In regard to a point I raised last evening I did not get a reply from the Minister, whether the vacancy in the Native High Court has been filled. I do not agree with the Minister that it is not necessary for a judge to have knowledge of native customs, more particularly in regard to judges appointed to the Native High Court. I think the Minister is wrong where he says such a judge should be only a good “criminal lawyer.” I know of cases where, owing to lack of such knowledge, injustice was displayed, and where such knowledge prevented a miscarriage of justice. I know the case of a woman who was charged with murder, and the evidence appeared very black against her, but had it not been for the knowledge the judge had of the customs of the natives, she would probably have been convicted. Evidence had been given that the mother was sent to put away the personal effects of a young boy who had been murdered, and it was only at the end of the trial when the judge asked why they should have asked the mother to do so instead of the grandmother—according to native custom the grandmother does it—that it appeared the grandmother had put them away, and the whole case collapsed. I will give another instance. In a faction fight during an engagement ceremony the bride’s party bad visited the bridegroom, and while it was going away a war cry was issued. The important part was when that was done. Owing to the knowledge of the judge, it was found that it was issued just before the bride’s party left. If it is issued before the bride’s party leaves, that is tantamount to a challenge. Also in regard to witchcraft it is necessary to know what native custom is. With regard to prosecutions in Natal, the Attorney-General’s office conducts them all, and not only the Attorney-General himself, but he has his staff; in all the other provinces, I understand, members of the Bar are appointed to conduct the prosecutions. Why is a differentiation made in regard to Natal? Is it to save money? Why should Natal be the only province where that is done? I think it is rather unfair as far as the Natal Bar is concerned. If financial conditions improve, will the Minister see that in Natal circuit courts are held as in the other provinces?

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the allowances for jurors; in the country districts there is a good deal of dissatisfaction in regard to that. Men have to come from considerable distances, and cheap boarding houses are not always available. They are forced to go to hotels, of which there are few which provide accommodation for the allowance which is made. I think the principle is generally accepted that it is not a payment for services to jurors, but the allowance is to cover out-of-pocket expenses. This applies particularly to the Circuit Court at Butterworth. In the Transkei most of the Europeans are officials, and there are few Europeans available from whom jurors can be selected. The result is that in order to get a full panel of jurors several districts must be tapped and men must come considerable distances and cannot return to their homes every day after the rising of the court. The jury consists largely of traders, who have to close their stores and have to be away for five or six days, thus creating a distinct hardship and serious loss to these traders—I do sincerely trust that the Minister will see his way clear to increase the allowances to the jurors and thus remove a distinct case of hardship—the Registrar of the Court could very easily certify what should be a reasonable allowance to meet the out-of-pocket expenses of the jurors in the various areas.

With regard to item (d), incidental expenses, law books and reports, including purchase of law libraries, £1,000. I should like to ask the Minister to consider increasing this amount. It is an enormous advantage in the administration of justice to have a full and complete law library, and I think that that amount should be increased. This sum is distributed over seven courts, because in addition to the courts of the provinces there is the Native High Court at Kimberley and the Appellate Division.

Replying to the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel), the vacancy in question has been filled by the appointment of Mr. Advocate Britter. As far as special knowledge of native law and custom being possessed by men appointed to the Native High Court is concerned, I quite agree that if we can find a suitable man to fill a vacancy who has a special knowledge of native law and customs, preferably a Zulu linguist, so much the better, provided he has the necessary legal qualifications and ability. But these men are rare. I can assure the hon. member that no one will be appointed who has not some knowledge of native law and customs. I have had an opportunity of checking the work of the Native High Court myself, and I can assure the hon. member that the instances he has quoted might just as well have occurred in the north at Zoutpansberg. As to the prosecutors being appointed from the Attorney-General’s office in Natal, that is because there are no circuits in that province. The reason for briefing a man on circuit in the other provinces is to avoid depleting the Attorney-General’s staff. If we should reach the desirable state of affairs of instituting circuits in Natal the same practice can be instituted there in this respect as obtains in other parts of the Union. The hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller) has brought up a hardy annual. However much one may sympathise with him for the present nothing can be done. I heartily agree with the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) with regard to the law libraries. It is certainly an allowance I should like to see substantially increased.

I want to bring something to the Minister’s notice in connection with the supreme court at Kimberley. I do not know whether he is aware that the number of civil cases at Kimberley has considerably increased of late, and I want to know whether he intends to continue the local division there. As for the countryside, the public would rather take their cases to Capetown than have them dealt with at Kimberley. I think the time has come to serve Kimberley with a circuit court from Bloemfontein. As for criminal cases, I would like to point out a special phenomenon; while of the 100 diamond cases disposed of in Kimberley, the option of a fine was only given in 3, in Capetown, as far as I know, the option of a fine was given in all diamond cases.

Juries in Capetown never convict people in diamond cases.

But in the cases where the judges sentenced there was an option of a fine. I am, personally, aware of cases of young people who had nothing against their character, and who were possibly convicted for the first time on a charge, and who got 12 to 18 months, although a fine in their case would have been just as good, and possibly even better. They found that there were possibly people who had been convicted of stealing large sums of money, who had got a suspended sentence, that had had a bad effect on them. We know of a diamond case which was transferred from Kimberley to Capetown, I do not know whether the Minister knows the case, but it turned out that not only the Government, but also de Beers have traps to catch people. I think it is a wrong thing, and the jury acted rightly in that case in acquitting the person. In that case the magistrate of Kimberley ordered a search at the house of the accused, or of his parents in connection with certain documents under the Insolvency Act; can you just tell me what the connection is between that and our supreme court?

Can you just tell me what the connection is between this and our supreme court.

I am pointing out how diamond cases are tried by higher courts. In that case one of the de Beers traps accompanied the man. I should like an enquiry to be made into the matter.

I fear there can be no question of removing the high court from Kimberley. It may be advisable from an economic point of view, but it would cause a sensation, and, at any rate, we are not thinking of it at present. I hope, however, that we can make an arrangement which will benefit Kimberley, and put judicial procedure on an even sounder footing than it is, by trying periodically to relieve the Kimberley judge by judges from Bloemfontein, whereby the Kimberley judge will have the opportunity of consulting his colleagues at Bloemfontein. This is one of the points I will submit to the judges’ conference which we are proposing to hold. We will also discuss at that conference the possibility of getting uniformity in punishments, etc., not only in the supreme court, but also in the magistrate’s court. With regard to the participation of the De Beers official in a search I will have the matter investigated if the hon. member will give me further details.

Just one question in regard to the appointment of judges. I would like to ask the Minister what his intention is in regard to the future, so far as the Cape Provincial Division is concerned. As the Minister knows, there are six judges in that division at present, of whom one has to attend to Water Court work. Is it his intention in future to depart from that practice; to appoint a judge to do Water Court work for the Union, or will one of the judges of the Cape Division have to attend to water court work?

For the present, I shall leave the matter as it is. When a vacancy occurs, the matter will be decided in consultation with the Judge President.

May I just raise a little matter about the service of process. It is very roundabout. We have only one supreme court for the Union, but different methods of serving the process, with the result that quite a number of endorsements have to be made on the relative documents. We have the case, e.g., where a document has to be served in one province. The person concerned removes to another province; the document has then to be returned to the capital of the first province, then sent to the capital of the second province, after which it goes to the village concerned. This causes a great expense. Can we not make a change? I want to suggest not that new officials should be appointed, But that some official or other should be given the title of high sheriff for the Union, and that he should deal with all process. He can then have deputy sheriffs, such as we have to-day in the Union, and they can serve the process where the people live. I suggest this for consideration. Then there is a second matter. Two years ago I pointed out that in the Free State there was what is called a filing fee in connection with the filing of copies of documents. It only existed in the Free State. The system was repealed by the Financial Relations Act of 1927, but after that time the Department of Justice acting on other authorities again instituted filing fees. I cannot now argue that it is unfair to the Free State, because those fees are paid throughout the Union. It is possible that the Union needs those fees for revenue purposes. If so then the Government ought rather to demand an amount because the present system is very inconvenient. A shilling has to be paid on every document, and it is awkward for the legal practitioner as well as for the officials who have to deal with it. It gives trouble and work. Consequently it often happens that long after a case has been disposed of it appears that insufficient filing fees have been paid. We must then go back to the clients and the matter is adjusted with great difficulty.

With regard to the hon. member’s first point, I may say that it will be submitted to the forthcoming conference. As for the second, in connection with the filing fee, it was my own experience as an attorney, and we have always had the practice in the Transvaal, that it did not cause so much trouble as the hon. member has made out. But as it appears to be particularly difficult in the Free State, I will have this matter investigated as well.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 28, “Magistrates and District Administration,” £620,494,

I wish to bring something to the notice of the Minister under this vote about which we have been occupied for the last four years. I have already seen the Minister and his predecessor about the matter. It refers to the villages far removed from the chief town where the magistrate’s court is. We have, e.g., the case of the village Bultfontein which comes in the Hoopstad magisterial district. We have the railway there now, and there is more business than at Hoopstad, we are therefore entitled to an assistant magistrate, and I shall be glad if the Minister will appoint one at Bultfontein.

I am investigating the matter.

Then I will say no more now. There is another matter I want to refer to. We had the case of a boy who illegally deserted his service, he was sentenced and refused to return to his master. He was brought up again and sentenced by the magistrate and again refused to go back. When the police prosecuted him for the third time they were instructed by the Attorney-General that they could not prosecute him three times on the same charge. The fact is that the boy refused to go back, and the farmers suffer great inconvenience if such a thing is to go unpunished. But the worst is that the sergeant himself subsequently employed the boy who had three times refused to go back to his master. I want to ask the Minister to investigate the matter, and to consider whether an alteration is not possible. I do not want to say any more, but I should like to bring the question of the court, and police accommodation at Hertzogville to his notice. Someone told me that when the magistrate came there the court was held in the bedroom of a policeman. The position is indeed very bad and I hope the Minister will see to it that proper accommodation is provided for the court and the administration of justice at such country towns. I think that it is wrong for country villages to have to put up with such miserable accommodation.

I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to the scale of pay of the magistrates in this country. The importance of the duties carried out by the magistrates has been stressed time after time and I need not elaborate it further. They carry out, in addition to their judicial duties, an enormous variety of administrative duties under the various statutes placed on the statute book from time to time. They are also the representatives of the Government and it may be said that they are the pivot round which the administration of the country districts revolves. In addition to their judicial and administrative duties, they have social duties to perform as the leading people of their districts. I make so bold as to say that the magistrates in this country have served the country extraordinarily well in the heavy duties which fall upon them. The Minister nods and I am glad that he assents to that, because yesterday he made remarks of a rather sweeping nature. When the question of retirement of magistrates at the age of 55 was raised yesterday, the Minister said he was not satisfied that the public were getting value out of the higher grade magistrates. He said that the standard of administration throughout the countryside was not such as the public were entitled to expect. He said that there were plenty of good men willing to take the place of those who were being retired, at the same salaries. He also said that practitioners in the courts were not satisfied with the standard of legal attainments possessed by the magistrates. Those remarks were so sweeping that I hope they will be modified. I am certain that, as they stand, they do not fairly represent the Minister’s real view. In my opinion, the public have got extraordinarily good value for the money that they have spent on the magistrates in this country. Taking them as a class, and considering the importance of their duties, the country spends very much less money on the magistrates as a whole, higher grade and lower grade, than they should spend on them. In regard to the statement that practitioners are not satisfied with the standard of legal attainments, I should like to explain that practitioners in the supreme court grumble from time to time about some particular case which has been dealt with in the magistrate’s court, perhaps, not on the very best legal lines. Notwithstanding occasional instances where the law has not been properly applied, and obviously bad justice meted out to the litigant, I think the feeling of practitioners is that considering the circumstances in which the magistrates do their work, the majority of them show a surprisingly high standard of legal qualifications for their judicial work. It must be remembered that magistrates have to do their work without the advantage of being able to consult any but the most rudimentary libraries, or discuss points of law with other magistrates in the same position as themselves. They have not the advantage of the assistance in their courts of very highly skilled practitioners, because the attorneys in many country towns have libraries which are just as rudimentary as the libraries of the magistrates, and their work is not exclusively confined to legal practice. They are often engaged in auctioneering, as agents, and that sort of thing, and the standard of attainment of practitioners in country districts, in many cases, is not extraordinarily high. Considering all these disabilities under which the magistrates work it is not surprising, in a number of cases, that the standard of justice meted out is not too good, but it is surprising that it is not really worse. If the Minister were acquainted with the conditions under which the magistrates in the busy centres have to do their work, he would be amazed at the small proportion of successful appeals against the magistrates. Here in Cape Town, the magistrates deal with an enormous number of cases at high speed, not dealing with them in the way the judges in the supreme court deal with them. The latter have time to deal with them and time to consult with their brethren on the bench, and they do their work under conditions which enable them to go thoroughly into the law and to come to a right decision on a point of law. The unfortunate magistrate cannot do his work in that way. He may have to deal with 30, 40 or 50 cases in the course of a day, and he has to make up his mind quickly and dispense justice accordingly. When one goes into the volume of work done by the magistrates in Cape Town and, I suppose, in the other large centres, one is amazed that the standard of judgment in the magistrate’s court is what it is. I cannot agree that the practitioners are dissatisfied with the standard obtained by the magistrates as a whole. The fact of the matter is that we are paying our magistrates inadequate salaries and are expecting to get a standard that we could only expect to get by paying very much better salaries and giving them very much better conditions. It is absolutely essential that our magistrates should be adequately paid. At present they are inadequately paid. The Graham Commission in 1919 reported that, as a whole, the magistrates were insufficiently remunerated and that their pay was much lower than it was right and proper their pay should be. Since 1919 there has been no increase in the scale of pay of the magistrates. On the contrary, the scales have been reduced. There has been some rearrangement of grades and scales since 1923-’24. Broadly, however, it may be said that the scales of pay for corresponding grades between 1923-’24 and last year, 1929-’30, and the present year also have been reduced in every grade by about £50 per annum. In 1923, the scale for the lowest paid magistrate was £525— £600, the present scale being £475—£550; in another grade the 1923 figures were £875— £950, whereas to-day’s rates for the same grade are £825—£900, so there has been a general lowering of the rate of pay for the corresponding grades.

The point brought up by the hon. member for Boshot (Mr. van Rensburg) is more a matter for the Masters and Servants Act. I hope at any rate to get leave next week to introduce an amending Bill to the Masters and Servants Act of the Transvaal and Natal. I will then leave it to the Free State to move amendments so that it may also come under the Act, and if that is done there will, of course, be provisions to cover the case he has referred to. The case where a servant was employed by a police officer has been referred by me to the commissioner of police, and the matter is being investigated. The position at Hertzogville is not so pressing as in other Free State towns. The periodical courts sits there every three months. There is a resident justice of the peace, but he is not an official. He is a farmer living a few miles from the village, and has been appointed to do the work. I quite sympathize with his request, but as I have said the position is not as urgent there as in other places.

I thought I made it quite clear yesterday that although I would like to see magistrates’ salaries increased, this year for obvious reasons it cannot be thought of at all. The hon. member has pointed to the difficulties attending the sittings of magistrates’ courts, but oven so, the average could be improved, but I am pleased to say that there are many brilliant exceptions. We have men on the magisterial bench who, although I cannot say they would be an ornament to the supreme court, at any rate their judgments are as sound as you could get from a magistrate anywhere. Our magistrates carry out their duties under very difficult circumstances and among them we have men of the very highest attainments.

The Government is paying salaries to magistrates more suitable to carpenters, and yet the Minister expects these same magistrates to possess the legal attainments necessary for a member of the Bar. When he stated his opinion that we are not getting good value for the money paid to the magistrates, he rather neglected that aspect of the question. I understood the Minister to say that there was only one magistrate drawing £550 a year, but I understand from the estimates that 29 are on the scale £475—£550.

One third grade magistrate.

Their scale is £475—£550.

Not when they are in charge of a district.

These magistrates have to deal with cases in exactly the same way as senior magistrates have. It is a most unsound position when the men who have to administer civil justice are paid at an utterly inadequate rate in view of the importance and nature of their work. The department is pursuing a wrong policy in the allocation of its available funds. Since 1924-’25 there has been a drop in the average amount paid to magistrates, but a rise in the average amount paid to other branches of the department. In 1925 the average pay of a magistrate was £791, but this year the average has dropped to £747. For other persons employed by the department the 1925 average was £262, but this year the average has been £268 per annum. The Minister is in the position of a business man who has been reducing the amount spent on production and increasing the amount disbursed on distribution. What the Minister should do is to increase the amount spent on production so as to raise the quality of justice, and if possible, cut down the cost of distribution. Many of the magistrates draw less than the bank managers, school principals or town clerks in the same town. The Minister said yesterday that no magistrate need be in fear of financial worry. A magistrate may be married with two or three children and his salary may be £600. On that he can just come out, but should he happen to fall sick for any length of time, or have to find money to pay for an operation on himself or a member of his family, he falls into debt, as many of these magistrates lead a hand-to-mouth existence. Having to find money to pay his debts, the magistrate may have to raise money from sources it would be better he did not raise it from. This is creating a most undesirable state of affairs. No one with any acquaintance with the work of magistrates in country districts will deny that they are absolutely inadequately paid. The Minister said last session he had in view the rearranging of districts, to have fewer but bigger districts, and improve matters that way. But it is not going to do away altogether with the evil of underpaid magistrates. [Time limit.]

With reference to the reply the Minister gave me yesterday in connection with the sub-division of larger districts into smaller ones, I am very thankful that he is going to consider it. This showed at once that he is acquainted with the position in those parts, but I want to point out that it is not exactly necessary to sub-divide the large districts, but that people can also be met in another way. The law provides that a clerk subordinate to a magistrate in the chief town can be appointed to do duty in the districts, and I hope he will consider the stationing of some of the clerks in the villages which come under the big town where the magistrate is. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. van Rensburg) complains that in the Free State which in its entirety is not as large as the north-west of the Cape Province, which I represent, there are magisterial areas which should be made smaller with the magistrate at the head of each of the smaller areas. This shows at once how necessary it is to meet the people in the parts I represent. In districts of 100 square miles, and in some cases even more. There are people who have to travel 200 to 300 miles to get to the towns. What inconvenience there is for such people in paying their taxes. I hope the Minister will seriously consider my suggestion, and that it will not merely remain at consideration, but that as soon as possible effect will be given to it. The expenditure will not be much greater, and it is justified in view of the greater convenience to the people.

When I first raised the matter there was no depression, but a surplus. We are well served on the whole by magistrates. Of course, there may be some who do not uphold the dignity of their office as they should. Recently one magistrate was convicted of an offence which it had been his duty to punish. A magistrate should not be in a position in which he cannot maintain himself and his family as he should. Can the most zealous work be expected from a servant of the state who is admittedly inadequately paid? It cannot be expected. In spite of the probable deficit, the Minister should make a definite effort to deal with this. I am not aware that an unusually large number of their judgments have been upset on appeal, or that there have been a large number of well-founded complaints. Knowing that a magistrate is the target of every disappointed man, layman or lawyer, it would be surprising if a good number of complaints were not made, but I am alluding to well-founded ones. Has the Minister, on the whole, reason to be dissatisfied? We see that of 250 magistrates only 15 can possibly rise above £900 per year, and that is only after 35 or 40 years’ service. Their emoluments compare very unfavourably with almost every other person who has important duties in the public service. I do not want to be invidious, but savings might be made in other departments. I do not know how they should ever expect to get really good recruits for magistrates with the emoluments being what they are. They have very strenuous work to perform and very little reward indeed. The men I have come into contact with have impressed me by their ability and devotion to duty, and one cannot help saying that their emoluments are not nearly commensurate with the duties they are called upon to perform. I do hope the Minister will be able to see that the position is improved.

I hope the committee is not going to get the impression that I agree with the contention that magistrates are scandalously underpaid.

Underpaid; not scandalously.

I am not prepared to agree that they are underpaid in comparison with other members of the civil service. I think we might eventually, for the purpose of obtaining more satisfaction in the service, consider increasing their emoluments, but I can assure hon. members that there is no lack of recruits, and if the leave privileges and pension, and everything that the civil servant is entitled to enjoy, are taken into consideration, I think it will he admitted that these salaries are not inadequate. The hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) has referred to third-grade magistrates, but the men on the scale he has quoted are senior clerks who act as third-grade magistrates. I probably have as much experience as anybody of magistrates and the work they do. While I should very much like to see their emoluments increased, I cannot agree, in comparing them with other civil servants, that their salaries should be improved while other salaries are not raised.

I would like to call the Minister’s attention to the great need for a special justice of the peace in a section of my constituency, viz., Silikats or in the neighbourhood of Goedgewonden. The place is 100 miles from the nearest magistrate, and it is very inconvenient for the inhabitants when, e.g., they have to pay taxes without any return. Especially as the roads are so bad. Zwartruggens is badly served under this vote. Perhaps it is because it is a new constituency. I hope, however, that the Government will assist the constituency, although I know the Government is now trying to economize, but the appointment of a special J.P. there will greatly benefit the public and only cost the small sum of £100 per annum. I am glad the Minister has sympathized with the appointment of a magistrate for that constituency, and I hope that we shall get a magistrate this year. There are two villages, and the Minister will have to enquire where the magistrate ought to be stationed. I cannot recommend which town should be selected. The Minister must not, however, merely consider the revenue. He must bear situations in mind, so that the seat of the magistrate will benefit the whole constituency.

I have received a wire in connection with the administration of poor relief, and it is a contradiction of the statement that two-thirds of the Pretoria unemployed are under 40. Can the Minister give any information as to the administration of poor relief at Pretoria? The wire is as follows—

It is a pity that some hon. members who have been pressing the claims of the magistrates for higher pay have seen fit to compare their salaries with those of other public servants. There can be no comparison. It is all right to make a comparison provided you always have in mind the peculiar nature of the work you have to do. The Minister seized upon the opportunity of saying that, compared with other public servants, they are not underpaid. We have to join issue on the merits of the case, and I say most emphatically that our magistrates are not only underpaid, but that they are scandalously underpaid. Apart from the fact that they may run into debt, there is the dangerous position that you are putting them into, because on occasions they may have to sit on the bench and pass judgment with regard to individuals to whom they themselves owe money. It is a dangerous thing for us not to pay our magistrates sufficient to keep themselves in such a position that they will never have to borrow. The Minister says that he would like to increase their salaries, but he cannot increase their salaries now. There is a depression. I charge the Government with being responsible for that depression, and they are accentuating that depression at the present time. They are deliberately discharging men from sections of the public service.

Has that anything to do with this vote?

Of course it has. There is a depression. I am rather sceptical of this cry of depression, because we had a surplus last year, and it is the boast of the treasurer that ever since the Nationalist party came into office we have had surpluses. If the only reason they do not get an increase is the depression which exists, why did they not get the increase when we had these surpluses? The Minister, as so often happens, had his tongue in his cheek. He trotted out the old argument about the law of supply and demand. Has he consulted the Minister of Defence as to whether he subscribed to that law of supply and demand, or whether his advice would be in some other direction? In furtherance of that fallacious argument the Minister said a thing I would never have supposed; this remarkable expression that there are plenty of recruits for the job.

Plenty of unemployment.

Is that an argument a man of sense will use? Of course, I would not accuse the Minister of not having sense, but I do accuse him of under-rating the common sense of the House. It is the rule of the big stick again. I really got up with another object in view, still regarding magistrates. I rather wondered yesterday when the hon. Minister reported progress on this vote and went on to the Riotous Assemblies Bill. But he had a nice sense of the appropriateness of the thing. He wanted to get the Riotous Assemblies Bill passed, in order to effect economy. I am going to move to delete this vote of £620,494, because the Minister will not require it. In view of the fact that he is the supreme chief, you do not require these magistrates. All you need do, if the Minister says a man is guilty is to fine him 5s. or put him in gaol. No, this was all very well two or three hundred years ago, but at this time of day the Minister should not use these arguments as to the law of supply and demand, and that impertinent argument that there are plenty of recruits knocking at the door. [Time limit.]

Some 14 hours ago I addressed the Minister, and I now find we are very much nearer to agreement with him, because the difference separating us is that he feels there is need for the payment of higher salaries to-day; and we feel it is a pressing need. If we can only convince him that it is not only a need, but a pressing need, perhaps he will take some practical steps to improve the position of these magistrates. I do not know the extent of the Minister’s information on this point, but I can give him some account based on information before me as to the position of junior magistrates with growing families who are endeavouring to subsist on £450 or £500 a year. After having seen the inside of the family budget where officers of this kind are concerned, I think it must be admitted they are carrying an intolerable burden under those conditions It struck me particularly in the case of a young magistrate of 40 with three or four young children whom he desires to educate in a district far from the larger towns with no educational facilities available. I know of nothing so affecting as the heroic attempt to maintain a position and educate a family under unsatisfactory conditions. The Minister argued it was not reasonable to make comparisons between the salaries paid to one public servant and those paid to other classes of public servants, but when you realize the enormous range of duties entrusted to the average country magistrate, the discretion he must exercise, and the growing burdens imposed on him by the necessity to maintain a social position, surely a case could be made out for paying him an increase to enable him to maintain his position. Magistrates have many calls upon them; they are asked to subscribe to many causes and to take an interest in various social movements, and also to preserve an absolute financial independence. How can a magistrate who is in debt to the butcher, the baker or the doctor, maintain the dignity of his office? When I come to make a comparison with the salaries paid to magistrates and those to other public officials, it is suggestive that the magistrates are inadequately paid. I happened to glance at the estimates and saw a very striking illustration of the incorrectness of the Minister’s view. I had recourse to the Labour Department—a department which one can refer to with a certainty that a great deal of interesting information can be gleaned from its statistics. Under the heading of the Labour vote is the Wage Board. The chairman of the Wage Board receives £2,250 for a new office. He receives as much as a judge, although he has not the responsibility of a judge, even though it may be an onerous appointment. The secretary of the Wage Board, who, after all, cannot be said to he discharging very important duties, receives £884. There is a cost accountant with £819. Take another appointment of very recent date, that of the labour adviser. He receives £936. What he does for his money I do not know. Is it not reasonable to argue that, if a labour adviser can be appointed at that figure by an optimistic Government, and we may hope that the duties he performs will be performed satisfactorily, that many magistrates are underpaid at the salaries they receive? The list indeed is a most striking one. Thirty-nine magistrates, excluding the first six star appointments, receive £825—£900. When you see a labour adviser newly appointed, and largely on the strength of past services, receiving £936, and a magistrate, such as a magistrate appointed to administer a district like Port Elizabeth, only receives a few pounds above him, one wonders what is the basis on which salaries are fixed. Then we have the Department of External Affairs. Quite recently our elevation to sovereign and international status demanded a professional adviser at a salary of £1,587, and a private secretary at £637. When we come to Parliament we have a list of salaries which are truly magnificent compared with the salaries paid to the magistrates. One of the cases which strikes me most is that of the man with the growing family. Here I suggest that the Minister might put into force, if he likes, the suggestion of instituting a system of family endowments.

Why confine it to magistrates?

Let us start with the magistrates, because their case is so striking, and it has been supported by many hon. members on this side of the House that it stands apart from the case of other civil servants. [Time limit.]

I suppose it is useless for me to say that I am in sympathy with hon. members on this matter. The question is: what can be done? I hope that we shall not lose our sense of proportion over this matter. I would point out that these salaries are not being fixed on this scale this year. They were fixed many years ago, and, subject to the reduction which took place in a time of depression, they have remained at that scale ever since. It is inappropriate that stress should be laid upon the inadequacy of salaries this year.

It is every year.

The cost of living in times of depression should come down.

You will not let it.

We need not worry about the cost of living now, but in times of depression the cost of living does not go up, and the man who receives his cheque at the end of every month is usually in a better position than the business man, because the latter cannot say whether or not there will be any profits at the end of the month. Comparisons have been made with other departments. It is flattering to the Department of Justice that we are inundated with applications for transfers from officials from other departments. On the other hand, the instances of officials of the Department of Justice seeking a transfer to other departments are very rare indeed. In any case, when we have suggestions like that of a family endowment, a very excellent suggestion, I think it is a matter which should be discussed on the budget debate proper. It is a kind of social insurance which might be applied to many grades of the service. If money was available I would like to see it.

I support the remarks of other hon. members in regard to the salaries of magistrates. The real reason why there is a rush for civil service employment is that, because, in the outside world, apart from the sheltered industries, men can hardly come out on their salaries because of the cost of living which the Government will not allow to come down. I should like to ask the Minister to tell us that when things are more prosperous, he will consider the question of an advance to magistrates because the magistrates have difficult positions to fill, and their positions ought to be a little more remunerative. I see that the amount of the local allowances in his department is only £16,000. Many public servants state that this cost of living allowance has not been applied to them and they want some redress. In Cape Town the cost of living is very much higher than in many local allowance areas, and I understand they get no cost of living allowance, therefore, it is reasonable to ask that an adjustment be made. There is another point about the financial position of the Minister’s department. I notice that the cost of telephones and telegraphs in his department is very heavy. I think the amount is about £46,000 on all his votes. I should like to ask if nothing can be done to bring that amount down. I believe, if the Minister will set his mind to bring down the cost of telephones and telegraphs, a tremendous saving may be made. I am sorry to see a big increase in expenditure for leave and other gratuities to officers. I ask whether it would not have eased their financial positions a little if these officers could have been retired more gradually, especially in these difficult times. This item shows an increase from £100 to £12,100.

I understand magistrates are allowed to accumulate six months’ leave which they are allowed to take when they retire.

When they retire they get money instead.

I believe that in some cases some of those magistrates who are being retired at 55 have accumulated two or three more months’ leave in addition to the six months, thinking that they would be able to take it before they retired in the belief that they had several more years’ service yet to run. Now, however, they have been given a year’s notice of retirement, so they will be unable to take leave beyond the six months, because they may not take leave during their last year’s service. I want to ask the Minister, since this leave was accumulated in good faith with the reasonable expectation of being able to take it, whether he will not allow these officials to enjoy the benefits of this accumulated leave.

I do not know what exactly that would involve, but I will go into it.

I wish to ask the Minister what his policy is in regard to juvenile courts, and the punishment of juveniles. I do not want to discuss the question, except to say that if we could tackle the juvenile criminal at the right stage, and deal with him on proper lines, possibly the number of adult criminals would be reduced. Very often if a young criminal is handled properly on the threshold of a possible lawless career, we should get at the root of the creation of criminals. It is for this reason that I should be glad if the Minister would make a statement as to his policy.

I quite agree that the proper treatment of juvenile crime is an insurance with regard to the future. I am not sure that juvenile courts are the most important consideration, and whether we should not, in the first instance, apply our minds to the subject of juvenile punishment. Both these matters can be submitted to the conference of judges.

Has the Minister considered a large number of cases in which suspended sentences are given?

Suspended sentences are being inflicted far too frequently, and if we cut them down by 50 per cent, no injustice would be done. There again I would prefer to be guided by the judges with their greater experience, and this matter can be submitted to the conference of judges. I do not think we can attach quite the same importance to the opinions of probationary officers on this subject as we can to the opinions of judicial officers.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 29, “Prisons and Reformatories”, £721,470,

Recently, and for the first time, I visited the Pretoria central prison. I was shocked at some of the things I saw there. Not that the prison is not clean, well-run, or that the prisoners look under-fed or ill-treated, but there are one or two minor conditions under which prisoners, especially those accustomed to live in a decent manner, are suffering in a way I do not believe they should be allowed to suffer. The prisoners I visited were two very well-known Johannesburg men, whose case caused a considerable sensation last year. They are both about 55 years of age, and when I asked them how they were treated they replied that they had been almost continuously sick from the time they had been there. That might be due to the mental worry and humiliation they suffered as a result of their case, but they told me they had to sleep in the cell about seven feet by four feet, the floor of which is granolithic, and all they were given to sleep on were two strips of felt, each less than quarter-of-an-inch thick. They had no mattresses, and this in the Transvaal winter, and the Pretoria prison is one of the chilliest places I have ever been in. It is a prison for Europeans, and many of the occupants have been accustomed to live in a certain amount of comfort all their lives. Is not the fact of incarceration in a prison in itself sufficient punishment without adding to it by imposing conditions which are galling in the extreme? Why should European prisoners not be allowed to have a bed which is almost as elementary a need as sufficient food to keep them alive? Why should a prisoner not have a mattress? I feel extremely guilty that I have never been to the Pretoria prison before to see how the prisoners are treated. At 5 o’clock every evening these men are taken to their cells and kept alone there until 5.30 the next morning, when they are wakened up and released for breakfast. Now what sort of life is this? I do not argue that you should have American stunts where prisoners are treated rather better than the star boarder in a boarding-house. There were those who told me that they were always ill there, suffering from the cold, which struck up to their kidneys and other parts of their anatomy. 1s it not enough to send a man to gaol without his having sleepless nights? I think the Minister will feel with me that it is unnecessary to add to their hardships in these ways. Then I would like to know on what principle do the Minister and the court decide that some prisoners should be sent to Baviaan’s Poort, while the majority of European prisoners are kept in the central prison at Pretoria. I found that the one cry was: “Get us out to Baviaan’s Poort,” which seems to be a sort of mecca to them. I understand it was originally an inebriate home, and is now a farm colony for long-sentence prisoners. If the Minister took a plebiscite they would all vote for Baviaan’s Poort. On what principle does the Minister send certain prisoners there? I understand that Schonken, who was sentenced for a second offence, for a rather disgraceful crime, has been sent there, and Nafte and Daly, the man from the registrar’s office on the Rand. I believe some judges send a man there direct.

This is a very important question, and I hope the hon. member will realize, if I show little sympathy, it is not the first time I am convinced that prison is not a holiday institution. Exactly the same conditions have obtained there for the last 23 years. Quite a number of Cabinet Ministers have been in that prison, and in the fort at Johannesburg, under exactly these same circumstances; they have had the same food, slept in the same way, and enjoyed all these privileges about which the hon. member has been so eloquent. It is not as if these conditions are hidden and as if nobody knows anything about it. We have a prisons board inspecting them regularly.

I asked them about the prisons board, and was told that they are only concerned with the remission of sentences.

It is not their duty to inspect cells and see whether they are clean, but they know the type of punishment meted out, and it has never been suggested that these prisoners are subjected to intolerable conditions. There are the chaplains visiting them; there are the gaol doctors going round regularly, and the judges regularly inspecting the gaols. I cannot recall a single instance when it was reported that these conditions are dangerous to health. If a man’s constitution is not strong enough, he has only to make representations to the prison doctor, and he is not removed back until his constitution can stand it. In view of all these circumstances, I am not prepared to consider any alteration. The hon. member emphasized he did not want to introduce American conditions; there I entirely agree with him; gaol is a place of punishment. As regards Baviaan’s Poort, it is a combined gaol and inebriate reformatory. We can eliminate the “inebriate,” because the hon. member’s remarks apply only to the gaol portion. Judges have the right to sentence prisoners to a period of detention or imprisonment at Baviaan’s Poort, and in the cases of Daly, Schonken and some others, they have exercised this discretion.

On what principle?

I quite agree with the hon. gentleman we should have some indication in the law or regulations, as to the type of case in which this discretion should be exercised. As the law stands, judges have an unfettered discretion, and I am not in the position to say what influenced the judge when these two persons were sentenced. As far as my own views are concerned on the removal of prisoners from other gaols to this gaol, this gaol does involve more work in the open, and for that reason I am in favour, in the cases of men who have led an outdoor life, and whose constitution is such that it is detrimental to them to keep them cooped up in prison, of their being given the opportunity of serving their sentence at Baviaan’s Poort; and because it seems so desirable to most of these prisoners, those who have served more than half their sentence and have been of good behaviour, are transferred to Baviaan’s Poort.

It is no use the Minister telling the committee that this system has not been objected to by clergymen and others visiting the gaols. I repeat that these people, of whatever age they may be, are compelled in winter in the Transvaal to sleep on granolithic floors with only two strips of felt.

De Wet slept there.

It is only in two storeys that the floors are granolithic. Did he sleep there?

They were allowed to have private beds.

The prisoners I have referred to have to sleep as I have said. A man of 55 told me that he is unable to sleep at night because the cold is intolerable. He said that if he could only have a cheap, common kafir mat it would be worth its weight in gold, or if he could sleep on boards he would be happy. B it he is compelled to sleep on a granolithic floor, and the cold is so intense that his health is being undermined. I do not want any fancy stunts for prisoners such as there are in America, but do not punish a man by inflicting on him physical discomfort so acute as to have the effect of undermining his health. I asked the head warder whether the Prisons Board did not go into this matter, and he said they did not because they were only concerned with the conduct of the people in the gaol and so on, and had nothing to do with the general supervision and management of the gaol. I asked the chief warder why these people are compelled to sleep on granolithic floors in this way, and he said that all he could say was that it was according to the regulations. It only needs one word from the Minister to put that matter right, and it means the difference between health and illness to a very large number of prisoners in that gaol.

I would like to say a word about the reformatory system. All boys detained in a reformatory are medically examined, and a very large proportion of them are found to be mentally deficient. Out of 88 of these boys at Tokai reformatory who were examined, 4 of them were sent to the mental hospital at Valkenberg, 13 were sent to a sanatorium for treatment, and 23 who were found to be mentally inferior nothing was done with. Those 23 boys are definitely subnormal. They are not capable of taking care of themselves. When they leave the reformatory they may come to no harm if they fall into good hands. The medical officer at Johannesburg lays stress on the tractable nature of these boys, and when they come out of the reformatory they are liable to be easily influenced. Unless they are lucky enough to be well looked after they have insufficient initiative to take care of themselves, and in their own interests and in the interests of the state we should do something to try to minimize as far as possible the letting loose of these people. We spend about £60 a year on each of these boys for two or three years. They come out to become criminals or what are called poor whites. They propagate their mental degeneracy, and they spend their lives a burden to themselves and to the state. It sour responsibility, and it is economy as well, to do something for them either by sending them to a work colony or by finding some semi-Government employment for them. They are hot definitely vicious in any way, and if we can only keep them under discipline they will had useful lives. It seems to me that the mental examination which now takes place periodically in the reformatory would be better if made before lads of this kind are sentenced by a magistrate. If a boy could be mentally examined before he was sentenced then he might be dealt with more satisfactorily. In regard to coloured boys sent to reformatories, the case is much worse because unless they are found to be lunatics, they are not treated at all. I believe, though I have no authority for the figure, that nearly 50 per cent, of the coloured boys released from Tokai reformatory are mentally deficient and there is no need to stress the danger to themselves and the community of letting loose a steady stream of mental degenerates in the country. I would ask the Minister whether there is any means of tackling this problem.

Regarding the point raised by the hon. member, it is certainly one of importance, but I am not sure that the position could be dealt with along the lines suggested as long as reformatories are penal institutions. For some time the Departments of Justice and Interior have been exchanging views as to whether reformatories should not come under the Interior. They would then cease to be penal institutions and the care of the inmates along the lines suggested by the hon. member would be easier than at present. Regarding medical examination before sentence to a reformatory, that would entail much expense and difficulty. After sentence the examination is dealt with by the board. In each case the matter is enquired into by the board.

The point I want to raise is a case where a father of a family is in prison and his wife and children have no means of support. The Minister, I believe, or one of his departments, have given temporary relief. I do not want to stress the point, but I should be glad if the Minister would go into this question sympathetically. In Germany’, I am told, a bread winner is allowed to go out to earn money to give to his family and then he goes back to prison for the nights.

I want to ask the Minister a question regarding the superintendent of the prison at Kimberley, where, I believe, the Minister had some little trouble.

That was nicely settled.

I would like to know what the “nice settlement” is and what happened. Some of the cases which I discussed were cases of prison servants who have not only had consistently good reports, but have been commended for work done. The man in charge of the prison at Kimberley has never had prison experience in his life. I believe he was a welfare officer.

He was a deputy inspector.

My information is that he served as a welfare officer in the Prisons Department. I would like to know whether he is a man of super-sufficient efficiency since he is appointed to this post while a large number of other men whom I considered to be efficient are being allowed to go. As head of the Prisons Department the Minister has appointed a man who, so far as I know, has had no prison experience. He has been a public service inspector. I would like to know what particular experience this gentleman has had that he should be given an appointment like this. Is it because the standard of the prison service has fallen to a very low ebb or because there was no other person of sufficient efficiency to fill the post? I would like to get some information from the Minister on this point.

The trouble to which the hon. member refers is this. De Beers claimed they were entitled to recommend a person to be appointed to the Kimberley gaol, or that the Government appointment should be subject to their approval. De Beers appoint all the warders, and De Beers have in this prison 1,200 prisoners all the year round. The Government took the view that some of the persons—for preference the warders— should be appointed by the Department of Justice; otherwise the position would have been that every single warder, head warder and superintendent in charge of these prisons—that is to say, if this had been agreed to, would have been a servant in the employ of De Beers. Although there is considerable force in the contention of De Beers, the Government definitely told De Beers that they were not prepared to ask for their approval or accept their nominee and whilst they were willing to consult them—consultation is always useful—the Government insisted on appointing the person they thought proper. De Beers would not agree at first but eventually, partly due to the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) the Government’s nominee was accepted and the contract continued on the old terms. As regards Mr. Bekker, he was the deputy-inspector of prisons, and his salary in that respect has been voted for by this House so far as I know, for at least three years. He has considerable experience of the Prison Department not only in one prison, but in various prisons throughout the Union. I discussed this gentleman with Mr. Bateman when the position in Kimberley fell vacant, and Mr. Bateman was of the opinion that Mr. Bekker was a very efficient officer indeed. Mr. Bekker was accordingly appointed to that vacancy. As regards Mr. Fleck he has had many years of very distinguished service in various capacities, and for a number of years he was public service inspector, during the period when the whole of the prison inspection was also carried on by the Public Service Commission. When Mr. Bateman was appointed to his present duties, I submitted to the Public Service Commission two recommendations, namely, Mr. Batho and Mr. Fleck. Mr. Batho was the next in command at the head office and was unilingual, while Mr. Fleck was bilingual. The Public Service Commission recommended Mr. Fleck for the appointment and he was accordingly appointed.

I was always under the impression that when prisoners were required to appear in court as necessary witnesses, facilities were offered so that these men could be dressed in something other than prison garb. I should like to know if that rule has been relaxed or still continues.

That rule still stands. A prisoner actually appearing in court does not appear in his prison dress for very obvious reasons.

I was particularly interested in the Minister’s statement that negotiations were taking place with the Minister of the Interior about his department taking over reformatories. That, to my mind, is a step in the right direction. Can the hon. Minister tell me whether the reformatories referred to in this vote are regularly visited by judges or other competent visitors? I refer particularly to the one at Houtpoort, Heidelberg. It is reported in this annual report of the Department of Prisons that the conduct was not so favourable and a few disturbing elements can easily affect discipline. Has the Minister ever visited this institution? A few years ago when the Education Commission went round, I visited this particular reformatory. I think the name reformatory is a misnomer. It is a prison of the worst possible type for juveniles. There is no sympathy whatever between the warders, who may more aptly be called sergeant-majors, and these poor young fellows. I enquired into the records of some of the boys. One was sent from Kingwilliamstown for stealing a bicycle. He was sent to this reformatory. He had no previous conviction against him and that was the only charge against him. He was only a lad of about 17 or 18 years. The conditions we found there were absolutely disgraceful. I do hope that that institution has been regularly visited and that the conditions there have improved. Instead of being a reformatory, it is the worst type of prison. The exercise yard covers a small area and right in the centre, there is an open latrine which is very objectionable. There were other features of an equally disgusting nature which led one to the conclusion that just that little human touch of human kindness was absolutely foreign in this institution. If ever the Minister has a chance I hope he will visit this institution and see it for himself. There is no sympathy whatever between the warders and the boys and unless radical changes have taken place instead of being a reformatory it would become nothing else but a breeding place for young hardened criminals.

We have a representative board, the members of which visit that institution once a month. I will give the names of the board. They are the Rev. Mr. Brink, Messrs. Robertson, Bezuidenhout, Murray and the magistrate. They visit the reformatory once a month. I have had no reports from this board which show that anything out of the ordinary is taking place there. However, in view of the hon. member’s remarks, I shall ask the board for a special report.

The Minister received a deputation from Wakkerstroom in Pretoria in relation to Wakkerstroom gaol. I want to remind him that in my opinion he gave the assurance that we should get the gaol back again.

No, I did not promise that.

Well then a part of the prisoners were to be transferred. At present only short sentenced prisoners are kept there, but when it is a case of a month or more they are removed to Volksrust. I want to ask the Minister if he will fulfil his promise, or his alleged promise.

No, I will just put the hon. member right. I did not make that promise, but I did say that I would have an enquiry made, because the reopening of a gaol like that at Wakkerstroom which has been closed for years will cause considerable expense. I, however, want carefully to consider allowing prisoners to stop there longer than a month, but it depends upon the work there is there. I am still waiting for a proposal from the municipality that they will employ a certain number of prisoners right through the year. Then only can we properly consider the matter.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 30, “Police,” £2,556,006,

I am sorry to bother the Minister again on a question about the police station at Burntop on the Swaziland border. I have already seen the Minister and his predecessor about it, and the Minister in consequence sent someone to make an enquiry, but the man got the opinion of the people over the border in Swaziland, and he asked them whether it was necessary to establish a police station on the Transvaal border. I would like to invite the Minister to take a little holiday when he can accompany me and see for himself whether it is necessary, and he can, himself, ask the people there. If he thinks it is necessary we can also go and get the views of the people over the border, but the people on our side of the border ought to be heard first.

While commending the Minister for reducing the expenditure, I must point out that the reduction has very largely been carried out at the expense of the ordinary policeman—a very unjust procedure. The vote provides for 4,502 constables whose wages total £1,157,000, as against £1,171,000 last year. The total police personnel last year was 10,652 and this year it is 10,633.

Young constables are coming in and they are on a lower scale.

We have heard this afternoon about the difficulties some magistrates experience in maintaining their position, but the policeman is also a European. He likewise feels a difficulty in maintaining a position which would put him above suspicion. There is a certain amount of bribery among the police.

The hon. member should not say so.

I do say so. I am sure the Minister has had complaints that some of the police are not above suspicion, and receive bribes simply because they are not paid sufficient to keep body and soul together. It is not a matter to be sneered or jeered at. The police should be given suitable clothing in summer, so that they can carry out their duties in a proper way and not have to suffer the discomfort of wearing warm winter clothing on a hot summer’s day. I particularly refer to the constables on point duty in our large towns, who have the dangerous and difficult task of controlling the vehicular traffic. The other day I was at Oudtshoorn, where I was told that a certain policeman was dismissed for some very serious misconduct—drawing a revolver on one of his confreres. He asked to be reinstated, but was not successful until someone approached the Minister on his behalf. The auditor-general, in paragraph 11, page 159, of his last annual report, states that three members of the police force was reinstated, although these cases occurred before the Minister took office. I ask the Minister to enquire into the Oudtshoorn case.

There are a few matters of importance which I should like to bring to the Minister’s notice. The first is that the farmers complained very much about the buying of horses for the police. I do not know whether it is the rule, but it occurred in my district that farmers, themselves, directly offered horses to the police, but that they were refused. Meanwhile, a speculator came and bought up the horses at a very low price, and a little later the horses were found in the possession of the police. What is the arrangement about the buying of horses? We know that it is very difficult to find people now who breed horses, and every horse bought, ought to be bought directly from the farmers. It would be very unfortunate if that were not done. Another point is in relation to the outlying stations. I think the Minister said in one of his replies to an hon. member that the outlying stations were going to get less, but that the police should get motor-cars or motorcycles.

Motor cycles.

I don’t think that will benefit us. The motor-cycles supply certain needs but it is impossible to serve the countryside if the police stations are not properly equipped. The necessity must exist of making night patrols, if the police on the outlying stations are not properly supplied— especially the one man stations—with the necessary material for night patrols then the motor-cycles will be of precious little use.

I wish to refer to a question which was put on the order paper by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) regarding the purchase of remounts for police purposes. The reply to that question disclosed the fact that one area in the Union seems to have the monopoly of this business, and one individual appears to have a monopoly of the sale of remounts to the police. The public wishes to know why this particular area should be specially favoured and why one seller should have the monopoly. The seller, let me tell the committee, is not a breeder of horses or a farmer, but a dealer in horses. Why should the breeders and farmers be overlooked? I understand the area is the Kimberley area. Of 449 of these horses which were purchased no fewer than 338 were purchased in the Kimberley area. In Natal the buying officers were kind enough to purchase three horses during the last financial year, in the Cape 28, and in the Transvaal 33. I think it is common knowledge that horses are bred in the Transvaal, the Cape and Natal, and I hope that the Minister will tell the committee why one single area should be picked out and given three-quarters of the purchases for remount purposes. I am told the area is suitable for horse-breeding, and a better type is obtained than anywhere else in the Union. Whether that is so or not I cannot say, but I hope the Minister will clear up the matter, because it is a disquieting one for farmers. Then there is another curious aspect. I asked the Minister to give me the figures of the average price paid to dealers and to breeders and farmers. The average price paid to the dealer who sold the 338 horses was £27 per head, but to the farmer it was £24. That the farmer should receive less than the dealer is another point the Minister should clear up. There is another question of very great importance indeed. I want to ask the Minister what is the procedure adopted in the purchase of horses. Are the potential sellers advised that the buyers will be at a given centre at a certain date, or in what manner are they advised? A question which was put in the House elicited the reply that an advertisement appeared twice in the Diamond Fields Advertiser and the Volksblad in August and September; that practise was discontinued and police stations were advised to notify farmers when buying officers would be in attendance. This seems to me to be a slipshod, haphazard way of apprising farmers. What steps are taken to see that police stations carry out this duty. Mr. S. Diamond enjoys practically a monopoly in the sale of remounts. Is that fair treatment to the breeder or farmer? This slipshod way of dealing with the question is not fair, because it appeared that what happens is that this dealer, Mr. Diamond, a very estimable gentleman, I am told, is advised that the purchasing officers will be in Kimberley at a certain date, and he is there with his horses, while the breeder and farmer may not be advised. Purchases are made, but there is no guarantee that breeders and farmers are similarly advised. Nobody has been able to tell me so far how the breeders and farmers are advised by these purchasers. I hope the intention to purchase horses will be properly advertized, so that the farmer and the breeder are given the same opportunity as the dealer. I do not want to suggest that there has been anything improper in this transaction; I object to the methods employed by the purchasing officers. I understand that Mr. Diamond makes it his business to have available for the department a suitable type of horse whenever the department requires them. I understand the purchasing officer finds it less expensive to go to a person such as Mr. Diamond, who specializes in the business, and in an hour or two is able to give them the necessary number required of a suitable type, which is certainly something in favour of purchasing from the dealer. Mr. Diamond, I am told, is a man who does keep in stock the very best horses which are available for the purpose, and I have no doubt that has actuated the officers going to him; but the breeder and the farmer have a grievance, and want to know why their claims are not considered. Equality of opportunity and equality of treatment are all that the breeder and farmer asks.

I first want to answer the question of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. A. S. Naudé). He invited me to accompany him to the Swazi border, I regret I am unable to go. What I would suggest is that a police official should accompany him. He can then give him the necessary information on the spot, and if he can convince the official of the necessity then I do not doubt that it may be possible to make the alteration.

The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) raised the question of our having saved £38,000, an achievement of which the commissioner and the police department as a whole are justifiably proud. The way this was saved amongst others—and this applies to everything said by the hon. member about the pay constables are drawing, the saving as far as pay is concerned is merely temporary-—is that older men at the top of their scale have gone off, and recruits have been taken on on the lower scale, and the result is to effect a considerable saving. As regards clothing, there is the interdepartmental committee, presided over by the Department of Health, which deals with the question of clothing for the police, warders and others, and the committee is considering what steps it can take. With reference to the question of reinstatement, it is rare that a police constable, or even a sergeant, is reinstated. I understand there was a case before I assumed office where it was proved that a miscarriage of justice had taken place in connection with a departmental trial, and in this case there was a reinstatement of the constable by the Minister. If the Minister thinks that the commissioner or deputy commissioner took too severe a view of a case he exercises his prerogative, and alters the sentence to one of less severity.

*The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. van Rensburg) raised the same question that the hon. member for Klip Hiver (Mr. Anderson) did about the buying of horses. With his permission I will explain this matter when I reply to that hon. member. I now come to the second point he raised, the outlying police stations. There is no intention of unnecessarily curtailing the increase of outlying stations, but in view of the prevailing financial stress we cannot extend as fast as we would like. To relieve the position we are at present supplying motor-cycles, and motor-cycles with sidecars.

The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) has referred to the buying of horses, and he has put fairly our departmental difficulties. The department has very great difficulty in getting suitable horses. The defence, police and, I believe, some other department, was instructed to go into the question of how many horses were available. The report was staggering. We have less than 2,000 available for remount purposes. The standard laid down by the police is that we want horses of not less than 14.2 hands high, from four to six years old, and, of course, they must be geldings. Mose of the horses used for the Boer war, for example, would be quite useless for this purpose. The department would rather buy from the farmer than from the speculator, and we are prepared to go to any trouble within reason to meet the farmers and to buy the horses. Unfortunately, our experience has been that the average farmer is far too optimistic as to the quality of his horses. We have found, for example, that during the year 1,047 horses were inspected, and the veterinary officer went to a large number of places to see them, and the number bought was negligible. Hon. members must realize that it is impossible to go from farm to farm on the off-chance of picking up one or two horses a week. That would raise the price of the horses. I understand that Mr. Diamond is a dealer on a very large scale, and also supplied troops in Egypt and Rhodesia. As far as the Police Department is concerned, he has given us very good service. The board consists of at least two senior officers, one of whom is a veterinary surgeon, and the hoard views horses wherever information reaches us that a suitable number of horses can he brought to a suitable place. It is not because I believe that there is any real ground for complaint, but simply because there exists the impression in a number of districts that the farmers have not received the consideration to which they are entitled, that I asked the commissioner personally to go through the districts affected, and see what arrangements could be made for the buying of horses. Formers will have to understand definitely that if we give them a trial, and we find that they have not got the horses, we cannot incur the expense of from time to time going to those very same places, and possibly inspecting the same horses which have been rejected.

Why not advertise?

We have advertised, and we discontinued advertising because there were no results. The commissioner will go into that question, and find out whether it is any use advertising, but so far the results have been very disappointing. Under the circumstances, the attitude of the department was the only one which could be carried out, except at prohibitive expense, but the commissioner is going into the matter personally, and will see that justice is done.

We know that Robertson is the best district in the country for horses, and Griqualand West is looked upon as an outstanding district, and I hope that hon. members are not going to be dissatisfied because the Government buys 300 horses per annum in these districts. I know that a number of farmers in Griqualand West and in the Free State are dissatisfied with the action of the Government. Motor-cars have come into fashion and horses have gone out of fashion, and the farmer no longer breeds the horse of 25 years ago. The Government is a big buyer, and the methods that have been adopted are: (1) Advertising, (2) buying direct from the farmer, and (3) buying from horse dealers. We are told that the first two methods have failed and that the third is the most reliable. If the Government buyers went to various farms and places to buy they would have to travel great distances, they would pick up one horse here and another there. They may be shown 40 horses of which only three are suitable. It would be difficult to get these horses to the railhead, and the travelling expenses of the board would increase the cost per head considerably. The Government is buying from a most reliable dealer. He scours the country continually and buys the cream of the horses in the country. Ho supplies the Egyptian Government, Bechuanaland, Northern and Southern Rhodesia and the Union Government. He often sells his unsuitable horses in Johannesburg at a loss. He bought 200 horses recently from a mining company in this country at two years old They were excellent horses. After two years he has losses, and sells, perhaps, 160 horses; he has to keep them a considerable time. He takes a risk. Horse sickness appears every year. But he sells the Government a good horse. I have made diligent enquiries from the leading veterinary surgeons and from various other sources, and I find that all are agreed that the Government is buying correctly. But there is another side to the question. The farmer is dissatisfied, and he has reason to be. I want the Minister to give the farmer every consideration. The farmer sells a good horse for nine or ten pounds to the speculator; the Government pays £25 for a horse, and he wants to know where the difference goes. I would like the Minister to take this into consideration when the board visits various centres, and if they will give notice of the date of their visit; Boshof, for instance, is prepared to show 200 horses at three weeks’ notice. Under the conditions to-day the farmer should be given a lair, deal, and I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he appoints a board to visit periodically certain centres such as Boshof, Schmidts Drift and Colesberg after giving due notice. This is a system for which the farmer is agitating, and I hope the Minister will give it a thorough trial. Another point I want to raise is with regard to the reduction of allowances given to matrons and female attendants in our prisons. The Minister made an allowance last year of £2,850. He makes the same allowance this year. These women have been reduced in some cases from £5 a month to 10s. a month, plus 1s. a day. These women do the searching. They have been reduced to 10s. a month plus 1s. a day for every day they work, a maximum of £2 a month. They are called out at all hours of the night. There are certain of these women who are widows, and they cannot live on £2 a month. I know the Minister will be sympathetic and give this matter his careful consideration.

The statement made by the Minister of Justice yesterday on one-man police stations is of importance, and I will not condemn him because it is a wrong policy. Yet I do want to say that he cannot make it a hard and fast rule never to create a one-man station. There are certain areas, as in my district, where it is impossible to use a motor cycle to serve all portions of the district. I do not know whether the Minister has ever visited my constituency, nor do I know whether the commissioner of police has, but there are portions where sand, e.g., makes the use of motor-cycles impossible. The Minister intends assisting the public in the way he indicated. That may be a good thing in some parts of the country, but in some parts of my constituency it will not answer well. The Minister will, therefore, be obliged to make exceptions. In my constituency there is a place, Bottersleegte, which is 35 or 40 miles from the nearest police station. The farmers do not frequent the village much because the journey to and fro is 70 miles, and takes the farmer out of his work for a whole day. If then they get everything at the business place, then I think it is a case which ought to be considered. I heard that the commissioner of police intended to visit the surrounding areas. We will welcome him, and I think it will be a good thing for him to learn the conditions there; when once he has been there he will be convinced that I am advocating a just thing. He will then see his way of assisting the people. There are many farms where policemen have not been for five or six months. It is no use those farmers reporting thefts and such things. It takes too long, and it costs them too much. I, therefore, hope that the Minister of Justice will make a concession. It may be true that it will cost more, but the time must come that we must provide those places with police. Large towns like Cape Town ask for more protection, and complain of the paucity of police, but these large towns have privileges which those people are deprived of. I know the Minister of Justice is sympathetic towards those parts, and that I can rely on him to assist the people.

I have listened very carefully to the hon. gentleman, and I am pleased to see that so far as uniforms are concerned they are getting nearer to the alleviation that they deserve. During the course of a case that has been mentioned, the hon. Minister asked me if I used the word “bribery.” I never used that word. I never said it at all. In turn, I should like to ask the Minister a question. In regard to this case of reinstatement, was it done while he was in office? I would ask him if he would give the House any information on the point.

Unless there was some mistake, the name of the man was Oots. He was charged with breach of the regulations, and the Minister came to the conclusion, on further evidence, that there had been a miscarriage of justice. He had been tried by a police officer for a breach of the regulations.

I am glad that the Minister, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. van Rensburg), said that he was gradually going to increase the number of police stations, but my complaint is that he has reduced the number in my constituency. There were two places in my district where police have always been stationed, but now they have been removed, and I want to ask him in any case to reinstate those stations. There the same is happening, and the people are now far away from the nearest police post, and I hope the Minister will reinstate them. The one is the station at Muiskraal, and the other Koringplaas in the division of Laingsburg. In connection with the last vote, I sent a petition to the Minister subscribed by all the farmers. They are about 40 miles away from the village, and the police can never come in time. What is the use of accumulating police in the villages? I think they ought to be put in the districts.

In regard to the question raised concerning the policing of the Durban harbour area, the Minister rather side-tracked the question by putting the onus on the Minister of Railways and Harbours. It is a large area in which there are about 4,000 or 5,000 natives employed, and we have no adequate police protection. I have been informed by the Minister of Justice that the railway police have jurisdiction there, and they, the railway, are only concerned with looking after the merchandize in the sheds. The question of the maintanance of law and order amongst the natives does not appear to concern them. We are told that the borough police are supposed to have jurisdiction in this area. The borough police, however, decline to take any action in the matter, because it is outside the municipal area. Further, the borough receives no rates in regard to the buildings and property within the harbour area. Therefore, they are very loath to undertake the duty which the Government should carry out, and which duty the Government are trying to place upon the shoulders of the Durban corporation without any kind of recompense. This area is, therefore, without adequate police protection. A very dangerous condition of affairs in view of the present attitude of the natives. A few years ago we had a fine body of men known as the water police, who did very useful and necessary work, and carried out their duties satisfactorily. Everybody felt reasonably safe then, so far as the control of the natives in that area is concerned. For some reason or other, financial or a difference of opinion between the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Railways and Harbours as to who should be responsible for policing the area, the Minister of Justice withdrew these police, thereby saving a certain amount of money to his department. But he left us without protection and control of the large number of natives in that area. I should like to ask him to make a statement as to what his policy is, and what his intentions are as regards this particular area. I may tell him that the people at the Point and shipping circles are very much perturbed that they are without adequate protection. I should, therefore, like some statement in regard to the policing of that area.

The hon. member is right when he says that I told him that the borough police have jurisdiction. They have jurisdiction, if not over the whole, then of a considerable portion of the harbour area, and the South African railway police have jurisdiction over the whole of that area. Surely the hon. member cannot expect, when you have the borough with jurisdiction over most of the area, or at all events, over a portion of it, and the railways have jurisdiction over the whole of the area, and have police available, that the police of our department should also patrol the area. However, I am prepared to assist the hon. member to the best of my ability, and will endeavour to induce the Minister of Railways and Harbours to give him more police, if the existing police there are insufficient. It is quite obvious that this matter should be dealt with by the Railway Administration. So far, the South African police do not patrol this area, but the C.I.D. investigate all cases of serious crime in the area. I am afraid that is as much as can be extended to the hon. member. There was a time, a few years ago, when the whole question of taking over the borough police to police that area was definitely dealt with, and, I think, finally disposed of. That being so, it seems to me that the borough and the Railway Administration, the two existing parties, should make the necessary arrangements between themselves.

Vote put and agreed to.

On the motion of the Minister of Finance it was agreed to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

I move—

This Bill is part of a scheme to put the existing irrigation schemes of the country on a proper basis. The Irrigation Commission, after proper enquiry, made a report in connection with certain schemes, and this Bill is based on that report. The select committee is now engaged on certain recommendations, and it is desirable that this Bill also shall be referred to the select committee. Inasmuch as certain rights are affected by the proposed alterations, it was necessary to advertise, and this was done. I would have preferred to send the Bill to the select committee before the second reading, but I fear it is not possible to do so under the standing rules and orders. This does not prevent all sections of the Bill being dealt with by the select committee, and the select committee can hear evidence, and when the Bill comes back hon. members will have a full opportunity of debating it. I hope hon. members will bear this in mind, so that the second reading can now pass. The Bill does not deal with the financial side of the report of the Irrigation Commission; it deals only with the part where certain rights are affected. As for the financial recommendations, they will be submitted to the House later. When we consider the Bill, we must remember that it is only a part of the recommendations of the Irrigation Commission. In the first place, we are concerned here with the Breede River scheme. Hon. members will see that it is proposed in the first instance to give the Irrigation Board the right as long as water comes from its conservation works of exercizing control over the river bed. I may say that an objection has been received from the South African Milling Company. They sent in a petition yesterday against the Bill, but an arrangement has been arrived at. I intend to move in select committee the following amendment—

Hon. members will understand that the object of the clause is only to give the control wife water flows from the conservation works, and they are situated below the Dwaars River. Then, by sub-clause (2), provision is made for altering the boundaries of Le Chasseur and Goree districts, so that the ground which is regarded as riparian, but was not actually so, is included as riparian in the irrigation districts, and other ground which is not used as riparian ground is excluded. Sub-clause (3) provides that certain riparian land which did not previously come under the Act, but which is suitable riparian land, is now included. Then there are provisions in connection with the Great Fish River scheme. The intention is to abolish the various small boards, and put everything into the hands of the Great Fish River Board, in which, however, each district will Be represented, and there will be an advisory committee for every district. Provision is also made in connection with the control of water which flows in the bed of the river, provided it comes from the conservation works. The sub-clause of Clause 4 deal with the constitution of the main board, and how it is to be maintained, and all the particulars in this connection are contained in it. Then there is the provision in connection with the Sundays River. I may say that this is a very complicated matter, and it has been very thoroughly investigated by the Irrigation Commission in all its details, and they have made a good report in connection with the matter which is now being considered by the Irrigation Selection Committee. Provision is here made for the exclusion of certain land which is now on the list of irrigable land. As to the Sundays River it was once thought that the quantity of irrigable land would be 22,000 morgen. On the present list there is somewhat over 17,000 morgen, and the intention is to reduce this to about 10,000 morgen. Provision must be made for that. The basis on which ground will be excluded will be that it will be borne in mind what ground has already carried water in the past, and the intention is to let those people get the water which will be available in future. As the Bill will be referred to a select committee immediately after the second reading, I do not think it necessary to go into details. The select committee can go thoroughly into everything, and when the Bill comes before the House again hon. members will have the fullest opportunity of discussing the whole matter.

I support the Minister’s suggestion that the Bill should be sent to a select committee. It is an honest attempt to reconcile various interests. There are several important points of highly technical interest which could be best discussed in the select committee. The Bill does not in any way affect future policy or future irrigation schemes which may be brought forward. In regard to the Great Fish River the Bill proposes to amalgamate a number of small irrigation boards, that now tend to overlap, into one controlling board. If the Minister will assure the House that every opportunity will be given to those, whose interests are affected, or may be affected, to state their views to the select committee, I think the Bill can safely be sent to the Select Committee on Irrigation.

Supposing we pass the second reading, and the Bill goes to committee, in what position shall we be if we want to make amendments of any kind? Are there any vital principles we shall be bound by?

I am glad that the Minister is sending this Bill to a select committee. I agree with him that the Irrigation Commission has put up a valuable report in connection with this matter, and, to my mind, it is to be regretted that this report was not printed to enable all concerned to read it. I do not wish to take up the time of the House. There is only one point I wish to raise, and that is the question of the calling of witnesses before the select committee. I understand that as far as Sundays River is concerned three very representative gentlemen have been summoned, and there is no doubt they will give reliable evidence. These witnesses will represent the irrigator’s point of view, but the same privilege has not been extended to those owners who will be deprived of their water rights under this Bill. They have merely been notified that the select committee is prepared to receive evidence either in person or in writing. In other words, those who are going to benefit by this Bill are putting their views before the select committee at the cost of the state, but those who will be penalized if the Bill passes must appear before the select committee at their own expense. I am sure the Minister will agree that that is unfair, whilst I recognize that curtailment is necessary and am in favour of curtailing the irrigable area, I think all concerned should have equal opportunity of placing their views before the select committee.

In view of the rulings we have received I take it that if the second reading is accepted it will not be possible to materially amend the Bill. I would like the Minister to explain the position quite clearly. I think it is important that we should know what the position will be.

With regard to the points raised by the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close), and the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel), I may say it is not a question that the Bill cannot be amended as far as principle is concerned. What you will not be able to do is to introduce new principles, or amendments which are contrary to the provisions of the Bill, as read for the second time. I am satisfied that all the amendments necessary to introduce—it is obvious that amendments will have to be made in a Bill such as this—will be capable of being introduced in committee, and if that appears not to be the case, some method can be devised to get over that, and so far as that is concerned, there will be no difficulty. With regard to the question of witnesses, the select committee was of opinion that representatives of the board should be called before that committee, but I may say that all the private owners who are mentioned in the schedule to the Act have been notified that they may come and give evidence, and if representations are made in regard to the question of expense, the matter will be considered by the committee, and, if reasonable, I am quite prepared to consider that, and will go into the question.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time and referred to Select Committee on Irrigation Matters for consideration and report.