I move—

It will be within the knowledge of members of this House that in October, 1926, a commission was appointed by the Railway Board to investigate the whole question of railway level crossings in this country. Among the terms of reference were questions to what extent level crossings might be eliminated and bridges or subways put in their place, and also the cost of giving effect to the commission’s recommendations, and the proportions in which that cost should be borne by state departments and local communities. The resources of the railway administration were put at the disposal of this commission. The commission sat for a period of about 14 months. They examined witnesses and made personal inspections of a number of level crossings all over the country, and in December, 1927, they made their report. They made a number of recommendations. In some cases they recommended that bridges or subways should take the place of the level crossings; in other places they recommended wider gates and booms and so on. I am going to deal only with the commission’s recommendations so far as they advised the construction of subways or bridges to take the place of level crossings. In approaching this problem the commission found that the existing level crossings fell into different classes. For instance one class of crossing existed in rural areas or on the outskirts of municipalities. After considering evidence they came to the conclusion that those level crossings were used not merely by the inhabitants of the different districts in which they occurred, but by the people all over the Union, so that the crossings did not exist simply for the use of local inhabitants. They also found that the divisional councils within whose jurisdiction these rural crossings fell, were already imposing taxation up to the limit which could safely be imposed and that they had not sufficient resources to construct subways and bridges in place of these level crossings, and therefore, in the case of these rural crossings, the commission recommended that half the cost of making the crossings should be borne by the municipality concerned, and the other half by the Union Government. For instance the commission recommended that overhead bridges should be constructed at Wellington and Huguenot at the cost of the railways administration and the Union Government, on equal shares. Huguenot and Wellington have not got their bridges yet and they are somewhat upset about it. We shall probably hear about that from the hon. member who represents Paarl if he is allowed to speak this afternoon. A number of smaller municipalities existed whose resources were limited and the commission recommended that, in those cases, the railway administration should pay half the cost and the balance should be shared by the municipality concerned and the Union Government. As an instance of that class of crossing, I would mention Worcester, Stellenbosch and Beaufort West. Half the cost was to be borne by the railways administration, a quarter by the Union Government and a quarter by the municipality. Then there were crossings in the large urban centres such as Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Pretoria and so on and in those cases as a general rule, the commission recommended that half the cost should be borne by the railway administration and half by the municipality concerned. But there was one section of line, the electrified section between Cape Town and Muizenberg, where the commission found that electrification had introduced a new source of danger and it recommended that the level crossings on that line should be converted into subways and that the cost of doing so should be regarded as part of the cost of the electrification of the line. In the case of some 17 crossings on the Cape Town-Muizenberg line, they reckoned that the whole of the cost of providing subways or bridges should come out of railway funds. I understand that the position is that the railway administration has flatly refused to carry out the recommendations of the commission in so far as those recommendations are a departure from the principle that the railway administration should pay half the cost of making these level crossings safe and the local authority the other half. I am only going to deal this afternoon with the crossings in the Cape Peninsula. Several members, I understand, will devote themselves to the position in other parts of the country. In the Cape Peninsula, in the case of certain crossings the commission recommended that the railway administration should pay half and the local body the other half. These were bridges on the Cape Flats line and the main line in the Cape municipal area. Then in regard to three crossings on the electrified line to Simonstown they recommended that the municipal council should pay Half, but in the case of the remaining 17 crossings they recommended that the railway administration should pay the whole cost. They worked out the cost of making the line safe to Muizenberg which was £146,000, and they said the railway administration’s share should be £137,500, and that the Cape Peninsula should find £8,500. The railway administration has refused to give effect to that recommendation and in February of this year an official statement was issued to the press and published in the Cape Times of the 24th February. That is the official statement of the railway administration in this matter. The statement commenced by saying that the policy which required local authorities to contribute £ for £ had been consistently applied all over the country and was regarded as a fair and reasonable arrangement. The answer to that statement so far as the Cape-Muizenberg line is concerned is contained in the commission’s report itself. I cannot do better than refer to its express finding. The commission referred to the history of the line from Cape Town to Muizenberg which was built by a company under an Act of 1861. That Act contains a clause that the private company which originally built the Wynberg line had to make and keep in repair so many gates, bridges, etc., as might be necessary for the purpose of making good any interruptions caused by the said railway. I refer to this old Act because it shows that the legislature, in dealing with the company which built this line, recognized the obligation of providing against interference with traffic crossing that line. In 1876 the line was taken over by the Cape Government and an agreement was entered into, among the conditions of which was that the Government should “take over all the liabilities of the company in respect of the construction and working of the line.” Then we come to the time when the electrification was being considered. An Act was passed in 1922, authorizing the electrification of this line, and it contains a section which provides that “all works shall be carried out by the administration in such a way as to avoid as far as possible loss or inconvenience to owners of property or to the public.” So that the principle is recognized in that legislation that the owners of the railway are under obligation to provide against interference with traffic crossing the line. Now from year to year this line has been causing an increasing amount of inconvenience to the public. The number of trains operating over the line has gone up from year to year, and, as far back as 1925, this interference with traffic crossing the line by trains of the administration was becoming a serious trouble and was the subject of representations to the railway administration. As an instance of the way in which the line interferes with the convenience of the public, I may tell the House this: In 1925 the Rondebosch ratepayers’ association took a census of the traffic, on one of the level crossings over the line at Rondebosch. They found that in 12 hours, 128 trains passed over the line. The gates were closed 77 times, while in the course of 12 hours, the gates were only open for 5 hours 48 minutes, and they found that during the course of one hour, at the busy season of the day, when people were coming home from business, that is between the hours of 5.37 p.m. and 6.37 p.m., the gates were closed for 49 minutes, and were only open for 11 minutes. That will indicate the amount of inconvenience caused to the public by this one crossing at Rondebosch in the year 1925. Since that year, the number of trains has increased, and, although no census on the same basis has been taken since then, I think it is obvious and common knowledge to everybody in the Peninsula, that the interference with the rights of the public crossing this railway line has been increased. Well then, the commission dealt with the further question as to what difference the electrification of the line would bring about. Although electrification was not then completed, the commission found this—

That is the report of the commission in 1927. Those predictions have been justified, and the interference with the rights of the public crossing the line in the Cape Peninsula has become so serious that it is really a problem for the public of the Cape Peninsula which is causing them a great deal of difficulty, and a great deal of concern. There is no doubt whatever that the predictions of the commission have been justified. The trains are more numerous to-day than they were before, and they are much faster. They approach the level crossings at probably twice the speed of the old steam trains, and they come along very silently. I make bold to say it has happened to almost everybody in the Peninsula at some time or other, when crossing the line, that he has found an electric train coming towards him at a very fast rate, and with great silence. There is no doubt that these crossings are much more dangerous than they were a few years ago, when the danger we had then was from the steam train. Then the commission came to consider the question of the costs of making these level crossings safe. I had better read what they say in extenso, because it puts up a perfectly unanswerable case in favour of the contention that the Railway Department should undertake the provision of subways and bridges at these level crossings at the expense of the Railway Department. On page 15 of the report the commission state—

The exceptions are three subways, the cost of which should be borne half by the city council and half by the Railway Administration. The report goes on—

So much for the contention in the official statement that the principle of a pound for pound contribution is reasonable. It is entirely disposed of by the commission itself. Then the report stated that the Cape Town council had not produced any conclusive argument why it should be treated differently from any other local bodies elsewhere. The report itself is a conclusive argument, because they put the cost of the electrified line on a totally different footing from the cost of lines in other parts of the country which fall within the jurisdiction of other local bodies. Then the report referred to the following—

When one reads that, it gives the impression that the Railways and Harbours Board in 1928 had gone into the whole question of this report, and had criticized it, and had shown that in some way the conclusions of the commission were not justified. But we do not find that anything of this sort is contained in the report of 1928. The report simply says—

The board do not deal with the recommendations of the commission and demolish them one by one. They say: "It has always been our policy, and we still adhere to that policy.” One can only conclude that they did not deal with the arguments of the commission, because there was no possible answer to those arguments. The official statement then proceeds—

That is a particularly impudent attempt to obscure the issue, because it suggests that the case for the provision of subways and level crossings is based on the increase of road traffic at the crossings. As a matter of fact, it is not the increase in the road traffic, but the increase in the train traffic, and the fact that trains now run at greater speed and with greater silence because of electrification, that makes the demand for the protection of road users more urgent. The statement then proceeds to argue that if the Administration were solely responsible for the expenditure on level crossings, it should have the right to restrict the number of subways and crossings, but it has no such power, and, therefore, the municipal council must make such provision as will facilitate traffic. This is a most amazing argument, and is an absolute non sequitur. It does not follow that because the Railway Administration is to be held solely responsible it has the right to restrict the number of crossings. The Minister must have lost sight of the fact that the crossings were in existence before the suburban line was built in 1861. The railways have not an exclusive right to run trains over the public roads—

Which existed first. The railway is the intruder.

That is so. The railways have not the exclusive use of these crossing places. By increasing the number of its trains, and by closing the crossings to allow the trains to go through, the department is gradually arrogating to itself the exclusive use of the crossings. If that continues, in the course of time the public will completely be shut out from the right of using level crossings except for brief periods. The department, however, is bound to allow the public the reasonable use of these crossings. The statement proceeds—

I do not know whether I am expected to deal seriously with a contention of that sort. A municipality is under no obligation to protect the users of its roads from other traffic, and yet the Railway Department wishes to impose on the municipality the responsibility of protecting ordinary traffic from trains that run across public roads. The trains are not obstructed by road traffic. It is the road traffic which is obstructed by the trains. The Railway Administration sees to that by closing the gates when trains are passing through. We now come to the next argument, which is that since the electrification of the suburban line the rateable value of property in areas served by the line has been considerably enhanced. I take it that the argument is that as the municipality obtains more rates as the result of the increased valuation, ft should bear the cost of providing subways. But I dispute the contention that any rise in the value of property along the suburban line has been caused by the electrification of the railways. The fact of the matter is that there has been a general rise in property values in the Cape Peninsula, and that rise is not confined to areas served by the electrified line. The rise in value in the Gardens has been just as pronounced as it has been in the Wynberg or Muizenberg area. The rise in value is really due to the development of bus services. The property valuers of Wynberg tell me that the most pronounced rise in value is along the bus routes, and any increase along the railway route is merely an increase in sympathy with the general rise in property values. The ward valuator who valued the Plumstead to Kenilworth area expressed the opinion to me that so far from there being a rise in property values in that district owing to the electrification of the suburban line, there has been a decline in the immediate vicinity of the suburban line. There has been a great increase in the nuisance since these electric trains have come. We have continual whistling during the day and the greater part of the night. The level crossings are responsible for much of this whistling, for at every level crossing, certainly the unprotected ones, the engine-driver in his own protection has to sound the whistle. That is calculated to produce injury to health, and the nuisance caused has already been the subject of complaint to the Railway Administration. The statement further went on to refer to the great number of accidents in the Cape Town streets, but really, I do not know what that has to do with the local authorities, who are not responsible for them, and they cannot be expected to pay half the cost of the subways because of these street accidents. What the public is entitled to expect is that the railways will do everything possible to avoid injury and loss of life. A number of these crossings are undoubtedly unsafe, and some of them can be described only as death-traps, and it is essential in the interests of the public that these should be replaced by safer means of crossing the line. I want to refer to another aspect of the matter. The commission went into the question of what level crossings cost the Railway Administration at the time they investigated, because at a number of them the Administration is keeping watchmen. The commission reported that the cost would be further increased after electrification unless overhead bridges and subways were substituted for the crossings. In 1926 the cost of attendance at the crossings was £4,968, which capitalized at 5 per cent. would represent a capital sum of £99,360. I do not know what the figures are at the present day. I am content to take it at the figure it was in 1926. The Railway Administration is expecting the city council to pay towards the provision of these subways and bridges, and it is recommended that they pay half the total cost of £146,000. The cost to the railway will, therefore, be £73,000, so that there will be an expected saving in wages and so on of £26,000 out of the capital sum of £99,260. The Railway Administration is, therefore, trying to make a clear profit at the expense of the municipal council of £26,000. I understand that has been the subject of negotiations, the net result of which is that the Minister has refused to do anything except on the basis of the municipal council paying half the cost. I submit the report of the commission is a conclusive argument for the case of the Cape Town municipal authorities, and that these subways and bridges recommended by the commission should be provided at the expense of the Railway Administration. I submit also no case whatever has been made out for a departure from the recommendations of the commission regarding crossings in rural areas. It is impossible for rural authorities to make these crossings safe, and, unless the recommendations of the commission are carried out, these crossings must remain a perpetual source of danger to the public.

I second the motion. The motion brought attention to what is really a very extraordinary state of affairs. The facts are pretty well known to everybody, and there are few in this House who are not concerned in this matter and have not one or more of these level crossings in their constituency. We all know, as the years have gone on, this rail and road traffic has steadily increased, and level crossings have been an increasing and ever-present danger to the community—and not only that, but a growing public nuisance. For years the toll of accidents and the general hold-up of the public at level crossings have been increasing. The Minister gave us some figures some few weeks ago as to the number of accident in 1929 at these crossings, which reduced the enormous total of 186, or nearly four a week. He also told us that 64 people were either killed or injured—rather more killed than injured. If you go a little further and look at the total of accidents on the railways in 1929, you find an extraordinarily large proportion of them are due to level crossings, or they take place on them. I have a rather long list here which I do not propose to read, but in glancing through it one is struck by the large proportion of casualties which take place at level crossings. During January, 1929, on the 1st of the month, at Fish Hoek, a European woman was killed, and on the same day a native was injured; on the 2nd various people were injured at Hercules; on the 3rd a European woman was killed at Bellair; on the 5th a native was killed, and on the 10th various people were injured at Athlone. On the 19th collision causing death and various injuries at Heidelberg, on the 26th a woman killed at Ladismith, on the 27th another coloured man at Woodstock, and so it goes on. The danger of these level crossings is admitted. As to the delays, these are serious to the busy man who has to get from one place to another in the course of business. The Level Crossings Commission’s report, which the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) has dealt with, shows that it is no uncommon thing for level crossings to be actually closed for six hours out of a 12 hours’ day. Unfortunately, these closings are most frequent during the busy times of the day. Taking the “rush” period, when the railway and road traffic are heaviest, you find that for three-quarters of an hour out of an hour the road traffic is held up. The electrification of the Simonstown line has made things worse. There are more trains, and they move more quickly and more silently, and not only does this increase the delays, but it increases the danger. When the hon. the Minister finally became aware of the position—I use the official phrase “became aware” advisedly, because the attitude of the hon. the Minister seems to be not that of an ordinary human being at all, but that of a very superior person indeed—therefore I say that when he “became aware” of the position in October, 1926, he appointed the Level Crossings Commission. That commission duly reported to the Minister and to the Railway Board in December, 1927, and the hon. member for Wynberg has dealt very fully with that report. Perhaps I may, however, just summarize the three main findings of that commission. First of all, it emphasized the very dangerous and unsatisfactory state of affairs. Secondly, it made very minute and definite recommendations as to what should be done to remedy this state of affairs; and, thirdly, it estimated the cost of the alterations it recommended, and made recommendations as to how the cost should be borne as between the different authorities. In the case of Cape Town, with which I am more immediately concerned, the commission emphatically condemned practically the whole of the level crossings in the Cape Peninsula. It made specific recommendations with regard to each level crossing as to what should be done. In some cases it made recommendations for immediate action to protect life and limb until the major recommendations could be put into effect. It also expressed the opinion that the cost should be mainly borne by the Railway Administration. That report was considered by all concerned, including the unfortunate public who were being, and, I am sorry to say, still are, slaughtered at regular intervals; and on the first two points, the Railway Administration and the local authorities and the general public were agreed. They were all agreed as to the urgency of the matter, and that the recommendations of the commission as to what should be done were sound. But on the third point, the question of the division of cost, there was a difference of opinion. It was a minor point compared with the urgency of the position and the general agreement as to what should be done. What do we find? We find that on this minor point, the whole position has stuck for nearly three years. One would have thought that the hon. the Minister, who holds the key to the position, would have taken steps to come to a speedy agreement on this question of the division of the cost, so that the important work of making these level crossings safe could have been proceeded with without delay. There is no doubt that sooner or later agreement will have to be reached, and that it will be reached, and as far as the unfortunate public are concerned, the sooner agreement can be reached the better. But what do we find? More than two-and-a-half years after the commission has reported nothing whatever has been done, and the level crossings danger is worse than it has ever been. The report of the railway commissioners in 1928 referred to this Level Crossings Commission’s report. They stated their policy on the commission’s recommendations as to apportionment of the cost, and their policy was that the cost of alterations to level crossings must be borne jointly and equally by the Railway Administration and the local authorities concerned. One is tempted to wonder if that is the well-established and unalterable policy of the Administration, and if the Administration never had any intention of doing other than to insist on this policy, why they referred to the commission the question of by whom and in what proportion the expenditure should be met as between local authorities and state departments. The local authority in Cape Town was, not unnaturally, satisfied with the commission’s report, because most of the expense was recommended to be thrown on the shoulders of the Administration. When the department stated its policy through the medium of the railway commissioner’s report, the local authority in Cape Town, realizing the urgency of the position, did not stand on their dignity, and did not take their stand on the Level Crossings Commission’s report, but agreed to a fifty-fifty basis in principle. They agreed to accept the financial burden in regard to this alteration, but they submitted that in arriving at that cost, to be divided between the two bodies, some consideration should be paid to the fact—commented on in the commission’s report—that the alterations of these level crossings would save the hon. the Minister’s department some £5,000 a year administrative cost of the construction of subways and bridges, and would put a certain additional burden of maintenance cost on the shoulders of the local authorities. There the matter stuck, and still sticks, and over the question of whether a few thousand pounds is to come out of his left-hand pocket, or his right-hand pocket, the unfortunate taxpayer is to continue indefinitely being subjected to inconvenience, delays, and the risk of danger and death. I am not pleading the case of the local authorities. For the purposes of my argument, the local authorities may be right or wrong. I am representing the views of the ordinary taxpayer, who feels that it is intolerable and ridiculous that an important matter of this kind should be held up indefinitely by a disagreement on a minor point between two responsible bodies, and who feels moreover that, in view of the last two-and-a-half years, the Minister has been more concerned to maintain his dignity than to settle the level crossings question. The attitude of the hon. the Minister is rather well-illustrated by the official account of the interview which the city council had with the Railway Board and the Minister on February the 10th. The deputation from the city council waited upon the Minister and the Railway Board, hoping to discuss the points at issue, anxious to know where their arguments were wrong, and hopeful that a mutual agreement might be arrived at. What happened? The Administration issued this account of the deputation’s interview—

He did not discuss the matter with them; he did not have a friendly talk, but announced to the deputation the policy of the Administration, and added—

Now one supposes citizens will have to go on being held up, and periodically injured and killed until the Minister feels disposed to act. The abolition of these railway crossings has to be brought about, they are not economic or sound or good for the people, and it is the duty of the Minister, I submit, to see that this is done. If the Minister will come off his perch and get down to business, it can be done. The town council said the burden should be borne fifty-fifty, and the Minister says £ for £. They only disagree as to what the cost is, and how it should be arrived at. The position today is the Minister takes up the attitude of a general storming a castle and trying to starve the inhabitants out. When enough people have been injured, perhaps the Minister thinks the city council will have to give in. We quite understand that the Minister is the guardian of the taxpayers’ money, and that it is his duty to see it is economically administered. But the local authorities are, no less, the guardians of the ratepayers’ money, and are responsible for seeing that it is not being wasted. Would it not be possible to submit this question to arbitration, as to whether the arguments of the city council are sound or not? If that could be done, the whole trouble would be over and the question of the level crossings would be solved. This is a business matter. What would be done if two big business houses found they did not see eye to eye and sat back with folded arms waiting for the world to come to an end? If two business people generally desirous of coming to an understanding are stuck over certain minor matters, they get together and try to smoothe over their difficulties, so that the major issues can be got on with. If they find this cannot be done, they call in an independent arbitrator and the matter is settled with satisfaction to both sides. Where two authoritative bodies are convinced they are right, and are trying on broad lines to do the same thing—protect the public from exploitation—I submit this is a case for an independent arbitrator to be called in.

My friends over there seem to be willing to accept every possible thing they can get from the Government.

And that is not much.

They ask for something new, something more. I am satisfied if they were on this side of the House, they would not have come forward with these requests. I have listened to the hon. members for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) and South Peninsula (Mr. Waterson). They ask for a fairly large sum of money to be spent by the Railway Administration, and what do they offer in exchange? Empty trains from Cape Town to Simonstown. They do not even support the railways.

Is that the only part?

They make a point of the Peninsula railways. It would, perhaps, be more advisable if they came along and offered the railway administration something to balance the budget on that special railway line.

Why do you not appoint a commission?

We have railways in the Transvaal as well. If Krugersdorp should come along and ask for a bridge or a subway, and we had to pay the whole amount, we could put forward some arguments. Our lines pay absolutely. They pay the interest and the capital redemption. Johannesburg does not ask for these things. The Johannesburg municipality has always been willing to pay on the fifty-fifty basis.

No, not willing.

They did so very recently. I say that they have more reason to ask for something of this kind than the members who have spoken in this debate. I can quite see that there are reasons for these bridges or subways. Many accidents have occurred. Several persons have been killed, but we cannot expect the Government to prevent the killing of these people when they are killed on the railway line or on the roads. On the roads the motor cars kill very many more people than are killed at railway crossings. I do not see how it is possible to ask the Government to come along and prevent these deaths on the roads. Are they to build a separate road for motor cars, and have it fenced in, and say that no pedestrians are allowed to use it? It is impossible. We cannot prevent these things by asking the Government to do it. I think there is a case for the smaller municipalities, because they find it very difficult to raise the money required for subways or bridges. If the railway administration will take into consideration, at the outset, the question of paying the whole amount of a bridge or subway, they can then allow the municipality, at a low rate of interest, to repay that amount in yearly instalments, in five, seven or ten years, as the case may be, after an investigation into the position of the municipality. If the Government would meet smaller municipalities in that way I think that would be quite satisfactory and we should not be placing extra burdens on the railways, which are burdened to a great extent already. There are other ways in which we could improve matters if we only had the money. Where it is necessary in the interests of a municipality to have a subway it should be willing to bear something of the cost. If the Government will meet us in that way and allow the smaller municipalities to repay them by annual instalments at a low rate of interest, that should be satisfactory to everyone concerned.

I am pleased that the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper), in introducing his motion, has given it such a wide scope. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) has tried to throw cold water upon the subject matter of this motion, but he has no conception of what a very important principle is contained in this motion. In the first place, it is not a local or suburban question; it is a national question, and a very serious and pressing national question. It does not concern only the suburbs of Johannesburg and Cape Town. It concerns practically every township in the countryside. It concerns not only the townships, but there are a large number of crossings on important main roads outside the big centres. Now the first principle which the Government should lay down, the Minister rightly says this has already been laid down by his predecessor. I hope that the Minister is not going to adopt the principle that he will slavishly follow the precedents laid down by his predecessor in office. The Minister, as a rule, is very critical of the conduct of his predecessors, very critical indeed. It is, when it suits the book of the Minister, that he says his predecessor was right. At any rate, I should like to say this, that the Minister has laid down the principle of the £ for £ contribution by the central authority and the local authority. Let me say, in general terms, that as far as the countryside is concerned, and the smaller municipalities are concerned—I am not speaking now of the big centres, although for them it is also very difficult—hut from the point of view of the country municipalities, I tell the Minister openly that if he abides by this principle of the £ for £ contribution, he is never going to settle anything so far as the country is concerned. Take the position at Caledon station. For years that has been a most pressing question. The most distressing accidents have occurred there. A number of human lives have been lost, and numbers of animals have been killed. I do not know how much compensation has been paid by the Government for accidents at that siding. But the question is this. For years already this matter has been enquired into at the country stations. To-day it is still where it was years ago. These accidents still occur there. Why? The alteration will cost £3,000, and the Minister says to the Caledon municipality “You must pay £1,500 of the £3,000.” Let me first say a word of appreciation of what has been done by the local authorities. Not only this Government, but I suppose even the previous Government, and I doubt whether any Government, has got a due conception of what the local authority means as an aid to the proper government of the country. You cannot dispense with the local authorities and the municipalities, or with the divisional councils, for if those municipalities or divisional councils throw up the sponge the Government must take them over. The municipalities and the big corporations are carrying on state services for which, after all, in essence the central authority is liable. As a rule municipal work is performed as a labour of love with no desire for gain, but purely for the advancement of local interests. Heavy financial obligations rest on the local authorities. Take for instance, a comparatively small municipality like that of Caledon. Three or four years ago we had to proceed with our third water scheme, and were compelled to raise a loan of £30,000. Local authorities also perform useful public functions in looking after hospitals and so on. I admire this Government report on level crossings, for it clearly lays it down that local authorities should not be called upon to contribute towards the expense of providing level crossings, as already they have to bear very heavy burdens, and it is impossible for them to carry the expense of preventing accidents at crossings established by the Government. The Government builds a railway across a main road and lays not only one set of rails, but at Caledon we have twelve sets of rails crossing the main road between Caledon and Bredasdorp. The Government make money out of these railways, but when it comes to remedying a crying need which it is to the interest of the Government itself to remedy—the Government says the local authority must do it. The Caledon Divisional Council has to look after between 600 and 800 miles of road. There is one piece of road between Bot River and Hermanus which the Minister uses year in and year out for his heavy motor vehicles. That road is 20 miles in length; it costs the Caledon Divisional Council £2,000 a year to keep in order, but the railway department consistently refuses to contribute towards its upkeep notwithstanding the considerable profit it makes out of using it.

What would you say if the department took the bus service away?

They dare not take it away— it is a matter of national concern. Let the Minister take it away. He will have the country up against him, as it is not the Caledon district alone that is interested.

Is the hon. member in order in discussing the policy of the Railway Department on this motion?

I was pointing out the big expenditure imposed on the Caledon Divisional Council in the maintenance of the Bot River-Hermanus road which the Minister mainly uses; that is the reason I mentioned it. State contributions to the provision of level crossings and subways are not a new idea; it is prevalent in Canada and the United States. In the State of New York the central Government contributes thousands of pounds annually to keeping the level crossings in order. An intolerable position of affairs exists at Caledon. The department sent officers to meet the Caledon Divisional Council and municipal council to discuss the matter of so many lines crossing the main road, but nothing was done. The Minister’s own commission reported—

I hope the Minister will rise to the occasion although I know he is in a somewhat difficult position at present, but there were times when he boasted that the railways were in a solvent position.

So we are now.

That being so I hope the Minister will take steps to remedy a crying evil.

I think the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) made a very important contribution to the debate. He drew attention to the national character of the question. My friend who introduced the motion was very largely interested in its application to the Cape Peninsula, but the hon. member for Caledon has widened the vista and has shown the House that the matter not only affects Cape Town, Johannesburg, Durban and Pretoria, but ramifies right through the country. Many municipal councils and local bodies are in such a position that they are quite unable to make any contribution towards the cost of providing bridges or subways. Then it becomes incumbent on us to ask the Minister, if that be true, what is going to be the position. Is he going to sit down all the time and allow all these inconveniences, the intolerable position, actual deaths and other disasters, and allow these indefinitely, simply because of the stiff-necked attitude he has taken up? Is that the right way of looking at it? The Minister interjected to another hon. member “I am following my predecessor’s example.” Is he satisfied to do that while” sound”? I would not like to leave it to his estimate as to what is sound. Where does he get the idea of the fifty-fifty basis? The hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) raised the question that, because that particular railway does not pay, you must not make the crossings safe for the public. He seemed to read into it that the people of the Cape Peninsula would have nothing to do with the railways, and because of that, other people who may not be using the railway may be killed and the railway has no responsibility. As the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) rightly put it—it may be a harsh way of putting it—the railways are really the intruders; the public was there first and the roads or the principal roads were first, and what right have the railways to say “we shall lay down the conditions under which you shall cross?” It should be the other way round. The local authorities, however constituted, should have the right to say “we have the right to dictate the conditions under which the railways should cross our roads.” I do not suppose it will appeal to the Minister. Since his accession to office and that exalted state in which the Minister has found himself, I will not say it is on account of that, he has blinded his eyes and is blind to all sense of reason and logic. The hon. member for Wynberg need not worry after all; if the Minister sits down for another two or three years, there will be no railway to have crossings over. Your railways originally started—down here, at all events—as private concerns, and when, by statute, they were allowed they carried the responsibility of securing the safety of the public crossing them. Then the Government came along and decided to take them over by Act of Parliament, and they were stereotyped in the further agreement that they had to take over all the responsibilities with which the railways originally started. Then came electrification, and judging from our experience of the last few years, after that comes shutting-down. Sea Point is a case in point. That line was electrified, then they closed it down, and they need not worry any more. The railways are run as a money making machine, and not in the interests of the people, and immediately it is shown in the ledger that they are not paying, they are closed down. That is the policy of the Minister.

Is it wrong?

It is entirely wrong. What would the hon. member say if a little while ago, when toll-gates were still in existence, insufficient revenue were obtained from them and it was decided that a road should be shut down in consequence. If the Department of Lands or of Agriculture did not show adequate returns, and you shut it down, it would be in consonance with the interjection of the hon. member. They are state railways, and not private ones. The latter are run frankly for profit. State railways are run in the interests of the public. In the eyes of the Government, it is, or it should be, that the railways, in addition to being a carrying concern, should be a developing concern in the interests of the country, and that is laid down definitely in the Act of Union, if my memory serves me correctly. On the face of it the theory is that you get back to the Minister. The Railway Board is presided over by the Minister, and if the board is at all recalcitrant, the Minister says, “You cannot have that.” The fact remains that the Railway Board, or the Minister, issues a statement which the hon. member has ridiculed. This statement bears upon its face its ridiculous character. The hon. member drew attention to the fact that the framers of that statement consider that there is a very good case made out for this imposition policy of fifty-fifty, because, owing to the electrification, the greater speed, the greater number of trains, greater capacity, and greater disuse—some of them are run practically empty—and a greater increase in the value of property on these lines, it is presumed the municipality gets more money because of the increased valuations and, therefore, should be prepared to pay a fifty-fifty cost of the subways. But the hon. member has illustrated the fact that this increase of valuations has gone on all round Cape Town, and is more pronounced further away from the railway than in the case of holdings contiguous to the lines. This is largely, if not entirely, due to the existence of the bus routes. On the specious argument of the Minister, the bus proprietors have every right to say, “We have increased the valuations along our routes, and as a consequence, we demand that you should let us off all licences.” They might even go further and ask for a subsidy towards running expenses. Fifty-fifty. It is not a far-fetched argument. If the hon. the Minister’s argument holds water, then certainly that does. When the hon. member for Wynberg has been in this House longer, he will know that whatever commissions are appointed, whoever chooses the personnel, or whatever the personnel may be, the general principle is to let them examine witnesses and to let them report, to have the evidence and report printed in blue-book form, and then to take no notice of it. If a commission’s report happens to be, as the Minister wants it to be, he will give effect to it, but if it is not, he will give no effect to it at all. But has not the public the right to expect the Minister to give effect to the commission’s report? I want to know from the Minister what excuse he had for not giving effect to the commission’s report, when we consider that he himself instituted it. He appointed it, and selected the personnel. We have Mr. Bell, who I understand is the solicitor who usually acts for the Railway Administration—

He did formerly.

You have not sacked him, I hope, because he did this. But let us look at the personnel of this commission. You had Mr. Bell. One might suppose that a solicitor sufficiently eminent to have been retained by the railway department for some length of time, and with the experience he has had in acting for the railway department, would know something about railway matters.

What do you suggest?

I do not know why the hon. the Minister is so suspicious. I am examining the position from a common sense point of view. Here is a man who, by reason of his training as a solicitor, takes notice of things. He has been acting for the railway for some little time, and he also knows what is the Minister’s policy. He knows quite well that the Minister has laid it down that fifty-fifty is to be the method of contribution for all these services. Yet he subscribes to the variation to which my hon. friend has referred. He subscribes, as far as the Cape Peninsula is concerned, to the recommendation that that fifty-fifty principle shall be modified. You have Mr. Dyson, a Natal provincial councillor, I am informed, whom the Minister did not select, but whom he accepted. He is merely a man of affairs, I presume, and brings a fresh mind to bear upon the question. Then you have Mr. Kinnear. I am informed that he is a railway man. I do not know in what capacity. Here you have two railwaymen and one ordinary citizen of the country meeting as a commission, presumably knowing the policy of the Government, and yet deliberately varying that policy of the Minister as a result of their investigations, and saying: “You shall not have to pay fifty-fifty.” I ask the Minister how he arrived at the fifty-fifty basis of contribution. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) said that Johannesburg had always been willing to accept a fifty-fifty basis of contribution. That is not correct, and it is misleading to this House. They have never expressed their willingness; they were forced into the position because the Minister took up an attitude of dictatorial authority. Not because they thought it right or reasonable; they thought it wrong. I want to know why there are level crossings across the railways. If ever there is a danger spot anywhere, it is a level crossing. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Waterson) mentioned something in which he said the Minister should not be allowed to interfere with the policy of the railways. He evidently does not know the Minister. Why, only a few years ago—the Minister was not then in power, but he speaks in eulogistic terms of the soundness of his predecessor’s policy—there was an accident at Dunswart, which is not far from the borders of my constituency. More deaths have occurred at that level crossing than at any other two crossings in the country, not excepting Cape Town, where you have very dangerous crossings indeed. On one occasion, a man ran into a train, smashed up his motor-car, injured himself, and a person accompanying him is still a nervous wreck as a result of the accident. What did the Minister do? He charged him with interfering with the running of the railways, and the irony of it was they fined him £1. That sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? In that little incident I venture to say lies the summing up of the whole business; the extraordinary outlook of the Minister of the Crown controlling a state department, presumably taking his share in the welfare of the country, deliberately lays down the policy under which, if certain people do not see eye to eye with him, he is prepared to allow level crossings to remain a danger to life, no matter how many people are killed. I venture to say that every time a person is killed on a level crossing the hon. the Minister is a moral murderer. Well, the hon. the Minister’s risible faculties are easily aroused. I want to emphasize in closing that the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) has undoubtedly made out an excellent case for his own view. Accepting the principle of a 50 per cent. contribution from local authorities, there is a very good case for a variation recommended by the commission in the case of the Cape Peninsula. The fact remains that the community was there first, and the railways came afterwards. Therefore, the railways are the intruders.

For whose benefit was it built?

For the benefit of the whole community. I thank the hon. member. I am glad he has intervened. It was built for the public, by the public, on the security of the public; not of any one section of the public, and, therefore, the whole of the public should pay; that is the point, and not any isolated community, however closely they may be associated It is the public responsibility, the public’s duty, and the public should pay. Therefore, an exceedingly good case can be made out for a complete reversal of the policy of the Minister that local authorities should bear part of the cost of protecting these crossings.

I only want to say a few words in connection with this motion. I shall be brief because the matter has already been debated at too great a length. According to the report of the Level Crossings Commission, it is strongly recommended that a bridge should be built at Huguenot station, and rightly, because if there is one place where such an overhead bridge is required it is there When the line to the north was built over the main road the traffic was not so great, but since then the Paarl has gone ahead so much and the traffic has increased to such an extent that the hampering of it, and the delay to the public is to-day intolerable. The crossing is about 50 yards from the station in the middle of the village where all the traffic passes, and the number of trains is constantly increasing. About 1,000 vehicles go over a crossing every day, and the interference with traffic is so great that in most cases when one wants to cross the gates are closed. It often happens that there are 40 to 50 vehicles on each side of the crossing waiting to cross. To protect the public the gates are closed five minutes before the arrival of a train. Before the gates descend an electric bell is rung to warn the public, but on account of the great traffic the bell is often not heard, and it has already happened that the gates have come down on a vehicle, and the vehicles have even been shut in between the gates. This makes a danger of that sort all the greater. It is not only a hindrance and a danger to the public, but it is also very clear that the Railway Department suffer considerable loss owing to the crossings, because during the time the traffic is so great the railway gates are often out of order, because the gates are from time to time injured by vehicles. Unfortunately, the trains happen to shunt a good deal over that crossing, and if the traffic is delayed for a long time then the trains are shunted to one side by the railway staff to give the public a chance of getting across. This means delay and loss to the railways. The position at that station is such that the main road cannot be removed elsewhere, and the shunting area in the station also cannot be altered. Huguenot station is one of the chief stations on the main line for revenue, and, therefore, we are entitled to a bridge at that station. I want to appeal to the Minister, as the traffic is so great, and the railway goes right through the village, to soften his heart a little and build that bridge so that traffic shall no longer be hampered, and the railways suffer no further damage. I hope it will be one of the first bridges to be built. The Minister knows what the position is, and many eyes are fixed on him. The public of the Paarl, and the travelling public, will appreciate it very much if the Minister will build that bridge.

In this report of the Level Crossings Commission I see a reference to two crossings in my constituency. One of them is in the town of Springs, and the other one is over the property of the Geduld mine, about two miles from Springs. The report of the commission is in favour of the construction at Springs of a subway costing £14,000. and it says that the cost of the subway should be borne, half by the Railway Administration and the other half by the central Government. In respect of the crossing at Geduld, the recommendation is that the crossings should be done away with, and that a bridge should be built both in the interests of the public and in the interests of the Railway Administration. I trust this House will note the remark that it is “in the interests of the Railway Administration” as well as of the public, that the crossings should be abolished. The cost of the bridge is estimated at £4,000. and the commission recommend that half the cost should be borne by the Railway Administration and the other half by the central Government. I think my constituents have a right to know what the Government is doing in regard to these recommendations. I should like to say this, and I believe the Minister admits it, that these crossings, not all the crossings in the country, but the crossing dealt with by the commission, and recommended by the commission to be abolished, should be abolished, and that it is only a question in dispute as to who should bear the cost. I draw a parallel is the case of the railways and the mines. Perhaps hon. members know that I was formerly the chief official in charge of enforcing regulations on the mines. If it had been clearly demonstrated and clearly proved to us by a commission, or in any other way, that a level crossing over a mine siding should be done away with and a bridge or a subway substituted, we should not hesitate for a moment in forcing the mine to construct that bridge or subway. There would have been no question as to who should bear the cost. The mining company would have to bear the whole cost. Applying that principle, I say there is no doubt in my mind here that, in the case of the commission’s recommendations, especially in the case of the two I have referred to, the cost should be borne, not by the local authority, but by the railways and by the central Government I think that parallel should not be lost sight of. In the case of a private body such as a mining company the state has no hesitation whatever in the interests of public safety in enforcing sound rules against the mine or against the private company. When it comes to the railways then there is hesitation, as if the interests of the railways were something separate, and as if the interests of the railways should override those of the public. I think there should be no difference made between the two parties. I have something more to say about this, but I understand that there is a general desire to adjourn. I therefore move the adjournment of this debate. [Interruption.] I will withdraw that motion.

I think that hon. members must have been struck by the peculiar nature of this debate. One member after another got up and pleaded for some railway crossing or other. Even the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) did so. I do not deny that there are crossings in Caledon, Paarl, Stellenbosch, and many other places that are dangerous, and I want to say nothing to create the impression that the Railway Administration does not appreciate that there is great danger when vehicles go over the railway crossings carelessly. Hon. members must admit that the railways are doing all they can to make a crossing as safe as possible, by putting no the necessary warning. What are actually the facts in connection with the matter? With our new mechanical means of transport the public have got into such a hurry that they no longer appreciate how dangerous a railway crossing is. In one of the states of the United States of America—and I should like it to be known far and wide in our country—the judge gave a judgment in a case that the railway, which is there constructed as we know by private enterprise, while our railways are built under parliamentary authority, had the right to be there, and consequently the person who crosses over with a cart, wagon or motor must know that he is doing so at the risk of his life if he is negligent. Is there one hon. member who will suggest that the engine-driver must be careful at every railway crossing, and must not maintain the speed of the train? It is impossible to put that responsibility on the drivers of the trains. The responsibility of being careful rests on the drivers and conductors of the other vehicles. In parts of America the authorities have put all sorts of obstacles so that the drivers of motors cannot cross the railways so fast. I do not know whether the time has not come for us to do something of the same kind, to assist carefulness in view of the loss of life which has already occurred.

Some of our best drivers have already been concerned in accidents.

Yes, I admit that there is danger, and therefore we ought to be all the more careful.

Many of the accidents are not due to negligence.

Nevertheless, I think that people in South Africa are not careful enough, and on account of their carelessness, drivers of vehicles sometimes endanger their lives. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has suggested that we ought to build a subway or a bridge at every railway crossing in the country. That is of course an absurdity. When we have to deal with level crossings on lines like the Cape Town-Simonstown, Durban-Port Elizabeth, and on the Witwatersrand, then I admit that it is necessary that subways or overhead bridges should be built, but then we come at once to the very important question as to who is to be responsible for the work. Hon. members say that we must carry out the report of the Railway Crossings Commission. The report of the commission deals specially with the Cape Town-Simonstown line, and further recommends that the cost of the other bridges and subways shall be borne by the central Government, local bodies and railways. Last year my colleague, the Minister of Finance, said clearly that the Government did not intend to accept the financial recommendations of the commission insofar as the central Government was concerned. As far as I am concerned that closes the matter, and if hon. members feel aggrieved about it, then they know that they must approach the matter differently. In my opinion there is very good ground for the announcement of my colleague. There are many cases where the provincial councils are concerned in the matter, and why then should the Government bear the cost of it? I now come to the other recommendations of the commission. The commission made a large number of other recommendations which have been carried out. No hon. member has, however, taken the trouble to mention the thousands of pounds which have been spent in putting un warnings at the crossings, and in carrying cut many other recommendations, with the result that the position is considerably improved. As for the financial recommendations, there we are not prepared to carry out the recommendations. The Railway Administration cannot bear the financial responsibility alone, and no case has been made out for it. The Administration works the line in terms of parliamentary authority. Every line is built by virtue of an Act of Parliament, and we have always taken care to give effect to the conditions imposed on us. The hon. member quoted the opinion of Advocate Taylor. Our legal advice is that we are within our rights under the law. Nothing was imposed upon us by the Act of 1922 which the Administration has not carried out. But there is another point I want to draw attention to. I want to ask hon. members whether the Railway Administration is to be solely responsible for the provision of subways that are required by the altered conditions as a result of the quicker mechanical transport? Take the Cape Peninsula; no one denies that in consequence of the mechanical vehicles which travel very quickly along the roads, the position has changed in comparison with the past. Is there, however, one member who will say that the Railway Administration is to bear the financial responsibility alone? I have not heard anyone say that, but in any case we do not see any chance of assuming the liability. As for the Cape Peninsula, I have repeatedly told the Cape Town municipality that if they will bear half the cost of the subways or bridges I shall be prepared to go into the matter, and will try to make the necessary financial provision from ear to year. That is also my answer to the hon. members for Paarl (Mr. P. P. du Toit), Caledon (Mr. Krige), and all the other members who have mentioned special cases. I want to ask hon. members whether they are now of the opinion that we can depart from that policy in their special cases? Does the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) think that we can alter our policy in the case of Springs? What then will become of all the other hundreds of public bodies who also have crossings? If Springs, e.g., was not in the fortunate position of being included, would not the hon. member then be entitled to point out that the cases of Huguenot, Paarl, etc., had been done, and that there was no reason why Springs should be treated differently? The hon. members have simply discussed the matter from the local point of view, and never considered the broad aspect. In the circumstances I cannot agree to it. It has, however, been repeatedly represented, and we have to do here with a new policy. Do hon. members not know that when the late Mr. Sauer, after Union, was Minister of Railways, that he then laid down the policy of half and half with regard to the cost? I am still pursuing that policy consistently. How can hon. members then attack me and say that we are not sympathetic? Some hon. members went even further, and made all kinds of ridiculous allegations, but I need not go into them. The policy was laid down by the late Mr. Sauer, and that is the policy which was consistently followed by my predecessor, Mr. Jagger. It is a policy which I have always followed. I should like to know from the hon. members for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) and other responsible members, whether they are prepared to approve the principle advocated by the hon. member for Wynberg (Maj. Roper) viz., that the Railway Administration is to assume the responsibility. It seems to me that we only yesterday heard the hon. members for Yeoville and Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) to the effect that our expenditure must be restricted. It is so easy to make irresponsible speeches here.

I was not speaking about the railways.

No, but I want to ask him whether he thinks it is fair that expectations should be made in the minds of the Peninsula people, and Springs and other centres, as hon. members have done? Is it right to create the impression that the railways ought to bear the cost? It appears to me to be vote-catching once more, and then hon. members are very angry with the Prime Minister when he says that they are guilty of political smousing. Let us, however, argue nicely and fairly with each other; let me ask the hon. member for Yeoville, who, in the absence of his leader, is leading the Opposition in this House this afternoon, whether he will say that he is prepared to alter the policy I am following.

Wait and see.

That way we will never progress.

I am not responsible for the Railway Administration.

But you are responsible to the country.

Yes.

We have the acknowledgment then that the hon. member is responsible to the country. Now I want to point out that I have always consistently followed the policy followed by the former colleague of the hon. member, and then I want to point out to the hon. member that his friends behind say that it is quite wrong.

They are entitled to do so.

Of course. They are entitled to do any irresponsible thing. The House is accustomed to expect any irresponsible thing from the Opposition. The country is no longer surprised at it. I, however, return to the point, and ask in all seriousness whether the hon. member to-day advocates that we should depart from the important principle, and incur obligation which will mean a large expenditure?

We are discussing principles?

Good, but the principle is whether the railways are to take the full responsibility, as in the case of the Cape Town-Simonstown line. There is another point I want to deal with, and it is the argument of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Waterson) that the savings which result from the construction of crossings ought to be capitalized. It is said that when an overhead bridge or subway is constructed that it means that we can discard the gatekeepers, and can do away with the booms which would mean a saving, and that we should then capitalize the saving, and that the local bodies should then bear half of the cost after deducting the capitalized savings. Is that fair? How does it work out in practice? Let me take a concrete case. Take a crossing X, usually two gatekeepers are necessary and their pay is £200 a year on the average. This, therefore, means a saving of £400, and capitalized it is £8,000. Suppose that a bridge at the crossing costs £10,000, then it means that the capitalized amount of £8,000 must be deducted from £10,000 after which the net cost of £2,000 must be divided between the railway department, £1,000, and the public body £1,000. Is that fair? Do hon. members forget that the railways have to borrow that £8,000 and pay interest on it, which will also run into £400 a year? Those arguments do not hold water. With regard to that question we must not be misled by that kind of argument, but regard it from the big national point of view which everyone can understand. If it is not yet clear I would say again on behalf of the Government—I do not think it can be done in one year, but in the course of years—that the principle which we will apply on the Cape Town-Simonstown line, and any other line, is that the local public must contribute half of the cost, and then the railways will be prepared to pay the other half. I am certain that the hon. member for Yeoville will agree when I say with all respect that if, e.g., the Cape public in the case of the Cape Town-Simonstown line were to give a little more financial assistance then the public would not so quickly desert the railway. We have to-day on that line the best, most modern, and safest service. No one will deny that the best possible service is being given, and yet the line does not get the support it deserves. Let the local taxpayers have a little personal interest in the matter, and I think that the support of the line will considerably improve.

You are illogical.

The hon. member says that I am illogical, but if there is anything else that I and my officials can do to improve the Cape Town-Simonstown line then I shall be glad to hear of it.

To put an extra burden on the public is not the way to make the line more attractive

No, the hon. member has misunderstood me. What I said was that if the local public were to have a little personal interest in the railways along with the state then they would support the railway better. I am sorry but the Government is not prepared to accept the motion, and I hope that everyone who takes an interest in railway crossings will see that the railway department can no longer receive deputations about the matter. We receive a deputation and we are glad to do so, but I hope everyone will now see that the railways are not prepared to comply with this request.

As one of the representatives of Durban, and as none of them has spoken so far in this debate, it is necessary, I think, that a few words should be said, in support of this motion. The people of Durban and of Natal generally are not only wholly in support of the principle of the motion, but are deeply grateful to the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) for its introduction. With regard to the statement just made by the Minister, it strikes me as rather unconvincing. There is, however, one remark he made on which I should like to dwell for a moment. He said he was following the policy of his predecessor. It is this touching devotion to the policies of the South African party which is shown on the other side, for other Ministers have also told us they are following them, which is very welcome to us. With regard to these crossings, we can divide them into two types—dangerous and non-dangerous. We are particularly concerned with the dangerous crossings. In the country districts where there is not much traffic, and it is easy to arrange clear visibility, the crossing problem is not acute, but we are concerned with those in and around our municipalities. With regard to these. I submit that any suggestion to meet the difficulty by having improved signalling, or warning signs and so on is a mere begging of the issue. There is only one way of meeting the difficulty, and that is by constructing either a bridge or a subway. There is no alternative. It seems to me the Minister has become painfully aware of the unreasonableness of his attitude on the whole question, and because of this unreasonableness, we have the statement he made to-day. He is beginning to realize there is no alternative by means of which he can evade this question, and that he must find means for making these bridges or subways. It is time this House and the country were made aware of it. In Durban alone we have many crossings. I wonder if the Minister has read this report. I rather doubt it, I would like to mention some of the level crossings in Durban. There is one known as the Union Street level crossing, the annual maintenance cost of which is £550. There is another at Prince Alfred Street, which also costs £550 to maintain. Then we have the Pine Street level crossing with a somewhat similar cost—the actual figure is not given—and there is the West Street crossing, one of such great importance that the annual losses incurred and maintenance costs must be a tremendous figure. Another one is the Smith Street crossing, where the annual maintenance cost is £406, then there is the Winder Street crossing, another £406, and so on. The local authorities are saddled with the administration, maintenance, provision of vigilance and all incidental charges with regard to these crossings. Where is the justice of it? The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) wanted to know where the fifty-fifty idea had come from. I echo that question. I fail to see the justice of it, and I submit that a wrong interpretation has been put upon it. It should be fifty per cent. railways administration and fifty per cent. central Government. I would like to suggest to the Minister that the time is overdue when he should make provision for this work. He could, with great advantage, create a fund for this purpose, and if he did so, he would be following an excellent precedent established in Canada and in the United States of America. If the railways of the Union were privately owned, would the Minister approach this problem from exactly the same point of view? I am very sceptical about that. I have no doubt that if the railways were privately owned, the Government would lay down a definite policy and tell the private owners that they must make these crossings safe by the provision of subways or bridges, or take the consequences. We have had instances of the dictatorial treatment of business men in connection with wage determinations. I do not question the advisability of the determinations, but I mention this to indicate the line the Minister would follow if the railways were privately owned. Our railways have to be run on business lines, and should be treated like any other business. I submit that the only method the Minister should follow is to make provision for this necessary work. According to this report the interest on the capital sum required does not amount to a large sum. I am absolutely at a loss to know why the Government is reluctant to face the issue in a broad, business-like manner, having regard to the heavy maintenance cost. What is the ultimate effect of the leaving of these level crossings open and dangerous? It is impossible to assess it. To mention one only. We have accidents to tourists. We are doing our best to invite tourist traffic. Tourists are travelling on our roads under conditions entirely new to them, and more than once casualties have taken place. This is but one of the effects of the present policy of the Government. I am perfectly satisfied that the Minister himself is uncomfortable about this question, and that he feels that the attitude he is championing is not sound. I think it is only necessary for the discussion of this problem to be a full one, and for the matter to be thoroughly ventilated, to persuade the Minister to agree with the views expressed on this side of the House, and thereby once again the Government will follow the policy of the South African party. In order that the Minister may be given an opportunity of doing that, I move the adjournment of the debate.

On the motion of Mr. Borlase the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 8th April.