I move—

I wish to submit to the consideration of the House some figures supplied to me by the Department of Justice which show the alarming extent of the illicit liquor traffic in the Transvaal. During the last eight years there have been 5,500 convictions on the Rand for illicit liquor dealing and over 65,000 for drunkenness. The figures are very interesting but it is appalling to notice so many Europeans among the offenders. In 1922, the European males sentenced numbered 110, and in 1929, 439, more than four times the number convicted in 1922. In 1922, European females convicted numbered 42, and in 1929, 92, more than double. Fifty per cent. of the European females in the Pretoria Central Prison are there because of convictions of this offence—through illicit liquor selling, and this percentage of European females in this prison has been as high in some years as 75 per cent. What can be seen in the Pretoria central gaol, where white women with babies in their arms are there through contravening the liquor laws, shows that something must be done. There can be no doubt that our law, as it stands at present, is having the most unsatisfactory effects, a large section of our white population being morally ruined. Once a man has been convicted, he has a blot on his name which can never be removed, and as a rule never rises again but sinks lower and lower. The police are doing their utmost, but they can never stop this illicit liquor trade. The Minister of Justice, at the opening of the Paarl show this year, made a reference to this question. He said that in the north the position is becoming worse. For years, said the Minister, we have been resorting to imprisonment of Europeans for the illegal sale of liquor to natives and coloured people, but this measure has proved inadequate. On the Rand and in the Transvaal the drink sold to the natives on the mines is of the most injurious character. I strongly advocate a tot ration to be given to these people instead of allowing them to poison then selves. Giving evidence before the Commission of 1927, Mr. Young, chief magistrate of Johannesburg, said that prohibition had been a failure and considered it necessary that natives should be able to obtain certain liquors, and the chief of the police, Major Trigger, said that prohibition had been an absolute failure. A native, just like a white man, requires a stimulant after a hard day’s work, but I will not admit that this will necessarily lead to abuses. The idea that a native is not accustomed to drink is an exploded idea: any man who knew South Africa knows that. Natives are accustomed to drink beer in their kraals and this is being mixed with vile poison to make it more potent. Instead of going in the direction of prohibition we should try a different direction. What I would like to see the Minister of Justice do next year when he is introducing amending legislation is to make provision whereby natives should be allowed to purchase one pint of wine of approved quality a day on the mines where it can be strictly controlled. If the native does not want to drink the wine, he is not compelled to do so. This will remove the idea that I am trying to force wine down the throats of the natives. This wine can be supplied at 2d per pint. The rationing can be done by the mines, or by the wine co-operatie and must be consumed at once, and not allowed to be carried away as large quantities of liquor may be accumulated which may lead to drunkenness. If the mines would give these boys a tot for nothing, I would not be against it, but as this would increase the cost of production, and as some of the mines are not paying to-day, I would prefer the boys buying it themselves and having this small amount deducted from their pay. I suggest that farmers who can also control it should also be allowed to ration their boys. If the Minister will agree to legislation on these lines, then I feel sure the people who will oppose it the most will be those who are interested in the illicit liquor trade. The Government would gain by it because the services of a large number of the police and traps could be dispensed with. I say emphatically, do not allow liquor to be sold everywhere in the Transvaal not because it is not good for them but because it cannot be controlled. Look at the anomaly which exists to-day; the natives in one province can get a drink, whereas in another province, heavy sentences are imposed for the same thing. When I listened to a speech of the president of the chamber of mines in Johannesburg last November, I saw that the fly in the ointment as far as the working of the mines are concerned was the shortage of labour, and in the “Cape Times” of last Wednesday I find the following—

Then it goes on to give the figures. If the natives knew they could get a ration of wine on the mines after a heavy day’s work, I feel sure it would be an inducement to them to go there. Take the natives who came from Portuguese East Africa. There wine is freely sold to them without any harmful effect, yet when they come to the mines they can no longer get the drink which they are accustomed to and which I believe they can no more do without than the Scotsman can do without his porridge. As a substitute, these natives do get illicitly the vilest form of liquor that it is possible to manufacture, which is having the most deteriorating effect upon them both physically and morally. There is no doubt that in spite of all laws the illicit trade does not decrease and as a consequence the Government is continually being asked to augment the police force to prevent this illicit liquor reaching the mines. If we look at the figures again it will be seen that in 1922 there were 5,200 convictions for drunkenness; in 1929, 10,000; the convictions doubled themselves in seven years. You cannot legislate that a man shall not drink any more than you can legislate for him to get into heaven. America has tried it, and what is the result? I saw in the papers last week that the biggest arrest yet made in connection with illicit liquor trade had just been carried out there, when 150 persons and 13 companies were indicted on a charge of plotting to violate the prohibition laws. In Canada, with the exception of the small and remote community of Prince Edward Island, the other eight provinces, all of which have experimented with prohibition, during the last 10 years have now returned to some system of providing for the sale of liquor. When we talk of prohibition, we must take into consideration the vested interests of the wine farmers and the trade. The wine industry is probably the oldest and most honourable industry in South Africa, and as such it has a right to claim from Parliament honest and fair dealing. You cannot have a wine industry without a wine trade. Since 1875 our liquor laws have continually been interfered with, the cost of our licences are continually being increased, and the hours of consumption decreased. Under the law of 1928, the cost of a licence was raised to £150, and the hours of consumption were reduced by three. I ask has this had the effect of stopping drunkenness? No. The peculiar thing is that the sales of wines have decreased, yet drunkenness has increased with the result that to-day we have large stocks on hand. On the 31st December last we had 3,000,000 proof gallons of spirits on hand. The monthly consumption for December was 103,000. That is the best month in the year, because people generally lay in stocks for Christmas, but even if you take that as the average, it will work out at 1,250,000 proof gallons per annum as our yearly consumption, thus our stock represents 2¾ times our yearly consumption. As regards wine the co-operative stores hold 2,000,000 gallons, the merchants hold approximately 4,500,000 gallons, making a total of 6i million gallons of different types of wine on hand; in addition the farmers are at present making wine and expect a record yield through no fault of theirs because with the unseasonable rains, no raisins can be made, and farmers are compelled to turn their raisins varieties into wine. The wine farmers are in a bad way. I have not come to ask for further protection, or financial assistance, or a levy, but to ask the Government to allow better facilities for selling our wines in our own country. I know it will be said we are squealing too soon, but the wine farmers have done everything possible. We have spent £100,000 on building new stores, and buying new vintage for maturing our wines, and we are also paying out every year approximately £20,000 in the form of bonuses to encourage wine farmers to make raisins instead of wine and this represents approximately 10,000 leaguers of wine. It cannot be said that we are sitting still and waiting for the Government to assist. We are doing everything possible ourselves. Now it has been asked, “Why don’t you export?” I ask, in reply, “Where can we export to?” Can we send it to France, to Germany, to Italy, to Spain or to Portugal? They are all wine-producing countries. The only place we can send it to is England, but when we send it to England we are up against Australia. The Australian Government is subsidizing the wine farmers of Australia to-day at the rate of 1s. 6d. per gallon of wine. It used to be 4s. per gallon, then it was reduced to 1s. and the new Government has increased it again to 1s. 6d. a gallon. One of the reasons for the success of our Turkish tobacco industry is that we have cultivated the home market. Unless we have a home market we cannot prosper. I shall never forget the dark days of 1914. We then sat with three years’ supply of tobacco on hand. During those three years we sold only six pounds weight of tobacco. If it was not that our directors had acted wisely during the great war by refusing to export our tobacco to England for 8s. 6d. per lb. as some of the non-shareholders were doing, but preferred selling it in this country for 2s. 6d. a pound to cultivate a home market; if we had not done that the public would not now be smoking our Turkish cigarettes as they are doing by the million, and we would still have been sitting on the doorstep of the big tobacco companies begging them to buy our tobacco. By asking for this facility the House must not forget what the country gets out of the industry. There are only 3,500 registered wine farmers on the books of the co-operative society, but there are over 100,000 people living directly on us, and I say that all the towns in the Western Province, Cape Town included, are largely, if not wholly, dependent upon the wine industry. The farmers themselves only realize £675,000 for the whole of their wine crop, whereas the Government is getting over £800,000 by means of excise and licences. The Government is actually getting more out of the industry than the wine farmers themselves. I must thank the House for listening to me so patiently. I know this is rather a ticklish subject to touch upon. Most of the members on this side of the House are against it. I do not know if they have very much interest in the farmers, but I do hope I shall get the support of all the farmers in the House.

I second the motion because I have received instructions from my constituents to see that the Transvaal people are enabled to give their servants and their labourers a tot in the best possible manner.

I want to point out that the hon. member has an amendment to this motion on the order paper, and therefore he cannot second this motion.

I second the motion, not because I agree to everything suggested in it, but I should not like to see this motion falling away at this stage. It is surprising to me that the hon. member could not get a seconder on his own side of the House. He has, himself, said that his friends possibly do not take sufficient interest in the farmer.

Do not talk party politics.

Hon. members must not get frightened when I say that. One would think that hon. members opposite take an interest in the farmer, because in the past they always said that they were striving in the interests of the farmer. I do not, however, want to go into this further. The mover has already stated what the position is. Any member who has the welfare of the white population in the Transvaal at heart cannot do otherwise than vote for the motion, because it has been over and over again proved that smuggling is going on which would not take place if the business man, the farmer, and any other employer was entitled to give liquor to his employees. The census shows that the smuggling and the number of convictions are steadily growing. I have been told that a man who is engaged in smuggling in the Transvaal is a hired man, who is in the employ of the firm. If that man is arrested and convicted then he still gets his salary for the month he is in gaol, while his family are provided for, with the result that when he is released he continues his smuggling. If he is arrested he suffers no financial damage, but the result is a general moral retrogression of the population. If we take an interest in the welfare of the white population of the Transvaal we must vote for this motion. Hon. friends opposite say always that they take a particular interest in the welfare of the Transvaal natives. Here there is an opportunity for them to prove their real interest in them. At present the native is taught to smuggle, and he takes much more drink than previously. If he is enabled to buy drink then he will get a healthy tot, which will contribute to his health, while at present he gets hold of bad liquor, which is often nothing but poison, and which does him a lot of harm. How many inhabitants of the Transvaal are in this Parliament, and how many are there on the countryside of the Transvaal who have not at some time or other contravened the liquor law? Why then must that proper consumption of liquor be restricted? No one can say that it would do harm, and at present the people are driven to break the law. I go so far as to say that there are legislators in this House who have contravened that Act. To-day it is proposed to rectify that state of affairs. I am not only talking for the producers of drink because some hon. member will possibly say that the liquor producers merely want a market, but I am talking for the welfare and benefit of the population of the country—Europeans as well as coloured and native people. We have every right to talk in this way in order that this vagueness in our legislation shall be rectified, so that the native can in a proper and respectable way get his liquor. A great deal is said about drunkenness and hon. members want to make out that drunkenness is particularly bad amongst us. I can say that, as a farmer, I give my natives every day the quantity of light wine which is permitted. It costs very little, perhaps 2d. a bottle, and if it is got from the co-operative wineries it will possibly be still cheaper. My servants regularly get liquor and when they go to the village and return they are sober, because they are accustomed to liquor and not dying of thirst. I say that by enabling these people to buy liquor under supervision we shall take the temptation away from them, and they will not try to get hold of it illicitly.

I sincerely hope the House will condemn the motion root and branch. It professes to start off on high moral grounds by stating that the House views with concern the increasing number of convictions for selling liquor illicitly in the Transvaal. Whence this newly found interest in the Transvaal liquor laws? It is true there are a lamentably large number of liquor convictions in the Transvaal, but not more than arise from liquor selling and the tot system in the Cape. I would suggest to the Cape members that they put their own house in order first. I am sorry the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Wolfaard) tried to impart a party tone into this debate, but this matter transcends party politics.

There was nothing of the kind.

The hon. member tried to make out that we as a party were opposed to the interests of the Cape wine farmers.

I did not.

I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. gentleman and I am only too pleased to learn that he did not say so. The wine farmers constitute a very fine section of the population and they will be the very last to support the motion, the proposer of which was almost callous in the frankness of his statements as to the motive of the proposal. He told ns quite openly that the real concern is for the unconsumed surplus of wine—not those high moral motives mentioned by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Wolfaard). In an interview the mover gave the Cape Times he states that the reason for this motion is that there is something like a surplus of 3,000,000 gallons of wine which they cannot get rid of. Now, in order to dispose of this surplus Parliament is asked to agree to the immoral step of throwing all our traditional northern policy of native prohibition by the board, and to allow the native to have as much liquor as he likes, for that is what it amounts to. The motion says that prohibition in the Transvaal cannot be enforced so far as natives and coloured persons are concerned, but it seeks to impose a more complicated form of control. The motion further says, “Let us give the natives wine in stated quantities and of a stated strength,” but once you say to the native, “You can have wine” I would like to know how you are going to control the quality and quantity of the liquor given to him. Are you going to have an official standing by every day to see that the law is enforced, for once a native is allowed to have wine he will get the strongest possible stuff. The hon. member for Magaliesberg (Mr. Alberts) let the cat out of the bag, for he wants the natives to have brandy. I believe the wine farmers have ft higher sense of morality than to be behind this motion, but if they think the adoption of the motion will give them a larger market for their wine they will be mistaken, for if the motion goes through, peach brandy and prickly pear and marula brandy will be sold, and the last stage of the wine farmers will be worse than the first. In order to save the native and to uphold the prestige of the white man the northern policy has been to have prohibition, for the native is a child and cannot control himself once he gets liquor. The old voortrekkers realized this and insisted on imposing prohibition on the native. Are we now in order to meet a temporary depression in the wine trade to throw overboard this policy and to endanger the whole position in the north? I am sure once we remove the restrictions—which I admit in certain localities such as Johannesburg are evaded on a lamentably large scale, but none the less prohibition does keep the evil within bounds—once we remove the restrictions and every white man thinks there is no harm in giving his natives liquor the evil will be intensified. The native will be paid his wages in liquor. I remember as a boy being on a farm and seeing the owner pay his natives part of their wages in dagga. That system will come back unless we are very careful. In the end the native will say, “Baas, I will take out my wages in liquor,” and the flood gates will he opened. I know the Western Province, which is one of the most civilized portions of the Union, and I do not believe the wine farmer wants to sell his liquor at all costs in the manner proposed in the motion. We have heard quite fairly from the mover of the motion that the idea behind is, “We want to sell our liquor, and we do not care what happens to the native.” All the same, I do not believe the wine farmers as a class are backing this proposal. The wine farmers are probably having a difficult time, but I think their correct course is not to support a motion like this—it is a wicked suggestion, if I may say so—their correct course is to improve the quality of their product which really is much to be desired. I know the conditions in the north far better than the hon. member who moved the motion, and the hon. member who last spoke, and I can assure them that once this restriction is removed, and you give them the idea there is nothing morally and legally wrong in giving the native liquor, you will find every other restriction will soon go. Total prohibition is far more easily enforced than partial, or piebald prohibition.

It is enforced in the Western Province.

Is it? I have never seen more disgusting scences than in the Western Province. The late Mr. Sauer was a friend of the natives, and I am astonished at the hon. member wanting to spread this iniquitous system to the north.

Is it due to the tot system ?

I suggest that it is very largely due to that system. It is a growing canker in the Western Province. We are going to have this position multiplied infinitely in the Transvaal, because there the native population is far larger, and far more scattered, and the native is less able to control his appetites as far as alcohol is concerned. I say emphatically, from my life-long experience in the north, if this is adopted you will find universal drunkenness amongst the natives, and their morale and social conditions will be sapped. I hope the House will have none of this iniquitous motion.

I move, as an amendment—

I think that the last speaker did not exaggerate the case when he asked whether the motive for this motion was to be found in the fact that there is a nervousness among the wine farmers about getting the market for their wine. In itself there is not so much harm in the wine farmers seeking a market for their wine, especially as in most cases the people in the end do not believe that the evil connected with it is very great. The agitation for the extension of the tot system to the north, and to get a market for light wines, if necessary, has undoubtedly not arisen from the desire to bring about a reform insofar as drunkenness is concerned. We saw recently how pleased the people in the Western Province were when there was the least indication of the possibility of the tot system being extended to the north. In Die Burger of the 6th February, the Paarl correspondent gave a résumé of the views of the people there. He said, inter alia, that the possible extension of the tot system to the north is welcomed in wine-growing circles, because it will not only mean a big market for wine, but will also be beneficial to the employers and the employees. It is further indicated that the extension will solve the question of over-production. One bottle of light wine a day would considerably increase the use. That is what is behind the matter. When we have to do with the Liquor Act we think of the necessity for preventing drunkenness and reducing illicit trade. In 1923, when the Local Option Bill almost passed the House, the House came so strongly under the impression that the time for doing something had come to reform the Liquor Law that no one less than the Prime Minister told the House on the 2nd May, 1923, that the time had come for the Government to listen to the cry on all sides to try and get better control. The Prime Minister said that the abuses in the liquor trade must be reduced, and that the traffic should be controlled. Now I ask whether the motion introduced to-day will do anything to regulate the liquor traffic, and to get rid of the consumption of liquor? I do not lightly want to criticize the figures which the member opposite has given. The position is serious, nor do I want to say that we only want to push the wine trade. If he means well by the public, and I think he does, then he must also be concerned at so many Afrikaners being in gaol as a result of the illicit liquor traffic, and that so much devastation is still caused by drink in the country. Nor do I think that the reference to the present conditions is a form of hypocrisy. It is a strong argument that the state of affairs is like that. The mover now wants the natives in the north to be able to get liquor, but that will undoubtedly create a serious position. The hon. member has mentioned interesting figures. I also eagerly look forward to the figures for last year. The Liquor Act was passed two years ago, and we have had it in operation for a full year. I wanted to see whether the people who are sent to gaol for illicit liquor dealing had become less, and if the effect of the Act was less drunkenness. I could unfortunately only get the figures for the Witwatersrand, but I think that they are a barometer of the position. Our chief problem in connection with the illicit liquor traffic is on the Rand. The Rand figures give a fairly good impression of the position in the Union. We, however, find that the illicit drink traffic has increased. From 1922 to the end of last year the figures had nearly quadrupled. The number of white men who were convicted in 1922 for illicit liquor dealing was 110 for the Witwatersrand, and last year it was 439; the number of white women has doubled from 43 in 1922 to 92 in 1929. It is undoubtedly a serious disappointment that after the Act has been working a full year we have to find that the illicit liquor traffic is still increasing. In 1928 the number of white men convicted on the Rand for illicit liquor dealing was 345, and in 1929 it was 429, nearly 100 more during the first year of the Roos Act; the number of women that were convicted has risen from 81 to 92. In this respect I must agree with the mover of the motion. The position is serious. The wine farmers will agree with me that we must fight and restrict drunkenness as much as possible, and in this connection, also, the figures are not very encouraging. During the past ten years there was not one year when so many people were convicted on the Witwatersrand for drunkenness as during 1929, after the Act came into force. In 1922, 1,214 white men were convicted for drunkenness, and in 1928, before the Act came into force, the figure was 1,753, but last year under the Act it was 2,030. As for the natives, the figures are also particularly serious. In 1922 the number convicted for drunkenness was 3,388, in 1928 it was 6,776, and last year it rose to 7,103. The figures are very disappointing, and we ask the question whether anything has actually been achieved. According to the figures, we find that the position has become more serious, and that the matter is far from being solved. What is the cause of the illicit liquor selling, itself, increasing so fast under the new Liquor Act? I think one of the causes, possibly the greatest cause, is that the Roos Act of 1928 reduced the penalties. It was generally felt that it was a little severe immediately to imprison people, and therefore, the option of a fine was allowed, and the illicit liquor traffic has increased. The 1928 Act was a compromise, which laid down something to satisfy the wine farmers; something was done to meet the liquor trade, and by which the total abstainers were satisfied a little. It was a peculiar batch of all sorts of compromises. The police state that the illicit liquor traffic was, to a great extent, due to the fact that the people who were concerned in the illicit liquor traffic could get hold of liquor so easily through the bottle stores, and they insisted on more strict control over the bottle store. I notice also that at the last sitting of the licensing courts the police again urged better control of the bottle stores, and again pointed out that liquor could easily be obtained from the bottle stores. I know it is laid down in the Act that the licensed places must keep a register of the names of the people who buy drink, and that they must keep the register more or less up to date. I think everyone will admit that it is a farce, and means nothing. It is a burden thrown on the shoulders of the bottle store keepers which is of no use at all. Perhaps in small places it may be a break, but on the Witwatersrand it is useless. Any name can be put down. We find, e.g., that the Witwatersrand police say that there are many frauds. In one case 370 names and addresses were checked and only 74 correct ones were found; in another case there were only 90 correct out of 345, and in the third case only 19 out of 194, so that it appears that the provision in the Act means very little. It means nothing. The question, however, is whether there are not other ways of giving effect to the desire which is generally felt in the House that the illicit liquor traffic on the Rand and elsewhere should be better controlled, and I think there is a section in the Liquor Act which will go very far to improve conditions as, regards the illicit liquor traffic on the Rand, if that section is applied in practice. The registration of names and addresses in the bottle store is useless, but there is Section 59 of the Roos Act which the police urge, and if the provisions of that section are applied, it will, in my opinion, greatly assist to reduce the illicit traffic. That section will make it difficult for that class of man to get hold of liquor. It cannot be so easily sent out of these parts; he cannot go and buy it at the hotel, and the bottle stores will also be controlled. Section 59 lays down—

This general provision is further detailed in this section. It will not be an unnecessary burden on the general public who want to order liquor at a bottle store, because the licence or permit is issued for a whole year. But the police will have control over the recipients of permits, and of those who are not entitled to them. That practice of simply giving up any name will then be stopped. The wholesaler will also not be allowed to sell liquor to anyone whomsoever. I believe that if this section is properly enforced, there would not be a complete end put to the evil, but there would be a very great diminution. I read with pleasure what the magistrate, who is the chairman of the Rand Licensing Court, Mr. van Reenen, said in connection with this section that the day was no longer far off when this section would have to be applied. His words were—

I think the time has come for the Minister to seriously consider, in view of the figures we have quoted here, and of the large number of natives on the Rand, whether the time has not come to enforce that section, so that there may be stricter control over the sale of liquor. I believe we are doing a great injustice to the white population, and accordingly, I agree with the people who say that we protect the natives and not the Europeans. We are doing a great injustice to the Europeans in exposing them to the temptation of going to the bottle store to buy liquor for 1s. 6d. a bottle, and to sell it to the native at 3s. or 10s. The individual is poor, he needs money, and the temptation is very great to him because it is easy to get hold of drink. If it were more difficult to get it, the temptation would not be so great. The position is, indeed, very serious, and I must thank the hon. member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. Faure) for calling attention to it. Conditions are so serious that the Minister must consider whether it is not time for the provision of the section quoted to be applied on the Rand. If we pass this motion, now before the House, I fear we will make conditions much worse. I have great sympathy with people who want a market for the produce out of which they have to live, but they must understand that we are not concerned here only with markets. We have to do with the moral and economic welfare of people who are not all wine farmers. We have to deal with drunkenness and the economic conditions of the great native population, and if we give that population the privileges which the hon. member is here advocating, then we shall have a state of affairs which is 100 per cent. worse than the parlous conditions which already exist in the Western Province. If we give the native an opportunity of developing a taste for wines, then we shall make the position 100 per cent. worse. There is no farmer who will say that he would welcome that.

What about kaffir beer ?

In my opinion, kaffir beer is less injurious. If the Minister reads the evidence given before the select committee, he will see that it is a far greater evil to accustom the native to the white man’s drink. I sat on the select committee, and took particular notice of the evidence given there. I know of no persons not concerned in the wine trade who advocated the terms of this motion. All said that it would be an evil with very injurious results to South Africa to widely open the door for the cultivation of a taste for European drinks with the natives. It was said that a great number of the natives on the Rand came from Portuguese territory and were accustomed to wine. I want to state here that it is a very small percentage of those natives who drink wine. Mr. Cook, the director of native labour, says in his evidence—

I fear that conditions will be made worse instead of better. If we are much concerned about our protecting the natives in this country, and not the Europeans, then I think the obvious solution is not to take away the protection of the native, but rather to see that something is also done to protect the Europeans. It is often said that we, as Europeans, are guardians of the natives. We treat them as children. We often argue that we, in South Africa, are called upon to maintain the white civilization in the country. I say it will be a disaster to that civilization, which is our great ideal here, if we are to-day to call in the drink devil to help us in solving the native question. Let us try the obvious method of stricter control to reduce this evil. If this Act, and this section, are not properly enforced, then the time will soon come when we shall have to say that in the interests of the Europeans, as well as of the natives, those evils can go no further, and that much stronger legislation than that now in force must be passed, either local option or total prohibition. If there ever was a country where we can make a strong case for prohibition, it is South Africa, where we already have a large section of the population who are subject to total prohibition, and where the other section can, so easily smuggle drink. Our course must be that of stricter control. Those of us who in the past have urged local option, were prepared to make a truce to see whether the Roos Act would improve matters. If the Act can do nothing more to improve the conditions, then other steps will have to be taken.

I second the amendment. I think the country must be very grateful to the mover for the remarks he has made this afternoon which everybody who has the wellbeing of South Africa at heart will be delighted to hear and to see carried out. With regard to the position in the Transvaal, those of us who hail from there are fully aware of the conditions that prevail. Why these conditions should prevail it is difficult to tell. I think if the authorities were a little more alive and carried out their duties more carefully than they are apparently doing, there would be less of this illicit sale of liquor going on. I have received a telegram from the Transvaal, and I will read it. It is from the Johannesburg central branch of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union—

From a business point of view, I do not wish to detract anything from the farming industry. Those of us who were in the House in 1928 will remember the debates that took place on that occasion. Very much was said about this question of the tot system. We have been asked by the hon. gentleman who introduced the motion why prohibition is a total failure in the Transvaal so far as the natives are concerned. Well, the hon. member has not given us a reason why he thinks it has failed; but the reasons are very simple. The price at which the liquor can be bought is a very low one and the price at which it can be sold is a very high one, and some people are prepared to take the risk of making a profit, believing that if they are caught, they will probably be let off by a lenient magistrate with a small fine or get acquitted entirely. Others are sometimes driven to despair, so risk much to make a few shillings wherewith to purchase food. When the debate on the Liquor Act took place in 1928, Mr. Hugo stated: “You will never see a drunken man as the result of the tot system.” Nevertheless, it has produced a tremendous amount of drunkenness in the Western Province. The Duncan Commission proved that drunkenness in the Western Province was excessive, and, unfortunately, it is on the increase. It has been suggested that if the motion is carried, the sale of liquor should be allowed only in places where it can be controlled, but the mover did not tell us how this control is to be exercised. Experience shows, however, that, so far as the natives are concerned, there must be either total prohibition, or complete freedom for the natives to have as much liquor as they like. I feel very proud of the little I did in stopping the extension of the tot system which was proposed when the Liquor Act was passing through this House two years ago. That proposal was defeated by only one vote, but I trust that this motion will be rejected by a very large majority. The people in the north are most strongly opposed to the tot system being introduced into the Transvaal, and in 1928 we had the support of men like Mr. J. W. Jagger and the late Sir William Macintosh; if they were here to-day, I am sure they would be on our side. The 1928 debate showed conclusively that if the tot system were extended to the Transvaal, the position of women in that province would be very serious indeed.

It cannot be worse than it is now.

In other words, the hon. member says: “Throw your canteen doors open to the Transvaal natives!” Die Burger of February 8th, 1928, said—

I am sorry for the Western Province wine farmers. They have embarked on a trade which enables many of them to make a living, but their market is in England, and, unfortunately, we have quarrelled with England. Those who had not the wisdom to see the benefits to be derived from our connection with England passed the German trade treaty.

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

I was trying to show these people their business. The remedy lies in the hands of the people who produce these wines; if they go the right way about it, they can sell their products to England. The real object of the motion is to extend the sale of Cape wine; the producers can do that if they transact their business properly with Great Britain.

I am very sorry that this motion has been introduced after the debate we had on the Liquor Act, but we can expect nothing else; it comes from the wine farmers of the Cape Province, and we cannot blame them. They produce so much wine that they sometimes open their vats and let the wine run away, otherwise the price falls too much. The wine farmers must, however, not forget that we in the Transvaal have no wine vats to open, and when it is said that the tot system works well in the Cape, we must accept that statement with much salt. They have liquor in excess here, but drink is also an evil here. When one goes on a Saturday afternoon to Stellenbosch by motor you have to make many swerves not to run down one of the large number of drunken people. Anyone seeing it must admit that drink is an evil. But hon. members must not forget that in the case we have to deal with, the civilized coloured people, who are nearly as civilized as the Europeans, but in the Transvaal we have the barbarian native, and if we are going to apply the tot system there, where shall we land? I am not one to look for trouble, but there appears to be many hon. friends who are never satisfied, who have a good time, but want it still better, or worse. Now they want to introduce the tot system into the Transvaal. I have had much trouble in my constituency, because many people were in favour of it, but I think it was due to a misunderstanding, because no one surely goes to the devil for assistance. There are enough evils in the world, without our having to try to increase their number. Now hon. members say that so much trouble arises from the trap system, and that so many people are innocently sent to gaol through it. It may be so in the large towns where the evil prevails, but I do not think there are three people in the district of Middelburg who have been in gaol on account of illicit liquor dealing. Hon. members now say that if we introduce the tot system into the Transvaal it will be much better than the present one, but if the motion is passed, we shall no longer be able to control the liquor trade. Farmers can get from the Cape Province as much liquor as they want. Hon. members now want us to go to the poor farmers on the land to supply liquor to his natives, that is not coloured people, but barbarian natives who have an unbridled lust for liquor. Those people who go to gaol in a large town are only people who try to make money out of the illicit traffic. Now, however, according to the motion, we are to let loose the liquor upon the farmers in the Transvaal. They will all be compelled to have liquor in the house because the native is to get his tot. If they do not want to do so, competition will force their hands. I recently asked a farmer why he gave his coloured people four tots of wine a day. His answer was that his neighbour did it, and if he did not do likewise he would have no labour. There is, at present, no drunkenness in the Middelburg district, but if every farmer has control over liquor, because he will have to have it in the house, and he teaches the barbarian native to drink, then I can assure hon. members that no white woman or girl will any longer be safe.

They have kaffir beer to-day.

Yes, that is the old bogey, that kaffir beer they talk so much about, but it cannot be compared with ordinary liquor. I can assure hon. members, e.g., that for the last three months I have had no drunken native on my farm. Kaffir beer is part of the native’s food, just like coffee is a part of ours, but even if we admit kaffir beer to be an evil, why then must we increase the evil? There are many people in the towns now convicted of illicit liquor dealing; why should we also lead the farmers on the countryside into temptation? Moreover, the farm has to be at least two miles from a municipality; if it were within the municipality I could understand it, because there, at any rate, they have the police to protect the women and children, but here it is proposed to give liquor to the native on the remote farms. Moreover, there is not one person only, but possibly there are 20 people on a farm who may give liquor to the native. What is worse, the farmer will not only give the liquor to the native, but he will, himself, also take a tot. When the native has had his tot will he not say to his master: “Master, I give you 5s. for another tot?” because the native’s lust for drink is much worse than any other man’s. Where to-day we have one conviction for illicit dealing we shall have ten in future, because then the smuggling of liquor will not be confined to the towns. If we have as much competition in the Transvaal as there is in the Cape, what will happen? The Transvaal is one of the poorest parts of the country, and labour is scarce. If a farmer has a threshing machine on his farm, and has a barrel of wine, then he will be able to get labour. The next day he is finished, and the threshing machine goes to the poorer neighbour who cannot afford a barrel of wine. I can assure hon. members that the threshing machine will stand idle, because the natives will not want to work without wine, and the man who cannot pay for the cask will have the threshing machine for days on his farm without being able to get natives. We pray every day not to be led into temptation. Why then should we lead farmers in the Transvaal unnecessarily into temptation by introducing liquor? It is not right. Our farmers are quite happy without drink, even if they are sorry for the wine farmers at the Cape. We have enough troubles in the Transvaal. Don’t increase them by introducing liquor.

I am sorry that the hon. member, and also the hon. members for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz) and Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) want to create the impression that the tot system in the Western Province leads to drunkenness. The hon. member spoke of the sad scenes that are to be seen in the Cape. I, however, want to remark that the wine farmers of the Western Province are an honourable class of people, and also that the tots they give do not cause drunkenness. The hon. members know very well that the Liquor Act contains strict provisions in connection with the tot system. Wine may be given at certain times, and in certain quantities. As for the scenes the hon. members spoke of, I want to say that the workpeople get paid on Friday night, and that those scenes are being watched. There are thousands of coloured people in the Cape. They are very thickly populated, and the people who get drunk go to the villages and canteens and buy drink, but they are only a small section of the coloured people in the Cape. A very small percentage, possibly not 5 per cent.

With us there is not one

There is prohibition with you; but, although, apparently, it is possibly a large percentage, the percentage amongst the coloured people of the Western Province is very insignificant, and the people who are found drunk are not in that state as a result of the tots of wine. Sometimes a coloured person off the farm possibly takes a glass too much, but the coloured people live to be 70 and 80 years old, and do not kill themselves with drink. The coloured people who get their tots on the farms do not walk about the streets drunk. Ninety per cent. of these people are well conducted. They are loyal to the church, lead a moral life, an exemplary life in many respects, and do not break the moral laws by getting drunk. Our farmers do not give immoderate quantities of liquor, and we know there is no soberer community to be found than the wine farmers of the Western Province and their families. Why is the tot system spoken about to-day? The motion of my hon. friend does not refer to the tot system, and the hon. member for Magaliesberg (Mr. Alberts) suggested an amendment which is not part of the motion, and has not even yet been moved; it is only on the order paper. The motion only deplores the sad state of affairs in the Transvaal.

Why are you so concerned about the Transvaal ?

There is reason for it. We know what was done in the Transvaal in the past, how many commissions were appointed to enquire into the sad position on the Rand, which to-day still is giving cause for concern. Lord Selborne, e.g., appointed a commission in 1910 to enquire into the conditions.

Lord Milner created the conditions.

I do not want to defend Lord Milner, but in all fairness, I want to point out that the old republic in 1896 and 1898 passed laws in the same direction which Lord Milner made stronger in 1902. We sit here as the legislators of South Africa as a whole, and now the hon. member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. Faure) suggests a remedy for ameliorating the deplorable position. What does he suggest? He wants the people to have a chance of getting light wine under proper control. It is nothing new. A committee of this House was appointed in 1918. Who were the members? The then Minister of Justice, Mr. N. J. de Wet; no one can say that he was in favour of the sale of liquor. I believe that in the depths of his heart he was a total abstainer, but, in any case, he was strongly opposed to abuse. In addition, there were Messrs. Clayton, Wyndham, Neser, Creswell, Rooth, Feetham, Drew and Joubert, all from the Transvaal, and the only member from the Cape Province was the present Speaker, Mr. de Waal, and what did the, Transvaalers recommend? They came to the following conclusion—

I also find in the report—

of the community only, viz., the coloured section, which has been in operation in the Transvaal for the last 16 years, and has been given a fair trial, has to a great extent proved a failure.

Then they say—

Further—

That has improved.

I am glad, and then follow the recommendations of that committee—

1. (1) Have the liquor laws in force in the Transvaal Province had the effect of preventing natives and coloured persons from getting alcoholic liquor in large quantities ?
2. (2) What is the present state of affairs, especially on the Witwatersrand, as the result of those laws ?
3. (3) Should this state of affairs be allowed to continue ?
4. (4) What is the remedy to be applied? With regard to Question No. (1), your committee finds as a fact on the evidence that, notwithstanding the provisions of the law, and notwithstanding the unremitting efforts of the police, natives and coloured persons are able to obtain, and do obtain, on the Rand and elsewhere in the Transvaal, alcoholic liquor in large quantities.

With regard to Question No. (2), your committee is of opinion that large numbers of Europeans, natives and coloured persons become criminals and are degraded and ruined in consequence of the opportunities of earning a living easily by means of illicitly supplying the demand for liquor which undoubtedly exists, and apparently will continue to exist, and that our prohibition laws have caused immense and untold misery, pain, ruin and degradation amongst a large section of the community. The enormous direct cost to the state entailed by the endeavours to enforce these laws has been dealt with in paragraph 16 of this report.

Those are the conditions which the hon. member for Hottentots Holland wants to get changed. We do not ask for drink to be given to people. No wine farmer wants to encourage drunkenness, but if such conditions have arisen, is it not time to ask for the Act to be altered to bring a purer liquor under proper control by Government within reach of the people? To the third question the reply is as follows—

This is said by the committee which had the witnesses before it. Men who could speak with an intimate knowledge of things, amongst others Col. Truter, Commissioner of Police, Lt.-Col. Vachell, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mr. T. G. Macfie, resident magistrate of Johannesburg, Mr. H. M. Taberer, Dr. Krause, Mr. Devenish, Mr. Alexander and others. These are the men who say that the illicit liquor dealing is only stopped when light wines and other kinds of drink are supplied to the natives and coloured people. Those are people who speak with authority, and who had an interest in creating a good state of affairs. Other witnesses, amongst them Mr. J. de V. Roos, then Secretary for Justice, Mr. Eaton, Commissioner of Customs and Excise, Dr. Dunstan, Dr. van Niekerk, Mr. Kelsey, representative of the Transvaal Chamber of Mines, and others suggested that kaffir beer and light wines, subject to certain restriction, and under Government control, ought to be allowed on the Rand. That was a unanimous view of a select committee of this House on which only one hon. member from the Cape Province sat, viz., Mr. Speaker. In conclusion, I want to say that when we can, at the same time, get an extended market for healthy light wines—the hon. member for Von Brandis said that we must go to England for such a market, and, although I have no objection. I still think that it is our first duty to look for such a market in our own country, and to provide for our own needs—and as the present position is what we have here described, we, if we can at the same time improve that position, should give our earnest consideration to the suggestions which have been made. We, in this House, have to listen from year to year to the terrible state of affairs on the Rand. We have to hear how white people, men, women and children, and women with babies, are condemned to a kind of hard labour, and we must give serious attention to the matter. I think there are probably between 500 and 600 Europeans in gaol as a result of the illicit liquor traffic, and if we can get rid of this evil, and at the same time find a better market for our produce, then we must consider such measures. The descendants of the wine farmers do not believe in wine farming. Wine farming is an honourable profession, and we are proud of our wine farmers. They were the pioneers of civilization in South Africa, and many of my hon. friends from the north are descendants of wine farmers. I think the Minister of Justice will do Well to seriously consider the motion whether it is possible to introduce legislation, making the necessary amendments.

As a Government measure ?

The Prime Minister has departed from the ordinary practice, and if the Minister of Justice will give just as strong help as the Prime Minister, then we will accept the hint with thanks

I move as a further amendment—

All the farmers of South Africa are going through a dark period of trouble and anxiety, but of all the farmers that are affected by the depression, the wine farmers are the worse off to-day. Their product is subject to handicapping conditions and intolerable taxes. No drop of liquor can be sold without a licence, and there is a great deal of trouble in getting a licence. All available machinery must be used to get a licence, and often without success. The holders of licences in the country are fast bringing about a general monopoly which is not in the interests of the state, the public, or of the industry. The wine farmers contribute a very large sum to the Treasury. Their product contributes more than 300 per cent. to the Treasury than what the producer gets for it. The producer gets one-quarter, and the state three-quarters. Viticulture is one of the oldest industries in the country. The first stick planted here by our ancestors was the vine-stick. It does not answer at present in many parts of the country, but where it is suitable there is nothing else that can be planted with greater profit, provided the industry receives the necessary support and sympathy. There are about 3,500 farmers employed in the industry who give work to 35,000 persons, and who support about 200,000. The wine farmers belong to the most hard-working class of the population. It has been said in the House that the farmers are lazy, but that cannot be said of the wine farmer. They work very hard, because otherwise they would entirely disappear. The wine farmers do very much to advance public works. They do a great deal for charity and they have quite contributed their quota in the past to establishing white civilization in, our country. They have contributed to the erection of monuments which are immovable in the form of schools and other public works. To-day those farmers have to battle with extraordinary limitations. South Africa is a wine-producing country, but unfortunately limitations have been imposed on the wine-drinking population. We deplore that condition of things. While South Africa is faced with so many restrictions, the consumption is diminished in spite of the wine farmers co-operative society doing everything to improve the article and to produce light wines which ought to be a national drink in South Africa, and which we now have to export overseas. What has kept viticulture alive is the wine growers’ cooperative society to which the wine farmers belong, and which is a model society. If it were not for that, wine farmers would have been ruined long since. I should like very much to draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to certain necessary amendments of the Liquor Act. With regard to the public drinking facilities, there are two kinds of bars, the first-class is intended for Europeans, and the second-class for non-Europeans. The latter consists also of two classes, there are civilized and less civilized persons amongst them, and it is desirable that there should also be two classes of drinking places for these two classes of persons. The civilized coloured person refuses to drink in the same bar as the uncivilized coloured person. Then I come to the bottle stores. It has been said that there ought to be more control over the bottle stores. We do not want liquor to be sold there to coloured women; that we also disapprove. The position, however, is that the person who buys a bottle of liquor has to give his name and address. The object of the register is to prevent smuggling. Now when a person buys one or two bottles of liquor it certainly is not his intention to go smuggling, the result however is that the respectable consumer of drink refuses to submit to that restriction. Why not provide that the person who, e.g., buys more than three bottles of liquor must give his name and address. The licensees’ right of selling drink is everywhere curtailed, then we must also, in definite circumstances, give the right to increase the sale. Travellers cannot get liquor at licensed places after 6 o’clock. Why cannot we give the right to hotels to sell liquor to such people? Then there is the question of the closing of licensed places. In the large towns it is 11 o’clock, and in the smaller villages it is 10 o’clock. What difference is there that in one place the closing hour is fixed at 10 o’clock, and in the other at 11 o’clock. In the villages there are many people who are busy all day and who go out at night to pleasure resorts, when they come back they want to refresh their bodies, but the hotels close at 10 o’clock. To come to my amendment we have in South Africa various systems of liquor rations; we have the tot system in the Cape, the nip system in the Free State, and the prohibition system in the Transvaal. Prohibition has never been a success anywhere, and it has least success in a drink-producing country like South Africa. Prohibition has always led to smuggling and drunkenness. We want legislation to see if a better state of affairs cannot be created in the world. The motion directly asks that the employer shall be given the right to give his employees rations of liquor under proper control as to quality and quantity. If the position in South Africa is so bad that prohibition cannot be successfully introduced, then we must try to get something in its place. It is easy to pass legislation to prohibit the sale of drink of a certain class, but it is impossible to prohibit the obtaining and the use of liquor. Over and over again experience has shown us that while there is prohibition of the sale of liquor to natives and coloured persons, smuggling and drunkenness still prevail in spite of that Act, and the native still gets liquor in a strong, poisoned, venomous form, with a very high percentage of alcohol which is quite as bad as the dagga with which, as the hon. member said, they are paid in the north. To improve the existing system, we have the trap system, a system which gets at very many people unmercifully, and possibly also unjustly. The Act has already demoralised many people, and devastated their lives. It protects the native at the expense of the white man and of the white woman. It is a highly unsatisfactory position to which an end ought to be made as soon as possible. The amendment recommending light wine is a step in the right direction to end the existing evil. In the mines the practice prevails to give the workers two rations of coffee a day, and on certain days of the week they get kaffir beer. Why is that done? Because the workers need something stronger, something intoxicating. That has been denied here, but it is a fact that a considerable section of the mine natives from Portuguese territory come from a part where they are accustomed to take wine. On the Hand, however, they cannot get it. There kaffir beer is given because they need something strong, but if light wine were given then it is clear that it would be the best, cheapest, and healthiest ration which could be given to the people. Light wine refreshes and strengthens, without intoxicating. It is said that the native will not drink light wine. Yes, as long as they can get the drink illegally he will prefer brandy to light wine. But experience with light wine in the Western Province where the tot system has prevailed for centuries, is that the coloured people and natives on the farms exhibit less drunkenness than in other parts of South Africa, or in the whole world. I challenge any member to go to any farm in my district and he will hardly find any drunken man there. Why is that? Because the farmer gives rations, and properly controls the issue of wine. Hon. members have spoken about the drunkenness on Saturday afternoons, but then the people are not working. The coloured people then get their liquor at the canteens, where there is no proper control. But the people who work on the farms on Saturdays are not drunk, because the farmer cannot use drunken workpeople. I also want to point out that those drunken workpeople that hon. members see are people who in most cases do not get tots, but who work with masters who do not supply them. It is also a fact that many people when they see a 1,000 people, 999 of whom are sober, they do not see the 999, but only the one who is drunk, and then a great fuss is made of it. The people who give their workers rations are not people who teach their workers to drink. Nobody is compelled to drink on a farm, and there are coloured people who do not drink at all. I want to point out that light wine is a beverage which makes one moderate and sober. Europeans and coloured people who confine themselves to light, natural wine, are the most respectable people under the sun. Those who abuse drink are chiefly the section that confine themselves to spirituous liquor. We are pleading here to-day to legalize an illegal act so that the employer in the Transvaal, the mine-owner and the farmer, whose existence is becoming more difficult every day, can give light wine to their employees. Then they will get better and more workers, who will be able to do their work better. That is the case we are pleading for and not to get people into trouble. One hon. member has said that we want to use the drink devil to eradicate the native. If that were so we would not have spoken of light wine, but of brandy. We do not want to kill them, but supply them with a light and healthy beverage. In conclusion I want to appeal to hon. members, who represent farming districts, or will represent them in future, where the farmers are having a very bad time, to stand together. The economic concerns of the farmer are now so inter-related that we must cooperate to protect the interests of the farmer. The grain, stock, and wine farmers form a three-fold chain, and that chain must be made sound and strong, because through it agriculture, which is the foundation of our country, will be put on a sound footing.

I second the amendment. When the Liquor Act was before the House in 1928 I was one of the persons who pleaded that the Transvaal should also have the right of giving liquor to the workers. I felt that it would be an injustice not to allow it in the Transvaal. There is an evil which must be put out of the world, and that is the illicit liquor traffic, which exists, and which prevents the Europeans from giving drink to the native. I said at the time that I was not prepared to protect one section at the cost of another, and I cannot understand why members are so afraid of the native in the Transvaal getting drink. In the Cape it is an old institution for the natives and coloured people to get their drink, the same prevails in the Free State. I want to ask whether the natives of the Transvaal are so different to those of the Free State and whether the Transvaal farmers are so different from those in the Free State. Why then should the Free State farmers be allowed to give their natives drink, and not the Transvaal farmers? I want to ask whether there are in the Free State, and the Cape Province, to-day white men and women in gaol on account of illicit liquor dealing. Not one. In the Transvaal the gaols are full. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe) showed how the illicit traffic had increased since the coming into force of the new Liquor Act and how drunkenness had increased. Why is that? Human nature is inclined to want what is forbidden. If the forbidden tree had not existed in Paradise we should not have had all the difficulties to-day. The temptation exists, and unfortunately our weakest people are not able to resist the temptation, and because there is so much poverty in the country, and the people must earn something, and the temptation exists because the natives are keen on liquor, those people resort to smuggling liquor and getting into gaol. The hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) spoke of the natives in the Transvaal using kaffir beer as food, and how wonderful it was that they were not in gaol. He does not want to lead the Transvaal people into temptation by supplying drink to the natives, but the way of removing the temptation is to give the native the same freedom as in the Free State and the Cape Province. Then the greatest temptation will be removed, and the temptation to the white people to smuggle liquor and supply it to the natives, will disappear. To-day the natives are constantly tempted by the illicit liquor trade, and the Europeans are tempted to supply the liquor. The prohibition of drink leads to abuse because if on occasions he can get liquor the native goes to excess, because at other times he cannot get it. And as to kaffir beer, I want to ask the hon. member for Middelburg just once to go about the Transvaal farms on a Saturday afternoon and Sunday, then he will find drunkenness from one end to the other, and drunkenness of a terrible kind. When I was at home recently for a week, natives came to my house in the middle of the night and said that a native had been killed, because there were drunken natives there. What is the difference between drunkenness from kaffir beer, or that from wine? And then we are told that the farmer will be tempted to give strong drink to the native. I ask what farmer will go and make the native drunk in his work? Will he so ruin his work? The farmer will give him a suitable tot, and if the native gets a little drink he is quite satisfied. When he has worked a week and gets a little liquor, he is quite satisfied. I heartily support the motion, and was glad to be able to speak on it because I am in favour of the Transvaal also having the liberty of giving tots to its workpeople under proper control. No abuse will take place, and it will put an end to great evil.

The whole question of the tot system was so fully discussed when the Act of 1928 was passed that I did not think it was necessary that we should re-discuss the matter to-day. The Transvaal very wisely legislated themselves out of that tot system, but it was allowed to apply to the Cape Province. And what was the result? Within a few weeks of it coming into force the whole of the Border districts applied to the Governor-General for exemption from this tot system as far as those districts were concerned, showing that our farmers realized immediately that it was not in their best interests to introduce a system which had brought about such disgraceful conditions amongst the coloured farm labourers in the Western Province and had proved so demoralizing. I would not have intervened in this debate if we were not directly interested in this matter. On the face of it it would appear that the motion applies to the Transvaal. If it only applied there, I would like the Transvaal farmers and the wine farmers to fix it up between themselves, but it has more far-reaching consequences than that, because hundreds of thousands of natives are recruited from the Transkeian territories and Natal, and if these boys come from places where there is total prohibition, to the mines, and are allowed to acquire a taste for light wines and then return to our areas, it will be too terrible to contemplate. To illustrate the advantages of our present system, we have only one policeman to 1,600 human beings in the Transkeian territories; I believe in Cape Town and Johannesburg it is one to every 400. Yet there you are dealing with what are called “barbarians” and yet that is all the police protection that is necessary showing how law-abiding the natives are. I attribute this to total prohibition. The advantages of the tot system in the Western Province have been quoted to-day, but there is nothing more disgraceful than the position here. If you go to Stellenbosch and Paarl on a Saturday afternoon, the scenes one witnesses are too disgraceful for words. That may be purely local, but the effect of liquor on the coloured man is totally different to the effect on the native. When the coloured man gets liquor, he drops down by the roadside, tears his clothes or perhaps tries to quarrel with his wife and children, but the native, in drink, becomes a different human being; the wildness of his past nature comes out. In the Eastern Province, at one time it was a danger for our wives and children to venture out after dark when natives obtained liquor. To-day they may go about in perfect safety. I understand there are approximately 120,000 natives working on the mines in Johannesburg recruited from the Union. If these natives get the taste for wine, they will not be satisfied until they get something very much stronger. The notice of motion states under adequate and proper control, are you going to have the Minister of Justice with a policeman at every possible place to examine the strength of the wine supply? Even at present, a large number of convictions are taking place What will happen? Under the guise of light wines, these people are going to get wine of a much stronger content. Kaffir beer, when properly manufactured, ha gets in his kraal, it is his natural beverage besides being an excellent food as well.

I think he wants something stronger.

Yes, when he has got the taste for it.

Where does he get the taste from ?

He gets it from the activities of the illicit liquor seller. Kaffir beer is his natural beverage. The curse is the introduction into Kaffir beer of this very strong fiery stuff. In the interests of our farming community in the Eastern Province, in the interests of our women and children, I plead that the House will not accept this motion. I would also say the longer you can keep it away from the farms, the better work you will have and the greater will be the safety of your women and children, besides it is a positive danger to the natives themselves who would be debased if they were allowed to obtain light wines promiscuously and even in the natives’ interests too I trust the motion will be rejected.

I move, as an amendment to the preceding amendment—

The hon. member for the Paarl (Mr. P. P. du Toit) proposed that rations should be given to work people, and my constituency has instructed me to see that an amendment is made in the Liquor Act, so that the Transvaal can be put on the same footing as the Free State. I move the amendment, not because we in the Transvaal want to act so carelessly as hon. members have stated here, but so that we shall be able to give tots to our workers without any danger arising. I am well known in the Transvaal. I was born and grew up there, and I know something of the Transvaal society. Much has been said here about the liquor position there. The severe provisions which have been introduced there have been the cause of all the evils and misery that exist there. As soon as the natives were, as it were, prevented from getting any drink, the terrible state of affairs arose there. We who live near the villages or near Johannesburg, are placed in a position of getting much trouble as a result of the illicit sale of liquor. It is said that liquor is the curse of the unfortunate non-Europeans (skepsels) in the Transvaal. I do not want to curse the drink, because it is a clean thing. I am, however, most strongly opposed to drunkenness. We must see to it that the natives and the Europeans can get their liquor in such a way as not to become drunk. In the Free State the position is that people are allowed to give a tot to their workers, and I know of no case as yet where there has been drunkenness complained of in the Free State. In the Cape Province the workers also get liquor, and there also there are no complaints of trouble. Why then should we specially have trouble in the Transvaal? If I have liquor in my possession, why should I be prohibited from giving a tot to the non-European who works for me? If I do it to-day I am liable to a big fine. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe) advocated stricter control. I take up the attitude that we must make conditions in the Transvaal freer, and then the hon. member can allow us a year to see whether conditions are not improved. If I may give the native a tot on the farm, then he will not go off to the town or village to get liquor there. I shall not intoxicate my native, and I am certain other farmers will not either. We cannot only confine ourselves to light wines, because we shall not always have them in the Transvaal. The hon. member for. Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) spoke of a person who had a barrel of brandy alongside his machine. It is a fool who does that. There are, of course, people who will not avail themselves of this right. They are not compelled to do so, but why should others who think differently not be given the right? I shall take care of my native, and I am convinced every farmer will do so. The farmer is responsible for his natives if he intoxicates them. We must not be against liquor as such, but only against drunkenness. I move my amendment so that we can also give a tot to the native in the Transvaal without committing a crime.

I second the amendment. Before I go further, I should first like to tell the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) that he is making a very big mistake when he says that he is speaking for the Transvaal. He knows nothing about the farmers in the Transvaal, and we do not even regard Von Brandis as being in the Transvaal. It lies there between heaven and earth. We, in the Transvaal, consider it unjust not to be given the same rights as the Free State. We think we should also have the right to give our natives a tot every day. Our experience is that if you give them a tot you can expect better work. It is said that the native is satisfied with kaffir beer. But what is the result? Every Monday is black Monday with us with the result that the native only comes to work on Tuesday. If we can give the native half a pint of liquor every day then it will assist the farmers in getting labour, and it will keep the natives from drunkenness. It has been said that drink is injurious, but I have not heard that being said with regard to the European. If drink is so injurious, why does no one propose total prohibition, and why then do we protect the natives and not the Europeans? No, if this amendment is passed, it will assist us in getting labour on the one hand and on the other it will prevent the rush to the towns, because that rush is greatly due to the native wanting to get drink there. We shall then be able to solve both questions.

On the motion of Mr. Borlase, the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 14th March.