forget that in some parts of the country the farmers have removed the Washington Navel trees and substituted Valencia Late, because the latter paid better. Every time these sourer oranges fetched about 5s. more on the market. The taste decides, and why should we make it impossible to export oranges that are the best sellers? An attack has been made on the Minister of Agriculture for having altered the regulations, but from my knowledge of him, he only does certain things on the best advice he can get from the farmers. I am certain that the Minister only makes the alteration on the advice of farmers. I maintain that if the Minister puts the permissible content of sugar in oranges for export so high that the Valencia Lates cannot be exported, much loss will be caused. What should be done is that the quality of the oranges should be the criterion. Care must be taken that the dry kind of Washington Navel, which is the cause of spoiling the good name of South African oranges, are not exported. One of my friends who was in London told me how he discussed oranges with a dealer. The London dealer said that he, for the last few years, had bought South African oranges, but that he did so no longer. My friend asked why; in reply the dealer cut open a Washington Navel which was quite dry inside. If the Minister wants to lay down a test it must be a juice test, so that all oranges with a certain juice content may be exported, then it will bring about an improvement, but not by keeping the best oranges off the market.

I am afraid the last speaker is not a grower or exporter of oranges.

I am.

No one wishes to prevent the exportation of Valencias, which have realized better prices than the Washington Navels. Three years ago we got into serious trouble through exporting inferior oranges, and, as a result, the regulations were tightened up. The more you tighten the regulations the better markets you are going to secure. I say this as a grower. The only way to secure satisfactory results is to export good stuff, then you obtain a good price and a good name. In his reply the other day to the hon. member for Barberton, the Minister said that he was going to insist on the packages and containers being labelled “sour.” Now, that is no good in this world of cheating, where people are only too glad to take advantage of a thing of that kind. When the packages and wrappers are marked “sour,” it is quite easy to get rid of these and sell rubbish. I understand it is impossible for the small grower to pay the cost of machinery for stamping each orange. Some people say it can be done by hand. I suggest that the Minister should carry out the recommendation of the Grading Committee that you do not send out sour oranges. I think it is very difficult for us to stamp our oranges ourselves. Three years ago we made this mistake; a little after that there were other difficulties facing the sale of our oranges, and we were getting a very bad name. Towards the end of last season things improved very much, and the hon. member who has just spoken is right when he says that they got better prices for Valencia Lates than for Washington navels. These Valencia Lates, which come from the Transvaal, are excellent. Rhodesia is also competing with us. The English, Scottish, French or German buyer will know that “sour” means something unpalatable, but if they put “suur” on them, a number are foolish enough to think that is a “special” brand, and if that be so, it may do us untold harm. The Eastern Province particularly has made a great bid for citrus culture, and right along from the coastal parts of Natal to Fort Beaufort and in a line to Somerset East, to Langkloof and Clanwilliam, you get the high-class sweet oranges which are wanted. Even now you will find people labelling their oranges “Eastern Province,” because there is a feeling that the Eastern Province oranges are sweeter than others. Fort Beaufort has lifted a large crop, and received the best price of any this year. They send only their best, and are to be hard hit by a change of this kind. In Sundays River they will shift 50,000 to 60,000 cases to the 40,000 of last year, and they will also suffer. In George and Clanwilliam there is nothing wrong. I do feel that the Minister should not allow any of the restrictions to be curtailed as far as our export trade is concerned. By all means, if the oranges are good enough for the local market, send them there. But it" would be fatal to the interests of South Africa if any such change be made. Our representative, Mr. Dimond, overseas said that South Africa had damaged her reputation overseas for oranges through sending over so many which were sour. He is there to see that our fruit gets proper attention. I understand that in England to-day doctors are recommending that children should have half an ounce of orange juice every morning. I would like to know what the effect would be if the oranges are sour. Few of us can stand a lemon. There is no doubt we must see to it that our export trade is looked after, and that every reasonable restriction is imposed and carried out.

I want to give this motion my whole-hearted support, because in the Eastern Province there are those who have sunk their all in producing oranges. I can assure the hon. the Minister that our Kat River oranges have gained a high place in the overseas markets for their excellent qualities. I cannot understand why the Minister has relaxed this restriction, contrary to the advice of the Citrus Exchange. For years now the doctrine has been preached that we must send out only our very best. If we once lose our business connections it is the very dickens to get it back again. It is going to take us all our time to get that market back again. The Minister, I am sure, would not like to see these people who have sunk everything in fruit trees lose their all or place their market in danger. Only a little while ago we can remember the damage done to our market, because of a certain shipment of tainted eggs. We also hear of poisoned hides which came from South Africa and the damage which was done. Our competitors are only too anxious to make use of any possible argument to damn us in the eyes of the world where competition is so very keen. It is all very well to say we are going to stamp the boxes, wrappers and so forth as sour oranges, but an orange is an orange, and if people buy an orange, thinking it is a sweet one and it is not, the damage is done, and will act detrimentally to a trade we are endeavouring to build up, when every precaution should be taken to safeguard those who are building up an export trade on a very high level. I appeal to the Minister to act in accordance with the recommendations of the Citrus Exchange in the interests of our export trade in connection with our rapidly-developing citrus industry.

I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is unavoidably prevented from dealing with the motion. From the nature of the case, hon. members will understand that I am not so well up in the matter as the Minister of Agriculture himself. I have, however, made a few notes, and will try to answer the hon. member. The Minister did not, as the result of his own opinions, and without consulting the farmers, permit oranges with a lower sugar content to be exported, as some hon. members think. He only had the interests of the farmers in view. There are certain parts of the Transvaal like the district of Brits, Marico and Krugersdorp, where the pioneers of citrus growing in the Transvaal live; owing to the fall in the tobacco market, the people receive nothing, and their national position is very sad. If the Minister were now to prohibit the export of the only thing they possess, viz., oranges, their position would be very much worse. In order to assist them, the Minister has permitted the export of the sourer kind of orange, but under the condition that each orange and every case must be labelled with the word “sour.” Hon. members must not forget that oranges are not only used for eating, but there are many factories which make orange juice, etc., and sour oranges are well suited for that. The Minister has in this way seen that the poor people are not prevented from earning a few shillings. It would, in any case, be wrong to say that we built up the overseas market on the sugar content of the oranges. The sugar content has only during the last few years commenced to play a rôle, but we have been exporting oranges for the last 20 years. Hon. members now want us to do what the Citrus Exchange recommend. My hon. friend, Mr. Brink, behind me, is, however, right when he says that the orange market has suffered great loss on account of the big navel oranges that are dry. The Minister has tried to prohibit the export of the dry oranges, but the Citrus Exchange did not agree with him. Undoubtedly, however, those oranges did a lot of harm. I have here a recapitulation by the Minister of Agriculture which it was his intention to read. [Document read.] What must not be forgotten is that a large number of people in those districts are in financial difficulties. In former days their oranges were just as well-known as those from the Kat River and other parts. They, however, grafted the trees, with the result that the fruit became more sour; they are now, however, engaged in improving the trees. The Agricultural Department has told them how to do it, and in a few years things will come right, but it will possibly take five or six years. If they are now to be prohibited from exporting oranges, then a large section of those people who make a living out of growing oranges will be put into a very difficult position. We must not only consider the matter from the point of view of a group of farmers, from the point of view of the Citrus Exchange, we must also bear in mind that section who are not in such fortunate circumstances as the members of the Citrus Exchange. The people have been warned to improve their orchards, and I think the House ought to be satisfied with that. We must especially not prevent them from exporting this year when general conditions are so bad that there is a poor market for tobacco, etc. On behalf of the Minister of Agriculture, I can give the assurance that we will do nothing against the interests of the farming community. He must, however, consider all the farmers, and not a small group. I shall certainly bring to the notice of my colleague all the objections that have been made, and I hope the hon. member will now withdraw the motion. As it stands, I cannot accept it. The House can, however, be satisfied that the Minister will give his full attention to the matter, and the motion has, therefore, had the result the hon. member intended.

I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the answer which the Minister gave on behalf of his colleagues. We are concerned here with a very important industry, which is holding up the honour of this country. Now the Minister says that, because certain farmers have neglected their trees and not properly treated them, resulting in the quality of the fruit becoming worse, we must hamper our oversea market in order in the meantime to assist those unfortunate farmers. He goes so far as to say that it may take a few years before those trees attain the desired standard. If we subordinate our export market, and our name overseas in this way to a certain class of farmer who want to send such fruit there, what is the good of our passing legislation which was before us for building up an export market? The Minister has full power to make regulations. He can make any regulation with reference to the export of fruit. We are now, however, given to understand that the export of sour oranges as such must be permitted, and that the people overseas will buy them as such. Those of us who have been overseas know what a delicate matter the market there is. The people may get the impression there that it is a definite brand of fruit which we are exporting, and in that way our name is lost. What kind of mark is there which will remain on the oranges? They pass from one shopkeeper to the other. The mark will disappear, and in that way our name on the market will also go. Would California ever allow such a thing, and would an American Minister of Agriculture ever allow people to play ducks and drakes in this way with an important industry of the country? If the Minister continues altering the regulations to export sour oranges, it will give our industry a tremendous slap in the face. A few years ago there was a heavy frost in California which damaged the oranges. The trees suffered, and the fruit was of a poor quality. What did they do there? Did they export them? No, they prohibited the export, and did not spoil the market by finding a bad market in Europe. They elected to suffer the loss rather than to get a bad name on the market.

No one will buy a frost-bitten orange.

It was not frost-bitten, it was only damaged. Only the best are exported, and if we allow, for the sake of the farmers who will suffer, a poor article to be put on the market there, what will be the consequences to our orange farmers? It seems to me an impossible state of affairs for a responsible Minister to say that he will do such a thing. The Citrus Exchange has not been consulted. Is it possible for a Minister to get up and say that he will make regulations allowing oranges which do not come up to the sugar standard to be exported? I feel very strongly on this matter, and I hope the Minister of Agriculture will seriously consider the matter before he takes that step. Our fruit farmers are at present in a very difficult position. Millions of pounds are invested in the fruit industry, and we must be very careful that we maintain our name on the market. The position is very delicate. There are the best Spanish and Californian oranges, and if we, for two years, or even for one year, send over oranges of poor quality, it is enough to knock the bottom out of the industry.

We built it up without a stipulation as to sugar content.

I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will seriously consider the matter and will act in the best interests of the industry.

The Minister has said that the Citrus Exchange some time ago gave wrong advice as to the export of thick-skinned, sapless navel oranges and that our good name was thereby damaged. I would remind the hon. Minister that the real thing, in the opinion of most orange growers, that spoiled our name in the overseas markets, was suspending the grading regulations in order to give relief to the Rustenburg district some time ago. I appeal to the Minister, for the sake of the export trade especially not again to do what may cause immense harm. At Fish River, Kat River, Clanwilliam and in the Transvaal and in my constituency, there are men who have carefully built up an extraordinarily fine name for the citrus fruits of the Union. I am speaking for them when I say that it took a long time to recover from the bad name which resulted to this country from that relaxation of the regulations. If you do that again the same position will arise. If the orange is “sour,” the label will not remain on it very long when it gets into the hands of the retailer. They will be sold to the public with the wrappers removed. I hope the Minister will realize we are sincere in strongly protesting against this relaxation, and that the great majority of the citrus growers deserve full consideration. I hope that some day the citrus growing industry in this country will rival that of California, and nothing should be done to handicap the industry in its progress.

I wish to reply to the remarks of the hon. Minister. I am very glad that the Minister has been honest with us, and has told us why this regulation has become necessary. He has indicated that it is not in the interests of the citrus industry, but to help a small number of farmers in the northern Transvaal, who are unable to comply with the export regulations. I have every sympathy with these men, and if it were possible to help them without injury to the rest of the industry, I am sure we would agree; but I am certain that what the Minister proposes to do will not help these men in any way; so that this is not the right way to help them. The Minister says these oranges may not be sold for ordinary consumption, but to supply the demand for fruit juices. There is a market in this country to-day for all juices of that sort, and those oranges can be properly sold in this country to supply the demand for juices here. I think that the Minister will be doing these men really an injury more than a kindness by putting this regulation into force and encouraging them in the idea of exporting this inferior fruit. The hon. member for George (Mr. Brink) evidently is one of those men who has been able to put his views before the Minister. No doubt there are others who hold the same views that have also been able to do so. There is no doubt that the people who count in the industry, the Citrus Exchange and other people concerned, have not yet been able to put their views before the Minister, and evidently he is going to enforce this regulation without hearing what they have to say upon the matter. That is where the Minister is acting in a very wrong way. With regard to these sour oranges, two years ago Mr. Dimond, our London Trades Commissioner, made a special visit to this country. He visited all the large citrus areas, and told us definitely that we were ruining our market overseas by sending these sour oranges. Now, with a mistaken kindness on the part of the Minister, we are going to carry out another experiment which will not help these men, but will react upon us and ruin the reputation of our fruit and undermine our good name. The Minister has asked me to withdraw this motion after hearing his remarks. But we have had no promise from the Minister on behalf of his colleague, and I will be willing to adjourn this debate in order to give the Minister of Agriculture an opportunity of addressing us on this serious question. If that is not possible, I certainly do not see my way clear to withdraw the motion and I ask that it shall be put in the usual way.

Motion put and the House divided: