as chairman, brought up the second report of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities.

Report to be considered in Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

as chairman, brought up the third report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts (on agreement between the Secretary for Mines and Industries and L. B. Lewis), as follows—

Your committee had the Secretary for Mines before it who submitted a memoranrum and it is satisfied that the agreement was bona fide and in the public interest entered into as a compromise of litigation then pending between the parties thereto. It did not, however, feel called upon to examine the details of the agreement itself in view of the fact that these cannot now be altered.

as chairman, brought up the report of the Select Committee on the Electoral Law.

Report and evidence to be printed and considered on 26th May.

as chairman, brought up the report of the Select Committee on the Agricultural Warehouse Bill reporting the Bill with amendments.

Report to be printed, House to go into Committee on the Bill to-morrow.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) intimated that he wanted to move an amendment.

I want to move an amendment to the amendment made by the hon. the Senate. These regulations can be promulgated only after consultation with the advisory board, if the advisory board has been established or has performed its functions in a location or native village. It is intended to give this new provision a retrospective effect. If these additional interpretations are correct possibly one or more municipalities in the country administering this Act under the regulations of 1924 may have exceeded their legal powers, and in addition to what has been put in by the Senate I would like to make it clear that if these regulations have been acted upon by the municipalities concerned, they should be regarded as valid, even although there have been cases where natives have been arrested for being in a proclaimed area and failed to prove that they were entitled to be there. It has been the habit of what are called authorized officers to demand from male natives they might meet there that they prove their right to be there, and if they failed to produce a certificate that they were entitled to be there, the regulations gave power to have such natives arrested and punished. The validity of the regulation has been called into question, and it seems to be an administrative matter. Municipalities which have acted on the regulations should be able to feel they are not going to have an endless series of troubles and lawsuits, because their officers acted bona fide through their regulations, and might unwittingly have arrested persons who might have some claim to compensation. I should like to move—

The clause the hon. member wishes to amend has been passed.

I move—

That new Clause 6 be reverted to.

Agreed to.

I now move my amendment.

I have no objection to the amendment if it is competent. I draw attention, in connection with the amendment, to section 10.

I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment. This amendment seeks to amend sections of the principal Act, other than section 10. However, if the matter could stand over, I am prepared to go more deeply into the question.

May I point out that it is true that section 10, sub-section (1), deals with the appointment of native advisory boards, but it is a sub-section, which, I think, in the original Act itself is put in in the wrong place. I am compelled to perpetuate what I might describe as a formal irregularity which occurred in the original Act. If you look at the subsection, you will find that it refers to certain powers to make regulations which vest in section 23. In the original Act, if it was desired to say that this regulation making power should only be exercised in connection with a native advisory board, the appropriate place at which it should have been inserted was as an addendum to section 23 itself. I cannot now move an amendment to section 23. If you look at sub-section (2) of section 10, as now printed, you will see it deals with this very question of section 23.

If the hon. the Minister will allow the matter to stand over until tomorrow, I will go into detail with regard to it.

On the motion of the Minister of Native Affairs, the debate was adjourned; to be resumed to-morrow.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Condolence (SIR H. JUTA).

I move, as an unopposed motion—

I think all hon. members will agree with me that it is very appropriate that we should today show this honour to an important and worthy son of South Africa. It is true that he did not die in harness, as is usually the case with those in whose cases such a motion is introduced, but he was practically one of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, as Speaker of the old Cape Legislative Assembly. He is known to most hon. members, although possibly not so intimately by most of us, but yet sufficiently for me to be able to say that we appreciated him during his presence amongst us, and I think we all had a very great respect for the deceased. I want to introduce my motion with these few words.

I second the motion. On behalf of members on this side, I join with the Prime Minister in expressing our sympathy and condolences on the passing away of Sir Henry Juta. As the Prime Minister said, he was for some years a member of this House— from 1910-’14, during the first four years of Union—but Sir Henry Juta had acted as Speaker in the old Cape Parliament before Union. There was a constellation of very remarkable men in the old Colony in the days before Union, and Sir Henry Juta belonged to that circle of distinguished men who played their part in the history of the Cape Colony. He rose to be Attorney-General and subsequently became Speaker, and as Speaker he had an outstanding reputation in the old Cape Parliament. He was one of the men who helped to build up the high traditions which we still try, to the best of our ability, to maintain in this House. As member and Speaker he upheld the old order which has always distinguished this House and which, I hope, will continue for many a day. After Sir Henry Juta ceased to be a member of this House, he probably rendered the most distinguished services of all, when he became president of our Supreme Court in the Cape, and subsequently, as Judge of Appeal. In these years when, with other distinguished lawyers, he helped to mould our law and settle our administration of justice, he helped in building up precedents which will remain for many a day to guide us in our administration of law in this country. I agree fully with the tribute of the Prime Minister and I am sure there are many in this House who remember him and revere him and admire the great services which he rendered to the old Cape Colony and to South Africa in his day.

Agreed to unanimously, all members standing.

When the House adjourned on Tuesday I was expressing disapproval of the way in which my hon. friend, the leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts), had, by the interpretation he gave to paragraph 60 of the report under consideration, once more thrown the old apple of discord into the midst of our political life in South Africa. I pointed out that he, as a prominent member, and responsible leader of the Opposition, should have thought what the effect must necessarily be of what he said, because we are here not only concerned with a passing explanation which casually comes into our path, but it must be clear that the leader of the Opposition sought the opportunity, as it were, to give expression to his views. It was, therefore, done intentionally by him. Now no one can blame him for it. He is entitled to do so, and possibly under ordinary circumstances, not only entitled, but also obliged to bring such an opinion of his, on such an important report, and on such an important matter, fully to the notice of the House. But I think that if he had stopped a moment to enquire what the history of the question raised by him was, then he would have asked himself whether I, or rather the Government, which has laid this report on the Table, could ever have thought of recommending such a thing as he suggests to the House. His interpretation is this: that in recommending paragraph 60, the report and, therefore, the Government, recommends that South Africa, as well as any other dominion, is ready to decide willingly and wittingly to abandon its right of secession. That is what he clearly stated, but he did not only say that, but he added that that was, in his opinion, clearly the right course to take. Well, if it should be that I, and the Government, were to come through this House to the people to abandon a right which we have always considered a test of the question whether we were a free people, or not, then it would be nothing less than that we were prepared not only to abandon all our freedom, but also practically to betray our people.

I did not say that.

No, you did not say it, but that is the inference which we must draw from the history of that question, because we have fought each other on this point, and the hon. member for Standerton has fought election after election, and won more than one. According to his interpretation, we should now have to accept that the Government just says simply: “Very well, all we have stood for in the past, all we have obtained, we are now going to surrender, and that without coming here and expressly informing the House of our views."

I think that the Prime Minister has there understood me wrongly. I did not suggest that.

Yes, you did not suggest it, but what I blame you for is that before you say that we recommend the abandonment of our right of secession, you ought to enquire, and investigate whether it is possible to, and whether you were not doing us an injury to infer that from the report. You can well understand, Mr. Speaker, why I say that we cannot possibly, without our entering a protest, allow anything to be said here which practically amounts to this: that I, and this side of the House, have committed nothing less than treachery. We cannot possibly allow that to pass by casually without a protest. I just want to add this. I said a moment ago that the right of separation of the dominion, in my opinion, was nothing less than a touchstone of the freedom and independence of a dominion. In my opinion, if a dominion surrenders its right of secession, then it also surrenders its international freedom of which there can subsequently be not the least question. That is why I have always attached so much importance to this right of secession, and that is why, ever since 1912, I have said that this right of secession could not, and never would, be surrendered. It was such an important matter with us that it was one of the cardinal principles of the Nationalist party that no Government of the day should approve of any agreement derogating from our right of secession. Now I wish to proceed to another matter, viz., to enquire how far the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was justified in giving such an interpretation to paragraph 60 of the report, as the one he gave the other day. Let me, at the same time, say that I do not exactly want to have a controversy with him about the meaning of paragraph 60. I do not want to do that, because let me give him the assurance that whether he is right or wrong, the mere fact that he has given that interpretation to paragraph 60 makes a clear appeal to, yes, makes a demand upon, this House that we shall take care that never again in the future shall there be any reason for doubt about the matter. To that extent, I am very thankful to the hon. member for Standerton for raising the matter, and expressing his views in the way he has done. Let us now, for a moment, enquire how far he is right in his view. According to him, by passing paragraph 60, our right of secession is abandoned. Let me, in this connection, refer to the words of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) on this point, he said—

I did not use the last words.

With all respect, I must say that I, nevertheless, heard those words. But, however that may be, we now want to know from the hon. member “whether it should be so, or whether it should not be so?”

If I may just answer that question. According to the Hansard report, my words were “from a legalistic view, paragraph 60 closes the door to secession, and it is inevitable that it should be so in terms of the formula”.

Very well, there you have it. “It is inevitable that it should be so.” Not only the hon. member for Standerton, but also the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) is prepared to sacrifice the freedom of South Africa.

No.

Yes, to sacrifice the freedom of South Africa. Where is the right of secession, “if the door is closed”? And it is said, notwithstanding what is stated, so clearly in the first part of paragraph 60. I will quote it in English, because the original report was drafted in English. We read in the first part of the clause—

Notwithstanding that, my hon. friends come here and tell us that this convention, if it is passed in the form recommended by the commission, will actually result in the door being closed to secession.

May I just give an explanation, because I do not want any misapprehensions on this point? I at once tried to explain the difficulties I felt in connection with this paragraph. A declaration is made in the report, viz., in paragraph 60. It is proposed to take this declaration out of its context, and to put it into another document as a constitutional convention. I took the declaration separately in that sense, and interpreted it, and not as a part of paragraph 60, but, as I have said, as the declaration which must be taken separately, because it is to be incorporated in another document. If then we take it separately, then the result undoubtedly will be what I have said here. I at once agree that the declaration was not so intended, and if we read it with the whole paragraph, and with the whole report, then it is clear that it is not so intended. The other meaning can, however, be given to it if it is taken separately and incorporated in another document.

Are you withdrawing now?

I hope my hon. friend will follow me, and I hope the Prime Minister will also follow me. It is a point of importance. I want to repeat that I have no objection to the report, but what is here proposed is that one part of the paragraph, one statement in it, shall be taken out of its context, and put in a separate constitutional document as a convention. If that is done the position will be disastrous. If this statement is included in such a document, then it must be done with the proviso that there is no derogation from the position created in 1926. If that is done, I am quite satisfied. I am prepared, and satisfied to agree to the report with that proviso, viz., that there shall be no derogation from the principle laid down by the imperial conference in 1926.

I am very glad, because if that is the statement of the leader of the Opposition, then it is clear to me, and all those who sit behind him will unanimously vote for the amendment. I want to call their attention to this. When the hon. member says that that is the interpretation of that paragraph, and that he feels that it might cause misunderstanding to arise if it is taken separately, as a part of an Act, then I can understand what he says here. But the hon. member went further; he said that that paragraph swept away our right of secession, or shut the door upon us, and that it ought to be so, just as the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) expressed himself here. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) followed in his leader’s footsteps, and repeated what he said. It is a fact, indeed, that he gave us, as he always does, a very good exhibition of rope dancing. He, however, danced in the footsteps of his leader, the hon. member for Standerton. However this may be, I am very glad to hear it. I say it again I am very glad to learn that the hon. member for Standerton agrees that the door is not closed to secession. But what then about the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls)?

But this is not right. When the hon. member for Zululand was speaking the debate was already running on the fatal question of secession.

I, however, never dictated to anyone that he should take part in the debate.

The amendment was then already before the House, and it stampeded the whole House.

And the hon. member for Zululand accordingly got up and stated that we were free “within the empire,” and that his leader was quite right. Then the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) added to that, “and everlastingly so,” or rather “perpetually so, within the empire.” He hoped that we would be perpetually within the empire. Let us all hope so, but that will only show how well we can co-operate.

We can co-operate.

Certainly, but the question now is whether we are compelled to co-operate, or whether we do it from free choice.

We are just as free as in 1926.

Then I cannot now understand his argument of the day before yesterday at all. I now see that my hon. friends already feel rather ashamed about what they have said, and I shall not dwell on this point any longer. Let me say this: that no one, unless he is hopelessly prejudiced or malicious, and does not want to know what the facts are, can give the interpretation to paragraph 60 that the hon. member gave to it. I say again that in as much as we have seen that it can be done, we must take care that the doubt is completely removed, and that will, I hope, take place. I can assure the House that, as far as I am concerned, I shall see that it is done. I was then asked, however, what the reason was for that paragraph. I referred to it in my introductory speech, and if the hon. member for Standerton and other hon. members will once more give their attention a little quietly and calmly to paragraphs 58 and 59, which immediately precede paragraph 60, then they will find the meaning in clear and transparent wording. It is as follows: in paragraph 58 the commission says that they now recommend, with regard to legislation, all the members of the commonwealth have the most complete freedom to pass any legislation, but then we come to paragraph 59, and there they argued as follows: “Now, we must not forget that we came over to co-operate; to co-operate in a free association, and the co-operation would be rendered futile if England were to go and fix the succession of the throne on certain lines, South Africa on different ones, and Canada or Ireland make still other stipulations.” I do not know what took place, but I suppose that they said that it was clear that the Act, e.g., demands of the King now on the throne of England that he should be a Protestant, and that they then said: “Now, you all have the right freely to adopt any stipulations, and to pass an Act, but now there is the possibility that South Africa may add something to the requirements, or that Ireland may come and say that they want the King to be a Catholic instead of a Protestant, or that the two sections of Canada may come and say that they want to leave it open.” They then said that it was clear that if that was the position the empire on the next succession to the throne would split asunder because the King could not possibly be both Catholic and Protestant. In such circumstances the king of England could not be the king of England, the king of Ireland and king of South Africa. If the various parts of the empire were to pass such legislation, the whole cooperation in the commonwealth would be ended, and, therefore, the commission recommended, as stated in the report, that with regard to the succession of the throne all would have to decide and agree mutually in case any alteration was to be made in that. It is as clear as it can possibly be why this was inserted here, and it has nothing at all to do with secession from the empire, except the following, if in future a dominion wants to secede from the empire it can pass a resolution and say, “this ends the co-operation, and we are separating.” But the dominions will not be able to say that they want to attain the object by passing an Act saying that there must be another king, than is laid down in the existing law. Now I beg of you, do you think that any commonwealth could be injured by that? I believe the leader of the Opposition will have to admit that if we want to secede there is only one thing required, and that is that Parliament should pass an Act and say: “Henceforth we stand alone.” Why should we in such a case have recourse to the succession to the throne and the qualifications that the king should have? It would be foolish to resort to such a provision when the other way is open to us. We therefore say that the reason for paragraph 60 is clearly obvious, but as it has once more during this debate appeared to be a rock of offence to some of us, I shall, as I have said, take care that when this report is passed, there shall no longer be any doubt about the matter. I shall see that there is not the least derogation of our rights of secession. I cannot help feeling that it can only be by a feeling of exaggerated suspicion, or by wilful malice that such an interpretation can be given to paragraph 60 as was given by my hon. friend. I am certain that there has never yet, with the hon. member for Standerton, been any suspicion that I or the Government, or ex-Minister Beyers, were or would concede too much to imperial institutions. I therefore say that I think that he has no suspicions, and that he was not driven by suspicion when he gave the interpretation to paragraph 60 that he has done, but that he wilfully—

Not wilfully.

When I say wilfully, then I mean it is his intellect speaking and nothing else. For that very reason I consider, as I said on Tuesday, his statement to be of so great importance.

You do not usually consider my statements as of so great importance.

No, they have not much weight with me in political matters. When we leave the political arena I can assure the hon. member that I attach much value to his views, and also when he discusses matters tranquilly and calmly with me. When, however, he enters upon imperial matters, I have never found him sound. To-morrow, or the next day, my hon. friend will probably have an opportunity of returning the compliment to me with regard to my view, but that does not detract from the fact that my view or his opinions is often very true, although I do not wish to claim to be infallible. I have already said that it is not a question here of the reasons that influence my hon. friend to come to that construction of paragraph 60, and I therefore do not want to go into them, but it is a fact, and an important fact, that he did so, and that is the reason why I attach so much importance to it, because there cannot be the least doubt-one must assume that he is honest—that he has once again come and dragged into our midst here the old “skeleton”.

That was not the intention.

I accept it that that was not the intention, but I blame my friend very much for having done so, whether he intended it or not. You will, therefore, understand why I have to insist so much that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Strydom), as amended by the Minister of Defence, shall be passed. It will then make it clear, by means of the highest authority in the Union through the mouth of the national representatives of the Union, what the wish of the people is on this important matter. But that is not all. It will also be to me and to those who go with me to the imperial conference the mandate to which we must keep, and I again want to assure the House that I am prepared to consider it as a mandate, and that I will keep to it in every respect. But there is still another reason why I think that this amendment ought to be passed. Listening to the various speeches which were made here the other day, I could not help feeling sorry for our imperialists in South Africa. When we see the anxious concern they are filled with about the breaking up of the empire. By giving complete freedom to the dominions. They will never accept that until such time it is made as plain as the moon to them, that whether they laugh or cry they would have to accept it. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) spoke about our “perpetual association with the empire”. When it is clear and it is agreed that we have full and unhampered freedom in every respect, when that is accepted by good imperialists, like the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens), then we will find that I, and other hon. members, will also express the hope and will have the confidence that such a “perpetual” bond, so far as such a thing can be perpetual, will continue. But I can assure him that if that happens, they will first have to believe in our complete freedom, but the anxious concern of hon. members like that of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) does not worry me much. He is, once and for all, as I always call him a good Unionist, a good jingo Unionist, and he is entitled to be so if that is his real conviction. It is true that it is really opposed to the interests of South Africa, but there are so many things that the Opposition do that are against the interests of South Africa that we can also be pleased about this little instance. But what, and the person who, really worries me are the Unionists of the class of Johannesburg (North). Nothing amused me so much as to hear the exceedingly expert way in which he rhetorically danced on the rope in connection with this question. It was perfect. Just listen a bit. In order to defend his leader and his theory he said that paragraph 60 now closed the door to secession, but he said we must direct our attention to the words that we are freely associated, in other words, free, but in bonds. Without having the courage to come out freely with his opinion we get this kind of childishness from hon. members. Let us notice again what the hon. member said, “We must not overlook the concepts”. Then he said, “we have freedom, but we must also co-operate”. The hon. member was, however, made aware that it is compulsory co-operation, and I must congratulate the hon. member on the fact that he immediately saw the joke and laughed at it. But understands well we are still free of course, and the hon. member will say in the country, “I stated that we were free”. But will he refer to the other concept to the co-operation?

Yes, certainly.

Yes, but he will not say that we must co-operate. If that is the intention, why then did he use the argument? I am sorry for my imperialist friends, and hence I am so glad that I had the opportunity to-day, and that the House has the opportunity to remove any doubt as to what it all means. But if the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) says that we are free, then I hope that when we vote, he will vote with us. There is yet another amendment, and I do not want to say anything more about that except that no one who uses his common sense will vote for it. I am sorry that more members of the Opposition did not elect to speak, because then we should have heard a little more of their views about the grant of freedom to South Africa. But sufficient hon. members have spoken to show that they do not want the right of secession. That brings me back to the loyalty of the leader of the Opposition, and hon. members opposite to that higher status which they got in 1919. Let us look a little into that higher status of our imperialist friends like the hon. member for Johannesburg (North). According to their higher status, the unity of the empire would continue. They want to take away the right of secession, and then we would once more have a unity with a super state; without a super authority they will never be satisfied, unless it is made clear to them that they will not have it, Let us now look at the 1926 declaration. The unity of the empire exists, but it is clearly stated that each one has the fullest measure of independence, and thus possesses the fullest measure of freedom to secede. This is so much the case that to-day even the Cape Times and the Cape Argus can no longer be found in favour of any statement less than that we do actually possess the right of secession. Over against the higher status of which the hon. member for Standerton formerly spoke, the imperial conference of 1926 placed the highest status that any nation can have. Now I want to refer a little to something else, and I want to ask the hon. member for Standerton and his followers what they actually want. He clearly expressed himself, and so did the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) in favour of the doctrine that a dominion or South Africa to restrict ourselves to a definite dominion does not possess the right of secession. Let us now for a moment accept that that is what we are going to propose in this House, then it means that I want to say that this House must resolve that New Zealand or Australia, but in this case I would only take New Zealand, that New Zealand shall have the right when Canada wants to secede from the British commonwealth of nations to say to Canada: “No, you may not do it.” If we accept that statement, then it will mean that we are in favour of the will of New Zealand prevailing, so that Canada in that case will not have the right of seceding. Is it not ridiculous? Is there any individual here in this House who will put his sign-manual on that If we do not want to do that what right have we to come here and commit such folly as to give such a right to New Zealand, which New Zealand does not have to-day? Would not such a resolution be treachery by this House towards the people? Would it not be treachery to the people if we go to that length and accept a thing here which gives the right to Australia and Canada, New Zealand or Great Britain not only to say that not one of us can separate from the British empire, but now I come to an important matter. What will such a statement further mean? Suppose that Canada says: “I am, nevertheless, going to leave the empire,” then we shall, at the instigation and coercion of new Zealand, be obliged to take up arms and go and fight them. Is there any hon. member in this House so frivolous as to want us to put ourselves into the position of accessories if one of the other dominions takes up the attitude that Canada may not secede? Is there one hon. member who will venture to say that South Africa must go and fight Canada because New Zealand disapproves of a possible resolution by Canada to secede from the British commonwealth of nations? Come, let us hear whether that is what hon. members want. If you say that we have not the right of secession, then you must say so openly, and not try to camouflage a point of view.

I say openly that such a state of affairs is unthinkable.

Very well, but why is the right of secession doubted? No, let me say that a great disservice will be done to our country if we are going to adopt the principle that South Africa is not to have the right of secession. I would just like to refer you to this, the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) and other hon. members were eloquent about “freedom and co operation”. They constantly had the word” co-operation” on their lips, but what is to become of co-operation if we adopt the principle that we do not have the right of secession? Have hon. members yet thought that the co-operation of a dominion depends on the freedom of a dominion?

Free co-operation.

What freedom of co-operation is there if we may not separate when we want to? Have my hon. friends ever thought that the day when the freedom of South Africa is doubted we shall have no right to expect any co-operation. Is that not precisely what the result will be of the action of my hon. friends opposite? Allow me to give a few illustrations. The other day, e.g., I made myself unpopular with thousands of Nationalists because I said that for the sake of co-operation we should decide not to nominate a Governor-General of South Africa. I could, however, only do that because I felt myself safe on the basis of our entire freedom. Do you think that I can again incur that disfavour if I think that we are not free, but are kept within the empire by force? There are other matters of equally great importance. An imperial conference is being held shortly. There we shall discuss matters of the greatest economic importance, and they will all be settled on the basis of co-operation. I say here to-day that if I had any thought that I was wrong in my view that we are entitled to secede whenever we wish, then we would co-operate as little as possible. You can get everything from any people and especially from our people, provided you respect their freedom. If you do not do so, you will not get co-operation, unless such a people is a slavish one. The day before yesterday I called the action of the hon. member for Standerton pernicious. I now want to repeat that in consequence of his pernicious action, with in what frame of mind must I and others go and take part in the imperial conference, and co-operate there, with the words that he used here always ringing in our ears—the interpretation that he gave and the statements of men like the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) and the hon. member for Zululand. If it were not for my full conviction that we are a free nation, and that we have the fullest right to secede from the empire when and if we chose to do so, I should not give my support to co-operation in any way at the imperial conference before that right had been granted to South Africa in unambiguous terms. I am very sorry that the leader of the Opposition has raised that matter again, without sufficient justification. I do not want to enlarge on this matter any further. I now return to the amendment. The voting on the amendment will be the test for the Opposition as to how far they can co-operate with us in the future as to how far we on this side can co-operate within the commonwealth or whatever it may be called. If they vote against it, then it only means one thing, viz., that they do not want this country to have the free right of withdrawing from the commonwealth. That is the implication, and they know it just as well as I do. It is not a matter of practical politics at the moment, and it was not raised in that sense.

Why this anxiety, if it is merely an academic point?

On account of the damaging effect that it must necessarily have and has to-day on the point of view of the whole nation.

It is only an academic point.

If it is merely an academic point, why then do you not vote for it?

Let it be so, but the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) spoke about the “perpetual”—

That is merely an expression.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) spoke for nearly half-an-hour to prove that we did not have the right to secede.

You practically agree with him.

This vote will be the test whether they want the co-operation or not. I still remember how on my return in 1926 there was enthusiastic unanimity amongst all in South Africa, even among hon. members opposite, and there was tremendous joy in their welcome of the message of sovereign independence. I want to say that he who loves freedom does not reject it. If they want to show that they were honest and true in the rejoicing in the declaration of our freedom at the imperial conference of 1926, then they cannot vote against the amendment. With the fullest expectation that the same unanimity that prevailed in 1926 will also be present today, I now propose the motion. I want again to tell my hon. friends opposite that after what has taken place they cannot vote against the amendment without thereby saying that they did not agree with the 1926 declaration.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Labour put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Madeley put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Strydom, as amended, put and the House divided:

I want to ask the Minister some questions in connection with Item 14, on page 8, telegraphs and telephones, £89,716. I see that vote is £2,000 over the previous year’s figures, and there is a sum on the loan estimates for some development work there of some £25,000. The vote asked for by the Minister, nearly £90,000, is approximately one-third of the sum spent by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs on the maintenance of telephones and telegraphs. The general manager, in his report, deals with these items on page 13—

There is a note on the Railways and Harbours Board report very much to the same effect. I would like to ask the Minister if he can give the committee an idea of what the railway are doing in connection with telephone and telegraph work, as to what co-operation exists, if any, between the Railway Department and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. There is a great deal of development work going on throughout the country, and I would like to know whether in opening communication between the different districts, the question of cooperating with the post office has been fully considered, and whether there is any working arrangement between the two departments. I have in mind a case where it was desired to get a message through from Pretoria to Grahamstown after 1 o’clock on a Saturday afternoon. The only way it could be done was by seeking the good offices of the Railway Administration to transmit the message to the town concerned. There must be many cases where the post office is closed on a Saturday afternoon, and when the railway office could be utilized. It certainly would be a great convenience. I would also like to ask whether there is any arrangement whereby the railway and the post office combine to use the same fixtures, whether there is co-operation in regard to the use of joint material, and whether any scheme has been adopted whereby saving could be effected by either one or the other Administration. Further, I would like to enquire whether there is any co-operation between the technical officers of the departments. Is there any question of overlapping in the work of the two departments? Are there lines running between two centres, one being used by the post office and the other by the Railway Department? I believe there are cases where economy could be effected if closer co-operation existed. I would be glad if the Minister would give us full information with regard to the telegraph and telephone system of the railways.

I was interested yesterday in listening to the Minister’s reply to the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) in which he stated that most of the questions the hon. member put would be dealt with on receipt of the mechanical engineer’s report, and that no doubt the mechanical engineer would revise many of the conditions of service in accordance with what he has learnt overseas. I would suggest that on the mechanical engineer’s return, the Minister should not rush into alterations, but that he should call a committee of the men together with the heads of the department. We have had experience of various alterations initiated by mechanical engineers and others, and these varying systems have led, more or less, to a state of chaos, and to a large amount of dissatisfaction in the railway service. I want to call the attention of the Minister to the figures he gave in answering a question in regard to the Bloemfontein workshops. He said there was an increase of three supervisors, and the extra cost was given as £485 per annum, roughly £162 each. This shows how ridiculous a policy based on such figures must be. We know how the system of supervisors fixing prices on piece work broke down in practice, and a system of schedule agreements was introduced, schedules drawn up by a committee of supervisors and men. After these were drawn up, and before being thoroughly tried, the chargemen were put on day pay, and the consequence was that they became interested parties in the bonus system. That has probably led to the demand for more supervision. I contend that if the system had been allowed to stand, and the chargemen had been paid at a rate commensurate with the position they hold to attract the best men to the position they would have had an incentive to see that the work was done without putting piece work inspectors into operation. To-day you are making your chargemen part and parcel of the gang itself. How has it worked out? I want to give the committee an illustration. A chargeman gives out a job. A bonus inspector can stop the job, stating he will have it done in another way, probably a way that his predecessor has condemned. So we have a foreman issuing orders to a chargeman, the chargeman allocating work to the gang, a bonus inspector coming along and altering the work, and then examiners seeing that the work is done correctly. The effect of this is very high overhead charges in each department. Say that repairs are required to a crane at the docks. A price may be given by a private engineering firm outside whose overhead charges are from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. The artizan on the railway, owing to overhead charges, is unable to compete on level terms with the outside firm’s mechanics, as I believe the railway overhead charges are working out as high as 150 per cent. I believe that bonus inspectors are men of the best type, but naturally every workman has his own idea how to do the job best, and a bonus inspector may come along with a different idea of how the job should be done. The next bonus inspector has another way of doing it, and the artizan does not get familiar with any way, and loses the nice sense of touch in which he has been trained in regard to his work. There is another point, and that is the conditions under which men who are working in gangs on the permanent way are tied down. Many of these men work for 6s. 6d. per day— my reference applies chiefly between Kimberley and Bloemfontein. They are not even allowed to plant a few vegetables to eke out an existence. It would help them if they were allowed this privilege. I would like to have the assurance of the Minister that there will be no further attempt to hand over the quarry at Kloof End to private contractors. During the recess it was impossible to get hold of Ministers, and I understand that tenders have been called for. This quarry is a means of living for a good many men who are kept busy. If a private employer took it over it might be difficult to get him to use white labour, as has been done in the past. I understand the water supply along that line has been condemned by a doctor, and I hope the Minister will see that a pure water supply is made available in the interests of the health of these people.

I wish to ask the Minister if his attention has been drawn to the general manager’s circular 1554, about the new superannuation fund. A good deal of dissatisfaction has been caused among the artizans of a section of the service by their not having it explained to them the difference between the incidence of the new and old superannuation funds. It is a matter I submit to the committee which should have been very clearly expressed—

That point cannot be discussed if you suggest any change in legislation.

I am not suggesting a change. I am asking the Minister to tell the committee what steps he proposes to take to see that, in future, all circulars are properly explained. I put it to the Minister that it is extremely desirable that the servants of the Administration—whenever a change is introduced—should have very clearly laid before them what the change involves in order that no possibility of mistake or misunderstanding could possibly arise. This circular involves the surrender of rights under the old superannuation fund, and the substitution of other rights under the new superannuation fund. The terms of the circular were a recommendation to the servants of the Administration in general to accept the new terms as being beneficial to them, whereas, the fact is that the terms, so far from being beneficial to the whole, were beneficial only to a certain section and positively detrimental to another section. I cannot understand how a circular of that kind is allowed to go out—how men were permitted to surrender the rights they had under a misapprehension— and how that position can be maintained. I understand that a member of the Administration was instructed to explain the circular. I cannot believe that anybody was so altruistic as to surrender rights that he had for rights less valuable, knowing he was doing it. I can quite understand his doing so if under a misapprehension. It may have been a bona fide misapprehension. It is an extremely unfortunate occurrence, and has given rise to the impression that rights might have been maintained if the Administration, through the terms of its circular, had placed matters beyound misunderstanding, and that the present position would never have arisen. It is misunderstandings of that kind which give rise to grave dissatisfaction in the service. I am sure the Minister would wish to avoid any dissatisfaction at all. It is, I think he would agree, most unfortunate that this has happened. I ask the Minister to make a statement about the circular, to the committee, and tell us what steps he proposes to take to prevent any recurrence, and if a misunderstanding has occurred, what steps he proposes to take to remedy that genuine grievance.

I want to raise the question of the relation between the Administration and the travelling tourist agencies. I have had representations made to me with regard to this matter, which I wish to convey to the Minister in the House, so that the matter may be ventilated. I personally do not know the facts of the position, except what I have been told. The Minister will agree that a very important question is involved. We have people whose business consists, amongst other things, in getting commission on bookings which they procure. What is the general policy of the Administration in regard to tourist agents? Is it the policy of the Government to facilitate their work and co-operate with them, or to oust and restrict them? I take it the policy is to cooperate with them. They have their extensive organizations overseas, and possess advertising facilities and means of bringing home to people in Europe and America the advantages of coming out here and seeing something of South Africa in the way of personal tours. The bookings, as I understand it, which the tourist agencies could make, would be made either overseas or during the voyage, or out here locally. I understand that the Government is prepared to assist and make provision for commissions on bookings overseas, but is not prepared to make provision for bookings locally as to the intermediate stage, that is the case of passengers coming over in the steamers; one grievance, or rather something which has been represented to me as a grievance, is that the Administration, by arrangement with one or other of the steamship companies, have a system by which they canvass on the steamer for the Administration’s tours. Cards are given to the passenger who wishes to undertake a tour out here. They are handed to the Administration’s tourist bureau in Cape Town and a commission paid upon it. If you are in effect going to restrict tourist agency possibilities entirely to their bookings overseas, I am told that it will restrict the volume of business very largely, and will restrict them to a large extent in their business out here. I am told that people largely do not book overseas, but prefer to await until they arrive here, when they can look around to see what they would like to do. Even at the sacrifice of a little local revenue by modifying the principle laid down upon this question that the Administration will not pay people here to do this local business, which the Administration’s officials say there is their own tourist department to do, and if the system of canvassing on board ship were dropped, it would be one method of leaving legitimate business for the agencies. They would have their commissions on the overseas business and secure such business as they could on board ship, and they would then get the local commissions. It might be worth while for the Administration to allow these tourist agencies to facilitate the work of the department by co-operation in developing this tourist business. They could do so at the expense of a little loss of revenue so far as direct commission is concerned, by increasing the business. I should like to know whether it would not be worth while to get these people to advertise and to extend their business as much as possible, even at the loss of a little revenue at the tourist bureau. I urge that the Minister should make a statement on this matter, so that the public may know the position. There are one or two other questions I should like to ask. I should like to know to what extent the Minister pays, or exacts, commissions in connection with transport, and to what extent the Minister pays or takes commissions in connection with hotel accommodation of visitors who come out here. I should like to know whether he does this, as a rule, only in regard to people who are travelling on the tours arranged by the Administration’s tourist bureau. Can the Administration say to what extent the Minister does pay or take commissions in connection with car transport of travellers in this country, and the accommodation in this country of people who come from overseas? It is rather a vital question, because we are looking forward to making the tourist business a great feature in the future. If the representations which have been made to me are correct, it is a pity that the Administration should go on lines which will tend to restrict the activities of these tourist agencies, and make it more difficult, if not impossible, for them to co-operate with the Minister. While the loss of revenue may be small, it seems to me that by encouraging people to assist in developing this traffic by means of an extensive organization, in the end you will probably be much better off. I should like to have some enlightenment upon this subject.

During the course of the budget speech the hon. Minister referred to the breakwater at Algoa Bay. The statement he then made caused a great deal of anxiety on the part of those who are concerned with the development of this particular work. The Minister’s reply last night does not tend to allay that anxiety. I will quote what the Minister said in his budget speech—

Last night, I understood the Minister to say that it was not considered necessary to go further with the work of the south breakwater than the completion of half of what had originally been decided upon. This is a question which one looks at not merely from the local point of view, but as being one which affects a large portion of the country. It is a question which affects not only the midland areas, but far beyond that, and it is one on which I should like the support of hon. members. I would appeal to hon. members representing the midland areas for their support to bring pressure or persuasion to bear upon the Minister to reconsider what has evidently been his decision. Unfortunately, there is only one hon. member representing any of these areas at present in the House. I think the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Vosloo) is the only one present, to whom I can appeal. I think that the House and the country have a right to expect that the Minister would have given some explanation as to his reasons for the departure from the scheme which had been decided upon by the House. If one refers to the report of Col. Nicholson, one will find that there, it is recommended that the southern breakwater should be extended a further 7,800 feet, which, with the present jetty, would make a total of 8,500 feet. This report was submitted to a commission of engineers. Col. Nicholson said—

The van der Horst Commission was appointed not to consider the south breakwater, but the further development of the harbour, and it is quite evident in reading their report that they never for one moment contemplated, but that the breakwater would be brought to completion. The Minister tells us it is intended to provide sufficient shelter for lighters, and I think also for smaller vessels. That is not considered to be what is required. If it were intended only to supply sufficient shelter for lighters, then the money expended for that purpose has been very ill-spent. What is really required is shelter for large ocean-going steamers. It has also been said that there are very few days in the year when port work is entirely suspended, but there are quite a number of days when a full 100 per cent. of work is not obtained from the lighters, on account of the state of the weather. The work has been waited for very long and patiently, and a good deal of unrest has been caused by the Minister’s statement. Will the Minister kindly state the result of the interview with the Port Elizabeth Harbour Advisory Board? I understood him to say yesterday that it was a satisfactory interview. Will he tell us whether any suggestion has been made to the Harbour Advisory Board which would meet with their approval?

One of your colleagues was present at the interview.

He did not tell me what happened. If there is any doubt as to the necessity for proceeding with the work, I think the van der Horst Commission’s report would convince anyone who is in doubt on the point. Other members have made reference to the developments that have taken place in the midland area, particularly with regard to fruit-growing. Surely we are not going to rest where we are, and to say that for all time Algoa Bay must be a lighterage port? We have a right to expect such shelter as will protect all the existing jetties. I cannot imagine that the completion of the breakwater to a length of 4,000 feet will supply anything like the shelter that is necessary. If the Minister has any other scheme in his mind, perhaps he will allay our anxiety by informing us—seeing that the length of 7,800 feet which was decided on after exhaustive enquiry by prominent engineers whose recommendations were examined by other engineers—will the Minister say whether he has had a report from any other engineer which has induced him to alter the previous decision? We have the right to know the reason for this departure.

What is the departure?

The departure from the original scheme approved by this House. [Time limit.]

Will the Minister kindly give us some information regarding his road motor services? In the early days of the session I was very pleased indeed to hear of the splendid services rendered by our motor-buses in Natal. Some time ago I drew the Minister’s attention to the fact that on certain of our bus routes no provisions was made for non-European passengers, and I instanced the case of two coloured teachers who were refused a seat in a railway bus, although they tendered the first class fare, and were going from that point to a railway station to continue their journey. Around the Kingwilliamstown area the non-Europeans complain very much, but recently I saw that the grounds for their complaints had been remedied, and the non-Europeans were so pleased that they were actually giving the Minister a free advertisement in their paper. I wish to congratulate the Minister and to express the hope that he will extend these facilities, of which the native paper recommends its readers to take full advantage. If the Minister will only conduct his bus services on these lines, he will get the public to support him. I want, however, to refer to another bus route which evidently is not carried out on such up-to-date lines. It has been brought to my attention by a correspondent, who writes—

Surely, it ought to be possible to obviate delays like this. These are things which make the Motor Carrier Transportation Bill necessary. I appeal to the Minister to run these services on business lines, and then there will be no need to bring in such legislation. There is one other matter I wish to deal with, and that is the uncertainty that seems to prevail in the railway service. The officials do not seem to know what is going on, the newspapers are kept in ignorance, and naturally the public are not kept posted up. I now wish to refer to the alterations in the dining car service on the garden route from Cape Town to Port Elizabeth. Recently we saw an announcement—

This appeared in the Cape Times on the 15th of May, no doubt in papers at the other end, and en route. No doubt there was a rush for luncheon baskets, but the following day in the Cape Argus we saw this advertisement—

There we have it; one paper giving certain information to the public, and the following day that is contradicted. In the following day’s issue we find—

On the 20th of May we find this in the Cape Times—

Here we have it; two and two, fifty-fifty. We want the Minister to make a statement that if the officials make a statement they will carry it out.

The Railway Department, I believe, carries its own insurance with regard to fire, and I would like to know what the Minister’s policy is in regard to railway property which may be destroyed by fire. The Minister knows that the Kimberley goods yard was destroyed by fire some time ago, and the overhead bridge was also partially destroyed. I believe in a moment of weakness the Kimberley municipality offered to pay half of the cost of re-erection of the bridge, notwithstanding the right which the municipality had surrendered, with regard to their right-of-way. The bridge was built 25 years ago, and maintained by the administration. It was virtually Government property, and was covered by insurance. I contend that the administration should rebuild that bridge. What has become of the insurance money? The municipality want an extension of the bridge, and is prepared to pay fifty-fifty, but we consider the old bridge should be replaced. Another point I wish to raise is this. Under head 15, interest on capital, we find £5,333,647 from loan funds. I believe in that amount £400,000 is included relating to the charges on the raising of loans, the Minister knows. Furthermore under the same head there occurs the sum of £430,861 from revenue prior to Union. I would like to know from the Minister if he considers that these are fair charges against the Railway Administration.

At a time when the railway finances are in a very parlous state, there should be come means of effecting savings. The point I want to stress is one which I have put before in the House by way of one or two questions—that of using coal on the railway. They use 660,000 tons of Natal coal against £2,500,000 of Transvaal coal. Natal coal is better and cheaper than Transvaal coal; I am not saying that because I come from Natal, but because it is a fact. Some say Natal coal is 20 per cent better; but assuming it is only 10 per cent better, it will effect a tremendous saving if it is used. This Natal coal is exported in hundreds of thousands of tons to various parts of the world, such as East Africa, Egypt, India, the Straits Settlements, and so on, and has to compete with British, Japanese, Australian and Transvaal coal; I believe it is holding its own on account of its quality. Therefore I think the Minister should take the question very seriously into consideration by using more of the better, cheaper and more effective coal on the railway.

Last night I felt very sad when the Minister replied with regard to Algoa Bay Harbour. To-day I have read Die Burger and I am pleased to see we are getting some help, because it says that the answer of the Minister has given considerable dissatisfaction to the midlands. I am very pleased to know that. We have been very kind to the Minister in Port Elizabeth. I call upon the hon. members for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) Somerset ((Mr. Vosloo) and Colesberg and Cradock (Dr. Lamprecht) to support their natural harbour. The issue is, the Minister knows quite well, that this House passed a certain scheme, or voted a certain amount of money. Now the Minister just says we are stopping half way. I think it is due to this House, after the Minister has had such a favourable report, from such a strong commission—the Van der Horst Commission—as he has had, that he should carry it out. The commission included the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock), and they would not have reported as they did if they had not been convinced of the necessity of carrying out that scheme. It is only right that we should know what the Minister is going to do now that he says the scheme is to be cut down from 8,500 feet to 4,000 feet. This interests the whole of the Union. It is not only a Port Elizabeth matter. It has been stated that Delagoa Bay is coming a little bit on the horizon. If so, I am very sorry to hear it. Let us stick to the principle of South Africa first, and develop our own ports. I hope the Minister will help us in the direction of getting a good harbour soon.

I should like to know what the policy of the department is with regard to tourist agencies. I understand that the administration has decided not to give these agencies the commissions they previously gave them, with the exception of Cook & Sons. I should like to know why Cook & Sons are to have a preferential right, and whether it is a wise policy on the part of the administration, when they are looking for business, to close down those agencies which are a possible means of getting business. It seems quite clear that if these tourist agencies are not given a chance of earning a commission on business they put in the way of the administration, they will do all they can to put their business with the motor people, and I think the motor people will have a very good chance of getting that business. The Railway Department should not allow this to happen. I also understand that the only people allowed on the ships before they are cleared, are the administration’s officer, and Cook & Sons’ representative. I should like to know why there is this differential treatment in that regard also.

I would like to say a word or two with regard to the claims that Port Elizabeth has for more attention from the Government in the matter of harbour development. The investigation of the van der Horst Commission shows that Port Elizabeth’s claims are very strong indeed. The commission said that the work recommended was needed by reason of the freight offering and in prospect. Their estimate was by the time of completion of the work the increase in tonnage above 1924-1925 would be 10 per cent. The actual result, as far as 1929 was concerned, was an increase of 15 per cent. over the previous year, and 10,000 tons more cargo than in 1928. One has only to look at the report of the van der Horst Commission to see the possibilities of trade development in the areas served by Port Elizabeth. I should like to know what induced the Minister to come to the decision to stop the breakwater when it is half built, in spite of the advice and recommendations which have been made, and which have had the approval of this House. Has be had a report from an engineer, or engineers, and, if so, will he lay it on the table of this House? We have a right to ask the Minister to give us a fuller explanation than he has given. With regard to the interview with the Port Elizabeth Advisory Board, I am informed that the result of that interview was not considered satisfactory by the members of the board, and that the proposals made to them do not meet with their approval.

There is a small matter I want to raise, which I have raised before, but which I hope the Minister will consent to reconsider, and that is with reference to the fencing of the railway line from Matubatuba to Somkele. The absence of fencing along that line is very prejudicial to farmers there, who are having a hard struggle, and the development of that area would be assisted if the Minister would stretch a point with regard to fencing the line between these two places. The Government has advanced a considerable amount to enable farmers to purchase stock and carry on dairying, and the request I now put forward on behalf of these farmers is one which, I think, should receive favourable consideration from the Minister.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Nicoll) has suggested a greater use of Natal coal as a method of saving. I have a suggestion, and that is the abandonment of the proposed railway scheme along the esplanade at Durban. I do not know whether the Minister has actually abandoned that scheme. Will he make a statement to the House with regard to the position of negotiations respecting that railway?

Referring to the reply given by the Minister last night to two questions raised by me, I would like to make just one or two observations. The Minister has dealt fully with the case of the clerk Tillman. He has explained why the Railway Board did not recommend his appointment, by saying that there were other tests he had to pass, and he did not satisfy the Minister. If that is so, it ends the matter. But my complaint was that, when I personally got in touch with the Railway Board, and enquired the reason for his non-appointment, I was told the board was not prepared to accept him because of the low percentage of marks he had obtained. The Minister has now given us another reason. Now there is a principle in this case affecting the bona fides between the administration and the staff, because this young man, after passing third in the examination, was told that he had obtained a low percentage of marks. The Minister has now given an entirely different reason. Conduct of that kind strikes at the root of bona fides as between the administration and its servants. Then, again, the man has been told that this occurrence will not in any way mar his chances of success in the clerical ranks of the service. Surely that is an unnecessary statement. How could the fact of his not being accepted mar his progress in any way. Surely the fact that he did so well, and showed such ambition, should help him on. If the Minister will give me his assurance that this young man will now be marked out for promotion, he may feel that the Minister is giving him fair treatment. Instead of giving a negative statement, I would like the Minister to give a positive one. I brought up the matter of the meeting at De Aar because of the principle involved. Now that the Minister has assured the committee that he has no objection to a member of Parliament being present at such a meeting to hear representations—

Of a general, not a personal character.

I accept it in that way, and will treat it as a precedent. I am unmoved by the Minister’s reference to the fact that there are types of politicians who can never be successful unless they are exploiting grievances. I can quite understand and appreciate that he speaks with the conviction of personal experience on this question. As to the hon. member for Colesberg (Dr. Lamprecht), he saw fit last night to make certain personal remarks about myself. I should have thought that those armed with a good case would be the last to resort to the weapons of abuse. I am surprised that the hon. member should have so far forgotten the dignity of the House as to attempt to refer to what purported to be a private conversation in the lobby of the House. A member of the church should be the last to forget the elementary decencies of the unwritten law of this House. I have nothing to be ashamed of, and gave him full permission to quote anything I may have said, but I regret that he made that threat to use something which I am supposed to have said in that way. It is conduct which offends against the elementary decencies of debate in this House. I want to deal with another question in regard to the Railway Staff Control Board. We should be glad to have reasons for the appointment of this board. The Minister knows that there are a number of grievances amongst the staff, for he has only to turn to his own ranks to see that his own followers have brought forward grievances. In dealing with a large body of men the Minister must set up suitable machinery to deal with those grievances. Does this new board purport to be a method of meeting the needs of the men in any way? There is another matter in regard to the Railway Board, namely, the question of leave with full pay to members of the board. It is referred to in the last report of the auditor-general, page 94. It is a more or less legal matter, and I would like the Minister to give the committee some indication whether he is making any alterations in the existing system of leave of absence being granted. The auditor-general says in his report—

Therefore the matter should be put on a proper basis. [Time limit.]

I wish to call the attention of the Minister to the running track between Amabele and Umtata. There are more derailments on this line than on any other section in the Union. I think the Minister might deal with that matter. I would also like to refer to the motor bus service between Umtata and Kokstad. When run on contract by private individuals the post bus always came up to time, but recently it on several occasions since it has been carried by Government bus has been two or three days late. That may not be much for the Transkei, but it shows that Government undertakings are not so successful as private ones. This irregularity is due to the condition of the road, which again is due to heavy bus traffic. If the Government will put on lighter vehicles the roads would be more satisfactory. I hope the Minister will also go into the matter and see that better accommodation is provided for the officials at Umtata. In the heat of the day it is impossible for them to carry on their work owing to their having to work in a tin shanty. I again extend an invitation to the Minister to come to the territories personally and see what is happening. I am not going to suggest that the officials are not carrying out their work, for they are doing good work, but the officials and the public would like to see the Minister and have an opportunity of discussing matters with him. He is the only Minister of importance, who has not yet visited the Transkei and it is desirable that he should get into touch with us in order to understand our conditions and appreciate our difficulties.

I wish to comment upon the reorganization of the police in Cape Town. Some time ago I made an interjection to the hon. Minister and asked whether it was his policy to extend the hours of duty from eight hours to 12 hours a day. If that is the case he will save a lot of money. The Minister has not stated whether that is a fact or not. Is it the case that the reorganization of police duties in Cape Town has led to the substitution of a three-shift day for native policemen for a two-shift day, and the extension of their hours of work from eight hours to 12 hours in 24 hours? If that is so, I want to know what is the reason for this reorganization and how many members of his police staff were forced to leave the service in consequence of that reorganization.

On the 13th May this year I asked the Minister certain questions which I had put on the Order Paper, and the Minister took up the unprecedented attitude of refusing to answer them. He said he was not disposed to deal with the matter by means of question and answer. He suggested that I should raise the matter on these estimates. I now do so, and I will read out the questions which I put to the Minister and which I hope will be replied to. They are as follows—

I should like to allude to the matter I brought up yesterday in connection with the re-employment of absconding white labourers and those who have committed acts rendering themselves liable to criminal prosecution. I understand that the Minister replied last night in my absence. He said that I obtained access to the papers dealing with the matter and had come hero and misrepresented the position. I am told that is what the Minister said. I was rather surprised to hear that. I know that is the sort of attitude which the Minister resorts to sometimes when he has a bad case, as he had yesterday. Naturally, I feel some resentment at the statement the Minister made. I thought the facts were admitted. I did not think there was any dispute in regard to the facts. I thought we were on common ground that a servant (a European labourer) employed by the railway had falsified a railway pass by altering the “Ladysmith, Natal,” to “Ladismith, Cape,” and had proceeded from the one point to the other point. I understood it was common ground that that man had written to the Minister, admitting his guilt, and appealing for clemency. I understood that we were on common ground that the Minister had replied to that letter agreeing to waive the civil liability thus incurred by the man, and I understood that the Minister had told him that he was prepared to re-employ him in the service. These facts are all admitted. Just exactly in what shape or form I misrepresented the position, I am at a loss to understand. I said that in writing to the Minister, the man in question had actually asked for his position to be improved; he had asked for promotion.

He was not in the service then.

When he wrote to you?

Yes.

I did not think that the Minister would use that as his point of attack. The Minister stated in the House that I had misrepresented the matter. I will quote from the letter which this man wrote to the Minister in which he admitted that he had falsified this pass. This is what he said—

He then asked for other work—

I say unhesitatingly that everything I said yesterday I can substantiate by documentary evidence. I resent the Minister getting up in this House in my absence—

Why were you not here?

That is my business. If the Minister had said he was going to reply I should have been here. I am not obliged to be in the House every moment of the day. I challenge the Minister to get up in this House and substantiate what he said last night that I had misrepresented matters in this House. I challenge him, and I am quite sure that he will fail in his attempt. I do not think the Minister should have adopted that attitude towards me. I have been perfectly frank and careful not to make statements that I cannot substantiate by written documentary evidence. In regard to the other questions, I hope the Minister will give me the information I sought on May 13th.

In view of the promise made to the Minister last night, I did not intend to say a word more to-day, but I understand that my name has been used in regard to the matter at Algoa Bay. That is in regard to a meeting held there with the Minister’s engineer. I understand the Minister has been informed that it is satisfactory.

I said you were present, and that is all I said.

I was present, but we were by no means satisfied.

I did not say you were.

In view of the promise, I personally made to the Minister, there was no discussion or cross-examination. We were dissatisfied, but the Minister carried out the promise made to allow the engineer to go to Port Elizabeth and explain the position. Port Elizabeth is dissatisfied after having received promises and having had the amount passed for the building of the harbour, to find it is now intended to go slowly. We feel that it is necessary and it was explained to the Minister at the time. We feel that if any change to be made should be made after consultation with engineers who are fully qualified in the matter. I make this personal explanation, and I am pleased to hear from the Minister that he did not understand that the meeting was satisfactory.

It is not merely that Port Elizabeth is dissatisfied, but the fruit growers of the large area which Port Elizabeth services quite expected that quayside cold storage would be provided. It is no use having a harbour scheme unless deep water berths are built, and I am told that can be done without carrying out the full scheme. The fruit-growing industry in the valleys of the Kat River, Fish River, Sundays River, Bathurst and other areas served by Algoa Bay is an important and an expanding one. The Minister should meet the fruit producers by providing quayside cold storage and deep-water berths.

I wish to withdraw the amendment I moved yesterday.

With leave of committee amendment withdrawn.

I hope this will see the conclusion of a very long debate. I understood last night that we were more or less agreed that the debate would come to a conclusion in a very short time, if it were carried over until to-day.

Only an hour.

I hope this will see the end of the debate.

We have not been long this afternoon.

If the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) read the papers placed at his disposal, he would have seen that the general manager stated that the letter was submitted to him and that he took action on his own initiative and waived the claim against Nel.

What has that to do with it?

It has everything to do with it, because the hon. member led the committee to believe that I took that action.

I said you did, and I quoted your letter.

Does the hon. member deny that the general manager reported to me that in the exercise of his discretion he had decided to waive the claim?

I do not deny that.

Then the hon. member must stand convicted before the House. He has referred to the political rights of our servants. I replied that they were set out in the regulations. I am not prepared to deal with hypothetical questions, but if he has any concrete case to put before the commititee, he may do so. As to the question raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Bowen) I will have the matter looked into. With reward to the Umtata line, I understand this is being relaid. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) has asked whether Mr. Tillman will receive the ordinary chance of promotion. Of course he will, but I am not prepared to say he will receive preference over other railway servants, but the fact that he sat and passed the examination will be a recommendation. He has asked me about leave of absence for members of the board. He knows members of the board are not officials, and consequently do not fall under the ordinary leave regulations, and I am certainly not prepared to introduce leave regulations for these members. He has asked about the functioning of the Staff Control Board. I have already fully dealt with that, and have explained that they will, in future, under the general manager, control the whole of our staff policy at headquarters. With regard to the question asked by the hon. member for Durban (Stamford Hill) (Mr. Robinson), no provision is made on the estimates for the line along the esplanade at Durban. In view of the negotiations with the town council of Durban, it would be unwise for me to comment further at this stage. With regard to the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), there is no justification for the fencing of that line, and incurring the expenditure.

The line is not paying.

Of course, the line is not paying, it has shown a big loss, and I am not going to increase that loss by fencing a line where there is probably not more than one train per day. There are other lines which are incurring losses and not fenced. As to the coal contracts mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Nicoll), we are placing our contracts on business principles according to our needs, and I am certainly not going to be drawn into discussing the merits of Transvaal coal as against Natal coal. The hon. member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Humphreys) asked me what had become of the money for the overhead bridge at Kimberley which was destroyed by fire and was insured. My hon. friend is evidently not aware of what is going on in his town. About four months ago I concluded an agreement with the Kimberley town council by which they agreed to pay 50 per cent. of the cost. With regard to the interest charges he mentioned, I certainly believe them to be fair. The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) has again asked me about this difficult question of providing facilities for non-Europeans on buses. We do our best to accommodate non-Europeans on our buses, but it is not always possible to do so in the manner in which we would like. Where it is at all possible we make such provision, because the non-Europeans, both coloured and native, are valuable patrons of the railways and buses, and we will do everything possible to meet their convenience. He has dealt with a breakdown of a bus, but surely in his own business he must expect breakdowns sometimes. He has also referred to dining cars. Unfortunately announcements were made which were not carried into effect. We do propose decreasing the number of dining cars on that service, for the simple reason that they are not properly supported, and if they are not properly supported there is no justification for running them; but we propose introducing a new arrangement, with a kitchenette, where grills and light refreshments will be able to be served, and when that is introduced there will not be hardship to the public. We propose doing that on other lines where the heavy haulage of dining cars is not justified. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Shaw), I will go carefully into that. As to chargemen being placed on the salaried staff, there is a difference of opinion on the point, whether they would give better service being daily paid. Then he said that the work of bonus inspectors should be thoroughly co-ordinated. I entirely agree, and it is being done. The member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) has asked about cooperation between the post office and the Railway Department. There is co-operation between the two departments. I shall certainly raise the point with regard to the use of railway telegraph lines on Saturday afternoons and Sundays. The hon. member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. Faure) asked a question with respect to the delay of a certain train one morning. This delay was caused by the construction of an avoiding line, a very necessary work, and the delay that day was unavoidable. With regard to the remarks made respecting coal, I must point out that the coal interest want lower rates than they were charged at Union, but we pay on an average a higher price for our coal.

Do your remarks apply to Natal coal?

I am dealing with Transvaal coal. The hon. member who brought up this matter dealt with the position of New Kleinfontein. He knows perfectly well that we cannot differentiate between a high-grade mine and a low-grade mine. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) has referred to employees who transferred from the old superannuation fund to the new fund, and says they did so under a misapprehension as to what they were going to get. Very full circulars were issued to all members of the staff. We placed offices at the disposal of the men. Those officers are human, and they may have made mistakes.

Did your circular not lead them to believe that they would get an advantage of 15 per cent.?

The individual had to satisfy himself that he was gaining some advantage by transferring to the new fund. He could get information from the chief acountant.

He was told that it was a benefit to him.

In some cases it was. It was possible for the men to refer to the chief accountant. These men made their choice, and there can be no question of any alteration. I would like to point out to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) that there is one point he has overlooked. Although these men may be worse off in certain respects, if they die their widows get a double contribution under the new fund.

What, would she get under the old fund? Nothing at all?

No, she would get nothing under the old fund. The hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) asked me about commission to tourist agents. The position is that we pay commission to tourist agents on bookings overseas, but not on local bookings. It is true that we do so in the case of Cook’s, but that is a legacy. We have now reduced the commission payable to Cook’s very considerably, and I have no doubt ultimately it will disappear. We are not prepared to extend the principle to pay commission on local bookings.

What is the percentage?

It is per cent. I would like to explain what we do with regard to hotels. We have our own tourist bureau. We make arrangements as ordinary tourist agents with hotels, and naturally we take the ordinary commission offered in that regard. I am sure the hon. member would not ask me to disclose the allowances we receive. The hon. member also dealt with abatement. We have been carrying out the present practice for years. The abatement does take place. He has asked me about the policy in connection with bilingualism. As indicated previously, we have laid down the bilingual qualification for certain grades, including staff officers. In this connection, however, we have given the pre-Union man an opportunity of qualifying before 30th June, 1931. That is a full notice of one-and-a-half years. The hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has raised a number of questions. He mentioned the question of the absence of a dining car on the slow mail. It is certainly regrettable that there was no dining car. The general manager has already expressed his regret. In regard to the opening of doors by examiners, stringent instructions have been issued by the general manager in that regard. I can only say that if those who have cause for complaint do not bring it to notice, I do not see how we can solve the problem. Surely it is only reasonable to expect that if passengers have any cause for complaint, they should complain when the need arises. With regard to the suburban service, we certainly appreciate the views of the public, but all I can say is that we usually find that in expressing their views, the public advocate what means higher expenditure. At the same time, we always take notice of what they say in regard to these matters. I can add nothing to what I have already said in regard to the breakwater at Algoa Bay. We are carrying out important works there at the present time. I am glad to be able to announce to the House that the shipping companies (the Conference Lines) have agreed to reduce their freights on the shipment of maize by 2s. 6d. during July, and 5s. during August. I want to take this opportunity of expressing the sincere appreciation of the maize growers, and to add that the Government also very much appreciates the attitude taken up by the Conference Lines in this matter.

Head 1, “General Charges”, as printed, put and agreed to.

Head 2, “Maintenance of Permanent Way”, £3,016,589, put and agreed to.

Head 3, “Maintenance of Rolling Stock”, £4,563,866, put and agreed to.

Head 4, “Running Expenses”, £5,534,413, put and agreed to.

On Head 5, “Traffic Expenses”, £4,610,277,

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question with regard to electric lighting, item 5, £78,542. I do not like raising local matters, but I should like to draw attention to the dangerous state of the lighting at Alicedale Junction. It is on the main line. I have been there at all times of the night, particularly during the long waits to which we are subjected there, and I have stayed at the hotel there, and I have seen the difficulties of the staff in doing their work at that station. Shunting is done under very great difficulties and considerable danger, for some of the lines are on a curve, and shunting on curves is always difficult. Then again, the station lighting is very bad indeed, and the work that the staff has to do is very dangerous on account of the lighting there now, to say nothing of the discomfort of passengers. I suggested to the system manager that the Administration should take into consideration the whole question of electrically lighting the station and yard and the houses of the staff. I had hoped that it would have been on the estimates this year, but I cannot tell whether or not it is on the estimates. The amount of £78,000 might or might not cover it.

I regret to inform the hon. member that there is no provision on the estimates this year. I know the conditions there are not satisfactory in regard to lighting, and we shall take the matter into consideration when next year’s estimates are under consideration.

I want to deal with the absence of any provision for magistrates’ courts at Johannesburg. I am doing this because of very strong pressure which has been brought to bear on me, and also from my own knowledge. This subject is a hardy annual, but it will soon have to cease to remain in that category. I have very high authority for stating that the condition of these courts is a disgrace to any civilized community. I would like to quote what the Minister of Justice said last session in reply to the hon. member for Pretoria, who wanted better court accommodation for his constituency. He said—

It is well-known that the Johannesburg courts are totally inadequate and unfit for the business which obtains there daily.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, can the hon. member discuss the absence of these law courts from the vote? I think we can discuss items only on the vote.

Only items that appear on the vote can be discussed. If this is not on the vote it cannot be discussed.

If I traverse all the items that appear on the vote, the Minister will not be pleased. I suggest that the money for which the Minister asks might be applied to other matters deserving of earlier consideration. I move—

Would I be in order to ask that the moeny be diverted?

No, that cannot be allowed.

I am very sorry indeed. I thought the matter so pressing that it would be a favourable opportunity of drawing the Minister’s attention to it. I want to deal with another aspect which appears on this vote. There is a re-vote for the Stellenbosch-Elsenburg College of Agriculture—Building and Equipment—of £1,490. A few days ago I asked the Minister of Agriculture a question, and I selected practically at random five of these colleges. I asked, inter alia, what the number of professors were, but the answer left me unable to obtain what the actual cost at this institution was. I am sorry the Minister’s salary is not involved in this, because, if it had been, I would have liked to move a reduction of £1 in it, and be able to speak for 40 minutes. I shall show conclusively that the money is being wasted, and that the country is not getting value for the money. The Minister evaded or avoided the most important part in the answer. During last year there were 15 lecturers at Stellenbosch-Elsenburg and only 14 students. There was a total expenditure of £52,700, or an average of over £3,000 per student per annum. This is out of all proportion to the value the country obtains hereby. At Cedara.—

The hon. member cannot discuss Cedara. His time has also expired.

Cannot the time during which I was lectured be subtracted so as to give me my full 10 minutes?

I would like to discuss a matter of agricultural education in the Free State.

The hon. member cannot do so now. I pointed out to the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) that education, unfortunately could not be debated now.

Referring to what the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) said with regard to this expenditure, we were told in the Public Accounts Committee that the Department of Agriculture was seriously thinking of closing down the institution. We were told that the attendance at Elsenburg was so small that the department was seriously considering whether it should continue to run. It does seem a pity to involve the state in further expenditure in an institution which appears to be a complete failure as a college of agriculture. I am not allowed to discuss the regrettable absence of provision for new magistrates’ courts at Johannesburg, but I understand, sir, that you allow questions to be asked. I will ask the Minister of Public Works, who represents a Johannesburg constituency, why this long-made promise has not been carried out. On page 6, I see provision is made for the first £1,000 of the £395,500 for the central post office at Johannesburg. I would ask the Minister to give the committee, and, through it, the country, some information as to the details of the proposed scheme. It is a large amount of money, and I suppose it is money which should be spent. Another new item on these votes is £225,000 for offices for various departments at Pretoria, of which £51,000 is to be spent this year. That is a very large sum for the administrative capital, which already has many large and handsome public buildings. Will the Minister give information as to what departments are to be housed, and as to the necessity for this expenditure? I see there is an item for the provision of a residence for our consular representative at Lourenco Marques, and also that the first £5,000 of £175,000 to be spent on South Africa House, Trafalgar Square, is set down. I shall be glad if the Minister of Public Works will make a full statement on all these projects.

I notice that in vote No. 2 a sum of £116,000 is being spent in Pretoria, and £129,000 at Cape Town. In Johannesburg only £58,000 is being spent in a city three times as large as the other cities. I understand that one of the reasons Johannesburg is not getting more money spent in it is because it is going to get a central post office. As a matter of fact, it is not a central post office which is to be erected, but a central administration office for the department. I take it that the central post office in Johannesburg will remain in the Market Square. I understand, however, that because there is an item of £395,000 down in respect of the central post office, no more money is to be spent in Johannesburg until we get the benefit of this expenditure. This year we are going to get £1,000 of this, next year, I presume, another £1,000, and at this rate it will be 395 years before the money will be expended. If we are only going to have £1,000 on the central post office this year, I suggest that a little more money might be afforded for a new magistrates court.

The hon. member must address himself to a definite item on the estimates.

I hope the Minister will make a very clear statement on the questions asked by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell).

We are, and have been for years, in arrear with work in connection with public buildings in South Africa. The department is trying to catch up with this arrear work. There are, however, certain limitations to what we can do. We are limited in the matter of staff, and also limited as to the amount of money which the Minister of Finance is prepared to allow. As far as the question of preference is concerned, I think that is a matter which can best be left to the department themselves, with their knowledge of what is the most urgent work. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has asked me to tell him something about the new post office in Johannesburg. This is a re-vote I gave a full explanation last year as to what we propose to do. The only change that has taken place is that last year we voted on the scheme to cost £250,000. The total amount is now raised to £395,000. I am asked why only £1,000 is set down for this year. A long time must elapse owing to the preparation of plans before we can get on with the work of construction. We are now preparing the plans.

Have you bought the fire station?

Yes.

Are you going to pull that building down?

No, we are going to retain that building for some time to accommodate some Government departments who are now occupying buildings for which rent is being paid. A new fire station is being built by the municipality, and, as soon as it is erected, we shall enter into occupation. With regard to South Africa House, it is not only a question of our own building, but of adjoining buildings. Very great difficulty, I understand, is being experienced in bringing the plans into harmony to suit all parties. The matter is being gone into very fully on the other side. In Pretoria the position is this. As the hon. member knows, there is some congestion in Union Buildings, and we have difficulty in housing some of the departments. The Public Works Department occupy a large share of space in that building, and it is desirable to shift them out of Union Buildings. Besides, we are hiring buildings all over Pretoria for various Government departments. This vote is for additions to buildings already sanctioned and being erected at the present time, as it is thought more desirable to erect these additions while the other building work is in progress than to wait until later on.

I would like to ask if a new coat of paint could be put on the R.N.V.R. boat-house in Durban.

The hon. member cannot discuss that under these estimates.

I want to refer to the additions to the census and statistics office. The total sum put down under that item is £14,400.

I cannot allow any discussion of that, because it may lead to discussion of comparative costs of buildings.

Do I understand you to say, Mr. Chairman, that we cannot discuss expenditure, for instance, on town A as against town B? May a member not say: “Has my town been treated properly”—

That may be said, but the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) started off by comparing the two sums required by the one town for their buildings and the other.

The point I was dealing with there has reference to items on the estimates. With regard to this item, “additions to census and statistics office, £2,000”, the census office is housed in a very old building. I believe it was an old school boarding-house, and I want to ask the Minister whether there is any economy in spending money to patch up an old building, where, in the next year or two, requirements will be such that it will be necessary to spend more money on a new building. You are spending £14,400 on a building which will last a comparatively few years. I consider it is false economy, and it would be better to re-build your magistrate’s court and house offices in that building rather than spend this sum on an old building. Under your head, "unallocated building services,” is any of that money to be spent on re-building houses at Bryntyrion. Has any money been placed on the estimates for that?

No, there is nothing there.

I want to refer again to the subject of Elsenburg. In reply to my question, I have been informed that there were 14 students at Elsenburg, and there were 15 lecturers. In answer to my question as to how much money has been expended there during the year, I was told £52,700. If you work that out over the number of students, you will find that £3,000 per annum is expended on every student in that institution. Is it worth the country’s while to spend that amount on every student. It would be interesting to follow the careers of those students. I maintain strongly that it is the duty of every parent, where able, to pay for the education of his own children—

You cannot discuss the policy of agricultural education.

Are we to take it that the money is supposed to be spent for pleasure grounds if it is not for the purpose of having the children educated there? I want to refer to the subject of Glen. At Glen there are 50 students, and there are 25 lecturers. I will now go to Cedara, where there are 26 scholars and they are maintained at a cost of £19,800. There are only 18 lecturers. That means that there are one-and-a-half pupils to each lecturer. Then we have under new works “Unallocated Minor Services”, £1,500. Some of that money, I suppose, is going to Elsenburg and the other colleges. In those circumstances, I contend that Mr. Chairman should allow me to refer to all the colleges. But perhaps the hon. Minister will enlighten us on these matters. Meanwhile, I cannot emphasize too strongly that this is absolutely a waste of money, and the country deserves better from the hon. Minister. I ask in all sincerity: is the Government going to continue with this expensive and wasteful policy?

The hon. member can not discuss the question of policy.

I will not discuss the question of policy, but am anxious to know whether they will continue such a policy. I am pointing out the condition of affairs obtaining at these various institutions. I maintain there is, roughly speaking, a sum of £152,000 being spent annually for educating under 200 students, and I should like to ask what value we are getting for it, I have always been cautious and anxious to see that the country should have full value for the money expended. How long is this sort of thing going to last? I now want to deal with the post office in Johannesburg. [Time limit.]

May I just correct my hon. friend, the member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan)? I think the hon. member has not maintained his reputation for wisdom to-night. With regard to Cedara, e.g., he objected to our making proper provision for water, which is necessary for the health of the children and teachers. He now speaks about the small number of children there, but he forgets that not only those who live there permanently, but also hundreds who do not live there, receive education. The hon. member now wants to disapprove of the repair of buildings, and would rather close the schools, because I have now said that if the schools are not better supported we shall have to consider in the future what to do. I, however, hope that we shall get better support from the agricultural schools, and the buildings that now appear in the estimates are necessary for the officials there. Then not only are annual courses held, but also short courses, and, in addition, our agricultural schools are not only used for education, but also for all sorts of investigation work and experiments. Accordingly, the hon. member is not right when he says that £2,000 a year is paid annually per student.

Shall I be in order to ask a few questions?

I cannot say before the questions are put.

I want to ask the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs whether he knows that at the beginning of January I was in the post office at Amersfoort in the hired post office there, which is quite unsatisfactory.

No, I cannot allow such questions.

Am I now to understand that, according to your ruling, I may not talk on any matter except the one appearing on the estimates?

No, nothing else.

And if it never appears, am I then to remain quiet for ever? May I not advocate a new post office at Amersfoort, because it does not appear on the estimates?

No, I cannot allow it.

I notice there is an item on the estimates for Nelspruit experimental station. I saw the same item in last year’s loan vote. I am afraid that the hon. Minister is putting this in, I won’t say as eye-wash, but in order to keep us quiet down there. I have visited the station, and it seems to me to be starving for lack of funds. It is a big station, and you have stopped the work half way through. Having visited the station recently, I was under the impression that it was stagnant through lack of equipment. I hope this money will be adequately expended this year.

I should like to refer to Vote B, Von Brandis post office. We are not any clearer than we were before the hon. Minister gave us his explanation. This item was on the estimates last year, and I want to know what is the cause of the delay? I should like to ask whether we may expect that anything more will be done during this year than was done during last year; that is the first point. The second point is, what is going to be done with this building which was purchased from the municipality, this fire station? Seeing that the new fire station will be ready for occupation in a few months, is this building going to remain empty that the Government has purchased? Further, I should like to know if it is going to be the central post office for parcels, or what department of the post office will it contain? Are the present inconvenient distant stores at present used as a parcels post office, going to disappear? If so, what time will this take? As soon as the premises are vacated, will they be utilized as a parcels post office for Johannesburg? Those are the questions to which we want an answer. Particularly do we want to know what is going to be done in the near future when the building becomes empty because of the erection of the new fire station for the municipality.

I answered most of the points raised by the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan), when I replied to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). This is a vote on account of money voted last session, when a full explanation was given. The only new points which arise I have already answered. As to what we are going to do with the fire station at Johannesburg, Government departments, which have hitherto been housed in the law courts and private buildings, will be removed to the fire station, which some day will be required for postal purposes.

Will the Minister kindly explain the meaning of the item “unallocated minor services, £1,500”? The Department of Agriculture, under which heading the amount appears, is, we know, looked upon as a minor department by this Government, but I am loth to believe that this sum has been unallocated for that reason.

The item “unallocated minor services” appears in connection with every department. It is probably the most useful item in the schedule, as it allows a number of minor works of an unforeseen character to be done. It has always appeared on the estimates, and is always expended on very useful work.

With reference to the item “Pretoria—Erection of workshops for Irrigation Department, £20,000”, I am told the Irrigation Department intend to manufacture its own boring machine. If the workshops are to be built for this purpose, as these machines are made in South Africa, would it not be better for the Government to buy them from the manufacturers rather than compete with them?

I regret I cannot accept the Minister’s explanation, because in my humble opinion it is most unsatisfactory. He tells us that this is a re-vote from last year, when not a single penny was spent. The sum of £1,400 is to be expended upon a mortuary in the important place of Benoni. I notice there is a vote for type stations at Pretoria. Are these to be used for typists? To come back to Elsenburg and the other four institutions. I have the total of the figures given me by the Minister. The total number of lecturers is 97, the total number of students 165, while the expenditure is £152,000. What are we here for? To waste the money of the taxpayers, or to see that the taxpayers get the best value for their money? The Minister referred to my reputation and said I was losing it to-night. May I remind him that he also had a reputation, but he lost his long ago.

Why do you not ask for information before launching out like that?

The practice of this Government, like that of other Governments, when it is confronted with a difficult question, is to avoid answering it. The Minister of Public Works is wasting the public’s money, and I protest against expending over £152,000 per annum for the education of 165 boys. How much revenue does he get from the Stellenbosch students, who attend the Flsenburg School of Agriculture?

With regard to the workshops at Pretoria to which reference has been made, it was recently decided by the Department of Irrigation to manufacture its own drill. They have made an eminently satisfactory drill known as a jumper, and in order to facilitate its manufacture a site has been selected at Pretoria and a building is being erected.

Of this year’s total of £700,000 to be spent on public works, £531,000 are re-votes, so that only £162,000 represent new work. This is a process that, seems to go on every year. Three-quarters or even more of the totals are re-votes, which means that year after year items are put down in the votes, but nothing is done under them. I want the Minister to tell me why this practice is followed. Is it really as a sop to public opinion and to stop the mouths of people who are clamouring for public buildings? Last year the item: central post office Johannesburg, was down on the Loan Estimates, and not one penny was spent— not even on land.

That is spent out of revenue.

Then what happened to the Minister’s explanation when £1,000 is in respect of the preliminary plans?

The hon. member knows that at the head office the staff prepare these plans, and that that expenditure comes out of revenue. Before a huge work is started there is much preliminary work to be done, and it is only after the work has been sanctioned by Parliament that the department concentrates on that work. That has always been so.

I accept the Minister’s explanation. I do remember his colleague or one of my colleagues here saying that this was down for the plans for the preliminary work. It seems to be a bad practice, year after year, swelling these Loan Estimates with money which it is very well known will never be spent during that year. People say it is so satisfactory to know there is an amount on the estimates for such and such a work, but they do not know it may be one year, two or three years before that work is actually commenced. I see they have the flags up in East London because there is an item on the Railway Loan votes for a turning-basin; I suppose that they will get that turning-basin long after we have turned the present Government out of office.

It is one of the practices of this Government to be attracted by any socialistic ideas that happen to be going round. How does the Minister expect to get revenue from private people if his colleague is always taking away business from them. I am very pessimistic as to the probability of this work, to which the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) referred, being done more economically in the Government workshops in Pretoria. It is such an easy matter to hide expenditure in any Government undertaking, and I strongly support the hon. member as to the Government constantly taking on little jobs which it would be better to leave to private enterprise. The Government try to run fruit-stalls and bookstalls and all kinds of twopenny-ha’penny things.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has raised an important point about these commitments in connection with public works. The Treasury has a continual struggle to keep these down as low as possible, but it simply cannot be done. The hon. member will appreciate that a long time must necessarily elapse with big works, and it is only when Parliament has sanctioned the principle that concentration on them takes place. He will see very little new work has been sanctioned, and there is still a big carry-over. When I came into office I found very heavy commitments, but we have clone very successfully in bringing them down.

Some are trifling. We can understand it if it is a big thing.

Parliament passes the Loan Estimates after several months of the financial year have passed, and if takes several months again to get the preliminary work completed.

Have your building programme over a three-year period.

That is the effect. You cannot do it in any other way. It takes some time with a big work before actual construction takes place. You cannot change the system at all. As far as the point raised by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) and the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) is concerned, I can assure them the Government is not anxious to manufacture these drills if they could be satisfactorily supplied by private enterprise, but these are special drills, and they turn out a very good combination drill. The Treasury specially investigated the matter, and the Irrigation Department proved that this was the most economical method of constructing these drills. My officers assure me this arrangement is going to be much more economical than buying the same drill or importing it.

I very much appreciate the explanation of the Minister of Finance, but I would like to emphasize this, that when any other recommendations come to him from departments suggesting that they should undertake manufacturing work he will bear in mind how important it is that our manufacturers get support from the Government so that they may be able to extend their works, not for the benefit of the Government alone, but for the whole country. The money expended by the Irrigation Department could be more usefully employed in helping the private industrialists to develop their works for the benefit of the country as a whole. I want also to suggest to the Minister that when buildings are to be constructed the first thing to be done is for plans to be made and estimates to be framed and then for Parliament to be asked for the money to meet the expenditure. From what the Minister says, it appears that somebody in some department suggests the building of a post office, and asks for a half-a-million, or some large amount, and then proceeds to make plans to see if the building will cost that amount. The Treasury should insist upon complete plans and estimates being submitted to it before it comes to Parliament for money.

I do not think the committee should dismiss too lightly The very important matter the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) brought up. I was astonished to hear that at Elsenburg there were 18 students with 15 lecturers. I can quite understand that in an establishment like that you must have that number of lecturers, but what gives me food for thought is the fact that our agricultural colleges for some reason or another are so unattractive—

I cannot allow that. This is a question of the building.

I hope you will forgive me. I hope you will not tie us down too narrowly. We are asked to vote money for a new building, or the extension of an old building, designed presumably to house students.

The hon. member can, give reasons why the amount should * be deleted.

I wish to raise a point of order. I understood that your ruling at the beginning of these estimates was that if a question of subordinate policy arises, with regard to any part of the estimates, it would be discussed in that connection, and not on the Minister’s vote. If a question of policy in regard to Elsenburg has to be discussed, I assume from your ruling that it would be competent to discuss it here.

On the general estimates it is allowed.

But here, on the Loan Estimates, the same questions of policy arise, in connection with certain items, and unless we are at liberty to raise these questions here, there will be no discussion of policy at all.

Surely we are at liberty not to discuss the whole policy of agricultural education, but the policy of keeping this institution open or shutting it down.

The committee must necessarily in examining this question take into account all factors surrounding the case. When I am informed for the first time that we have so few students there, then I take it we have a right to ask the Minister what in his opinion, first of all, is the reason for our having so few students, and secondly what course we should pursue in order to induce the young fellows and young women, too, I suppose—

I cannot allow that question to be introduced.

But I have got a right to ask the Minister why it is that our colleges are so unpopular, and more particularly when we are asked to expand the building. If we have not sufficient students to fit the lecturers, presumably the accommodation for the lecturers is sufficient.

A waste of money.

I am not going to say that. I am asking for information. The Minister must have some reason for wanting to increase the size of the building. Does he anticipate an extraordinary increase of students? What is impressing me is the fact that, in a country like this, where agriculture is our first and biggest industry, we cannot find sufficient students to fill our colleges. There is something wrong.

The hon. member must confine himself to the item, and must not discuss the policy of the Government in regard to education.

I am not dealing with education, I am dealing with the lack of it. Surely there are thousands of lads in this country capable of receiving that education if it is rendered sufficiently attractive. Is it that the buildings are erected in too severe a style? Do they offend their aesthetic taste? But joking aside, will the Minister be good enough to tell me what is the trouble primarily in Elsenburg, and secondly in the other colleges? I think the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) is to be congratulated on bringing this matter before the House.

May I just reply in a few words to the last speaker. The hon. member asks why the agricultural colleges are so very unpopular. They may be unpopluar in his eyes, but that is not the case with the agricultural population. It is true that there are only a few permanent students, but there are hundreds of students who attend short courses. As for the building, I want to point out that it was approved of last year, and that it is only appearing again on the estimates. It is not the building for the officials, but for a research department into cattle breeding that is required. As I have said, it was already approved of last year, and I cannot understand why so much fuss should be made about it now. I hope this is now clear.

I want to refer to Vote No. 1, I think we all recognize that the Onderstepoort factory is doing excellent work, But, seeing the difficulty we have in getting the stuff through the veterinary offices, I would like to ask whether better facilities cannot be provided for its distribution to people who need it.

You can get the stuff.

I think it should be made as accessible to the public as possible.

I want to deal with the vote on page 4 relating to “unallocated minor services.” There are five new items under that heading. I take it the Minister of Justice appreciates the position he occupies to seeing to the proper administration of justice, and be was good enough, last year, to say that, so far as Johannesburg was concerned, it is entitled to serious consideration in preference to many other places. He has, unfortunately, not followed up that attitude at the present time by getting something put down in these estimates for this court. If, under this item of £5,000, we are allowed to believe—

The hon. member is trying to evade the spirit of my ruling.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he has had plans prepared for the magistrates’ courts in Johannesburg?

Under the item, “£5,000 for ‘unallocated minor services’”, I want to question the Minister about the present magistrate’s court in Johannesburg. This building is in the last stage of sordidness and delapidation, and it is verminous. The building is a standing disgrace to Johannesburg. I want to know how much of this £5,000 is spent in keeping this building in a state bordering on decency. For years past, the attention of the Government has been drawn to the state of the present buildings. They are probably the busiest courts in South Africa. They house a large number of magistrates, and it is because the conditions are so bad that such a large share of these unallocated minor services that appear under Justice must be spent. That money is absolutely wasted. When a building such as this is in the last stages of disrepair —a building erected before the Boer war—it is uneconomic to spend money in keeping it in some semblance of repair; yet the Government will not vote money for a new magistrates’ court.

I would like to know what part of this money is spent in fumigating the magistrates’ courts in Johannesburg? On a recent visit to the building I found scraps of paper adhering to the doors and windows and piles of the same scraps of paper lying about, and in reply to my enquiry, I learned that these were used for the purpose of fumigating the building regularly.

It is quite clear that hon. members are trying to evade the rule. If those offices are in such a condition something might be spent out of the maintenance vote, but the provision for minor services could in no case be spent to patch up these buildings.

If none of this £5,000 is at the moment being used to patch up these buildings, then some of it ought to be allocated. May I not draw attention to the existing state of delapidation and suggest that some of the money should be spent for that purpose? May I suggest that something ought to be spent out of this unallocated minor services?

No.

This amount is laid down as unallocated. Are we to understand that this committee has not the right to allocate some of that money? We are not asked to pass this vote for a definite purpose, but the money is to be spent anywhere and at any time, and surely the House has the right to say that money should be spent in a certain way?

The House votes the whole amount and it is in the hands of the Minister to use the money for the purpose for which the Minister requires it.

But suppose we refuse to pass that amount? If we say in voting this amount that we direct the Minister to spend it in a certain way. The Governor-General’s recommendation is that the money shall be passed, but the House can say where it is to be spent. If there is an item here “Kakamas post box” we can refuse to spend that money—

No, the House can delete the whole amount but cannot make a change.

Suppose the House were asked to spend not £5,000 but £5,000,000? What is to prevent the Government saying, “We want £5,000,000 and to spend it how we like”? That is the principle, and surely we have the right to say how it should be allocated? Otherwise we are reducing Parliament to a farce.

The hon. member is entitled to move the deletion of this item. Parliament is entitled to refuse to grant this provision. Parliament need not grant it, but the hon. member cannot substitute anything for it unless on the Governor-General’s recommendation. No change can be made without the Governor-General’s recommendation.

In the first place, I should like to ask whether you, Mr. Chairman, whether the Minister of Finance is the Chairman of this committee? That is the first thing. From what I know of you, you will soon assert your authority.

I was addressing the Chairman on a point of order.

No, you were presuming to instruct the committee, though of course the hon. Minister does not regard it as presumption. I again draw attention to misrepresentation on the Minister’s part. He says that if we decide to allocate unallocated expenditure we are actually initiating expenditure. I take exception to that statement. It is wrong. We are asked to pass an amount which is put upon the Estimates. That would not be put, upon the Estimates unless the Government had decided how the money is to be spent. But they do not know where it is to be expended. They have initiated the expenditure, and do not know where it is to be spent. Surely we can do one of two things. We can decide actually and definitely where the money shall be spent, and upon what it shall be spent, and secondly, as an alternative, we can recommend how and where it shall be spent. I ask for your ruling upon that point.

On a point of order. Be fore you give your ruling, sir, I should like to ask the hon. Minister of Finance whether he has shown all these items to the Governor-General before he got his Excellency’s approval?

Still addressing you on this point of procedure, I should like to say that I know as well as the hon. Minister of Finance does, that you cannot eliminate the first item on the vote—Britstown post office, £3,000—and propose to build a post office at Greytown, Natal, instead. But you have an item “unallocated minor services”. Instead of specifying how the money is to be spent, we vote a globular sum, in this case £5,000, to be spent on unallocated minor services. Presumably, they are, at this moment, unallocated. If they are allocated, they should appear in itemized form in these estimates. I ask you, sir, to ask the hon. Minister of Justice two questions. The first question is, has he already allocated pound by pound the whole of this £5,000? The second point is, is none of this money to be spent on the existing Johannesburg magistrates’ courts? If the hon. Minister tells us that not one penny is to be spent in the renovation of these courts, and the money has been allocated elsewhere, I can understand your ruling. Short of that, I submit that we should be allowed to proceed with this discussion. The hon. Minister has assured the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) that none of this £5,000 is being spent on fumigation. Of course not. That would be ordinary expenditure out of revenue. I want to know if any of this £5,000 is to be spent in paint or repairs or lavatories or anything else?

Not a penny is to be spent that way.

Assuming it is all spent, where would it appear in these votes?

Out of maintenance.

What does this item represent?

Revenue Vote 36, £100,000 for maintenance. That is what we shall use it for.

What are these unallocated minor services?

Emergencies.

In regard to your ruling that money from this sum cannot be used on law courts in Johannesburg, I would remind you that when I was speaking to the unallocated vote, Agriculture, just now, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs said that that sum of money would be used for repainting some building in Durban.

I said: “Perhaps.”

Under “Unallocated Minor Services” I should like to ask the Minister whether an amount has been provided there for a wireless installation at Buffalo Harbour? This is very urgent work. I think that was put upon the Estimates last year, but the work has not been carried out. I think at that time I pointed out that it was very urgently required. It appears on page 6 under Posts and Telegraphs “unallocated minor services.” If it is not provided for, I should like to ask the Minister will he provide for it now?

At present it is unallocated, and it cannot be included in that item.

I should like to ask the Minister what is this provision “residences”—£8,600— for?

Residences all over the country.

I should like to know the reason why Vryheid has been so well looked after. Can the Minister say why Vryheid alone is being considered, and not other places?

The hon. member cannot discuss other places not on the estimates.

Why is it that Vryheid is being so well looked after. Will the Minister say what this sum of £8,600 for residences is?

It has nothing to do with Vryheid. Perhaps the hon. member has got an Afrikaans copy of the estimates. That is rather misleading. The English copy is quite right. The residences do not apply to Vryheid at all.

Where are these residences?

They are all over the country.

Under this vote “Justice,” the Minister stated that under this unallocated vote a sum of £5,000 was for emergency purposes. I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister the sorry state of the Verulam magistrate’s court. It was built in the year one I believe.

Before the hon. member discusses any special point of unallocated expenditure, he must first ask if that point is included therein or not.

I should like to ask if this item is included? If not, will the Minister use it for that purpose?

I suggest that there might be a serious emergency in Johannesburg, and the state of these buildings there is such as to lead one to suppose that there will be an emergency. These buildings are liable to fall down any day. If the Minister keeps this sum of £5,000 for the purpose of dealing with emergencies it is within the bounds of probability that ten times the sum will be absorbed in dealing with the emergencies which may occur.

I would like to know if any portion of this £6,400 is to be spent on new residences?

Yes.

Well, then I would like to refer to the urgent need for the removal of the magistracy from Hlabisa to Matubatuba. The Hlabisa magistracy was established many years ago, before any European settlement took place in that part. To-day the districts have been divided up and Hlabisa is now in the extreme edge of the area and out of touch with the European settlements of Matubatuba and Hluhluwe. The Minister has received petitions from the residents for the removal of the magistracy to Matubatuba, where more of the magisterial work lies, and the need for such removal has been urged by the Department. I hope therefore the Minister will see if some of this unallotted sum cannot be set aside for the purpose of removal.

I want to appeal to the Minister of Justice. His predecessor, Mr. Roos, promised that a sum should be placed on the estimates for the erection of a new magistrate’s court at Pretoria. I suggest the advisability of building a new magistrate’s court at Pretoria under the Vote on page 7, “Retention monies and completion of various services,” £11,303. The building is a very old one and very unsatisfactory. I hope the Minister will press for this new building.

As I understand the Chairman’s ruling, it means that as far as the total amount of £31,000 for various unallocated minor services are concerned, the House has no say as to what it should be expended upon and it is left entirely to the Minister to decide where he shall spend it, when he shall spend it and for what he shall spend it.

I have ruled on that point already, and I cannot allow any further discussion.

I am not discussing how the money is to be spent.

The point of order has been settled already.

I can foresee the possibility of £1,000,000 being spent without the House knowing what is to be done with it.

I have ruled that the House cannot allocate any of these monies.

I move—

I am now stating why it should be deleted, because instead of £5,000 I can conceive of a £1,000,000 being put down for unallocated minor works, and the Minister will be the sole person to decide how the money is to be spent. I can foresee the possibility of a Minister deciding on the eve of an election that emergencies have arisen in particular constituencies and spending the money in those constituencies without Parliament having a voice in the matter. Although there is no danger of that being done at present, there is a risk that some future Government may thus be able to utilize public money for electioneering purposes.

I remember three years ago details were given regarding the places where new magistrates’ residences were to be erected. We should have a list of these places.

I agree that it is a sound procedure to specify the various places where the money is to be spent. In the Native Affairs Vote the places are specified, but as far as magistrates’ residences are concerned, the Minister would want £100,000 from me if he satisfied all the requests for new magistrates’ residences. What happened in connection with the preparation of these estimates was that representations were made to the Treasury for very big sums for these residences and we replied that we could not do it, but that we would ration the Department. It has been decided that there are to be new magistrates’ residences at Brits and Phillipstown, and a third is to be selected from the most urgent place in a very long list. The Department of Justice wanted £100,000. but we could give them only £8,000.

Can the Minister tell me what these offices on page 7 are for?

It is a block of buildings to provide offices for public works, revenue, the Surveyor-General, and Deeds Departments.

Whereabouts are these? Surely the Minister knows where. He is paying a quarter of a million.

I told you.

The only thing I heard was that the building was going up at Pretoria.

Behind the present post office.

This seems to be a country of emergencies. I see the Minister of Justice wants £10,000 for them. That is a pretty big sum, and it might be possible to know what emergencies he anticipates. They have made provision for one emergency, I notice. My hon. friend referred to it in rather painful terms— the mortuary at Benoni. Is the Minister of Defence contemplating a strike? We at Benoni asked for a revenue office, and he gives us a mortuary.

I think we can take that seriously. Here is £10,000 in connection with a vote for £132,000. How do we know it is not being utilised on small works which should be done out of maintenance? You are building up heavy loan funds for doing small work, like paving a back-yard. Experience of unallocated votes or contingency votes, and how they can be utilised, makes it necessary that this committee should demand more information than is being given. This is a legislative body, and you are the administrators (indicating the Cabinet), and you do not give us the information to which we are entitled. This £10,000 represents more than 8 per cent. of the Vote.

I am responsible for these items which appear under the heading of each Department, and have not yet been specially allocated to any minor work. When the allocation takes place it has to be authorized by the Treasury before the work is put in hand. The item “repairs and maintenance” on the revenue estimates, is quite a different thing. This is new work entirely.

I would like to know whether we are still in the same position: that any minor work of £1,000 or under is charged to revenue.

That is not departed from.

I want to know what is going to happen to these people? Where is this immigration depot? It is going to be put in Cape Town? What is it for?

I understand it is in connection with prohibited immigrants, or those under detention. Inquiries may be made whether they should be deported or not, and they are detained. This is to make provision for work which has been going on for a long time. The depot is at the Docks.

I understand the Government proposes to purchase the old university building in Cape Town; I do not see any vote for that.

There will not be a payment made during the year, I understand. I believe the idea is to purchase. No disbursements will be made this year. I believe that the principle of purchasing has been approved, but I do not know whether anything has been settled.

There is not a hitch?

Not as far as I know.

Amendments put and negatived.

Loan Vote B, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote C, “Telegraphs and Telephones,” £600,000,

I want to ask the Minister a question in connection with the trunk lines. Are any of these overlapping, or, rather, running parallel with the railway trunk lines?

I do not know that one can specifically say that that is so, but as the hon. member knows, there is a working agreement with the railways under which we use common carriers for our lines. With the great development of the telegraphic and telephonic system which is going on in connection with the railways, the Post Office is crowded off and compelled sometimes to provide entirely new carriers for our lines.

Loan Vote C put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote D, “Lands and Settlements,” £989,000,

I hope that some Minister will take advantage of this vote to give us an explanation with regard to Hartebeestpoort. We are spending on Hartebeestpoort this year something like £210,000, revenue and loan vote, and never yet have we been told what it is all for. At least three Cabinet Ministers seem to be running the place. Salaries, wages and allowances with regard to Hartebeestpoort appear under three votes. It is not overlapping, it is water-tight compartments. I suppose that scheme by now has cost the country £2,000,000.

£3,000,000.

What is the country getting for that £3,000,000? I do not mean only in cash but in service. Successive labour Ministers have muddled that scheme. The fact of the matter is that the public is completely in the dark as to what is going on. People come to my office in Johannesburg, and if half the tales which are told in Johannesburg about the waste and extravagance and the jobs for pals are true—

The previous Government.

No, it developed when the present Government took over. I think we should know how many settlers there are, on what conditions they are there, whether they are getting permanent tenure of their land, whether they are being paid wages, and generally what is going on. I am making no wild charges, but Ministers must excuse us if we say that we have cause to think that things are being muddled, because we cannot get information.

The only reason you cannot get that information is because you go to the wrong place.

The Labour Minister passes me on to Irrigation, and the Irrigation Minister to Lands. It is a vicious circle. The Minister of Lands seems to be in a reasonable mood this evening. Perhaps we can get the information now. I have previously asked all three Ministers to tell us what the position is, and they all dodge the question. We have all three here now, and I do hope that the pieces of this extraordinary jig-saw puzzle will be fitted together at last. Another thing Ministers should explain is the way these votes are sandwiched about in different places in the estimates. There is a big labour item on the revenue estimates, another big lands vote. You see relief works sandwiched into the labour vote, and irrigation schemes in under lands, all referring to Hartebeestpoort. I think we are justified in asking the three Ministers for information. I should like to hear the Minister of Finance on this bottomless pit. Does he approve of spending £3,000,000 on it?

I am not responsible for all the expenditure.

But you are responsible for not curbing the rapacity of other Ministers. I would like the Minister to tell us why this expenditure is still going on at this pace, and whether he thinks, we shall ever get anything back?

It is just as economic as all your settlement schemes: no more, no less. When you were in office you had very few economic settlement schemes.

I started curbing them. There was a time when the Minister of Lands started cutting down these schemes; but there is very little sign of a change of heart with regard to Hartebeestpoort. It grows from year to year. We do not know how many settlers there are, what happens to them, how they are going to get title to their land, whether they are going to get title or not, or whether they are to be shifted on to the forestry schemes, or what. We want information. I am not prepared to condemn these schemes root and branch, but in view of the colossal sums we are spending, we ought to know more about them. In all these years the Government has not given us any comprehensive explanation as to what is going on. Now we have a heaven sent opportunity. We have all the Ministers here who are accomplices in this matter, and I hope we shall elicit the required information.

I think that the hon. member is making a charge which he cannot establish when he says that we are trying to evade the matter.

Then give the facts.

I will. As for my department, I have already done so on a former occasion, but I will do it again. I, however, want to point out that all the expenditure referred to here was not spent by this Government, but for a great part by the previous Government. The previous Government spent about £2,000,000.

For the dam and the works?

Yes. When the scheme originated to construct the dam the cost was estimated at £600,000 to £700,000, but it amounted to something over £1,700,000. That was especially caused because the previous Government used it as relief works.

You also voted in favour of it.

Yes, I am making no reproach about it, but it is not right to say that we spent the £3,000,000. I now want to give a short review. As hon. members know, the previous Government bought a number of farms through the Department of Irrigation on both sides of the Crocodile River, such as Kleinfontein, Kameeldrift, Klipkop and Magalieskraal. When we came into office the work was not yet done, but in its final stage, i.e., in so far as the canals, etc., were concerned. Then the Minister of Labour asked for land to be made available for him in order to place a large number of people there with whom it did not know what to do. They were people who had been working on the dam, and he wanted them to farm and work there. I then decided to allot the farm on the left bank of the Crocodile River to the Department of Labour for that purpose. Quite a lot of people whom he used to develop the farm were then placed there, and the wages were paid out of the revenue funds. I got the right bank, and Magaliesberg was immediately used for probationary lessees. That was the first place where probationary lessees were placed under the Act.

Are they tenant farmers?

No, they come under the Department of Labour.

One gets confused.

I can quite understand it, inasmuch as there are various schemes. The probationary lessees are the people who are put on probation for three years under the control of the committee, and they work there under an agricultural expert. During the first six months they get a maximum allowance of £6, thereafter for nine months £3, and thereafter nothing. We do not recover that amount. During the course of the three years the committee of control must certify whether a person is fitted to be a settler or not. If he is suitable he becomes an ordinary settler under the Land Settlement Act. They are taken to the Land Board, and the Land Board sees to it that they become ordinary settlers. At Magalieskraal there are 260 of these people who have now become settlers with a 40 years’ period for payment. Hitherto this has been the best success that we have had. Those people who are first properly tried and trained give the greatest satisfaction. I went recently to the Olifants River, where there are 43 of these people, they were all poor whites, because we only accept poor whites as probationary lessees. I was astonished at seeing how well the people looked and their children. They have all built nice little houses out of the small advance, and are happy and prosperous. Kleinfontein and Klipkop were not so suitable for probationary lessees, because there are pieces which are entirely gravelly, and cannot be used, and there we could not give the people 10 morgen under water everywhere. The usual arrangement is that the people get 10 morgen under irrigation, and then have a joint commonage. Then an expert sub-divided the farms into small farms of 30 to 90 morgen, and there are now 76 ordinary settlers under Section 7, i.e., settlers who have paid one-tenth of the purchase price. At Klipkop there were 18 ordinary settlers under the old conditions. Then I come to Kameeldrift, it is on the left-hand side of the river, and there are 33 ordinary settlers there. The people were nearly all put there by the previous Government as temporary lessees of the ground, and they have all been there a considerable number of years. The Land Board then established them as settlers. Kameeldrift is on the right-hand side, but it is taken in conjunction with Sanddrift. I now come to Sanddrift. Sanddrift was hired by the Department of Labour, and people put on it as tenant farmers. The farm was hired with an option to purchase at £38,500, 100 persons were placed there as tenant farmers, and they worked on pieces of ground of from 6 to 8 morgen. The people never had the certainty that they would get the ground there, and the Government had itself merely hired the ground. Even if the Government had owned the farms, the Department of Labour would not have been able to establish them as settlers, because that can only be done by the Department of Lands. Then the people came to me and said that they had been living there a few years, that they had cleaned the land, built houses, and improved the land, but that they had no prospect of becoming owners of it. I then asked my colleague whether I should buy the ground, and place the people there as settlers. After long negotiations, I bought the farm for £30,000, and then, in accordance with the resolution of this House during the previous session, some of the people were established there as settlers. There were 100 people under the Department of Labour, but the officer who investigated the matter found that there was room for 64 people; 64 people were, therefore, placed there, and 33 on Kameeldrift, just below Sanddrift. They are now all ordinary settlers under the Act. I must say that I am satisfied with the success of those people. They are doing well, as well as we can expect when we bear in mind that rust has damaged the wheat harvest, and that the price of tobacco is down. On the whole they will come through. On the left bank there are still farms under the control of the Labour Department, but my department has taken over half of the farms there, and the intention is to make settlers in course of time of the people that I have placed there. But they are people who, at the time, we had to make probationary lessees, and therefore the ground had to be tilled, fenced, etc., for them.

That is Wolvekraal.

Those people are working as probationary lessees, as I have said, and these amounts on the estimates are for the building of houses, fencing, etc. They must show during the course of three years whether they are able to make a success of their work, and then we will put those who succeed on the ground as ordinary settlers. We shall follow the same policy that we did in connection with Magalieskraal. In that case the amounts disappeared from the estimates in the course of time, and the same will happen here. There is a portion of Wolvekraal which still comes under the Labour Department.

Are they the tenant farmers?

The tenant farmers are at Sanddrift, and they are becoming settlers, but the Labour Department has taken other people there. On the whole there will he 600 families on these properties under the Department of Lands, when these settlers have been established. At present there are 400 on the right bank, and there will be more than 100 on the left bank. There will thus be about 560 families besides those who come under the control of the Department of Labour. It is true that a large amount is spent on Hartebeestpoort. We must, however, not look at the settlers alone, there are many farmers who are developing irrigable farms there, and the district has become so thickly populated that a new district has had to be proclaimed. The state is, therefore, indirectly getting its money back in the form of direct receipts and indirect receipts like taxes, transport, etc. In connection with irrigation works, we must not only look at the immediate advantages, and it would be wrong to think that we will get back directly all the money that we have spent on irrigation works. We shall get it back indirectly. Let me point out that the probationary lessees for the first three years have to give up two-fifths of their harvests to the state. During the three years the state has got for its share of Magaliesberg £47,000. That, therefore, represented two-fifths of the harvest, and we must remember that there were not 200 there for the whole of the period. The first year there were only 100, the second 180, and the third year only 200. Those at Wolvehoek will also have to give up their two-fifths. That is the position so far as my department is concerned. I think that I have 7,000 morgen on the left bank, and my colleague 7,000 morgen. The settlers are on the right bank. I hope that my hon. friend is now satisfied with the position as far as my department is concerned.

Under Section 1 (4) B, I see there is a payment for water rates to irrigation boards. So far as I can gather, no private individual pay any water rates. It is only the Land Department that pays, and if that continues, the best thing to do would be write off the capital cost of all our schemes. The amount of £43,000 is put down for the preparation of plots at the Hartebeestpoort irrigation settlement. How many settlers is this for?

I have just told you—100.

That works out at £430 for each lot. Only three weeks ago we wrote off £60,000 at Hartebeestpoort, which works out at £300 on each lot. So we must be careful, or we shall run amok on these probationary settlements. The Minister gave us an example of the excellent work that has been done at the Olifants’ River. I believe that excellent work is being done there, but the reason for that is that the expenditure has been curbed the houses, for instance, cost only £150 each there, whereas at Hartebeestpoort they cost £450 each. I take it that the item of £15,000 for the development of the Sundays River irrigation settlement is for improvements to the canal, but in view of the fact that Lake Mentz is silting up fast, is it advisable to make all these improvements? By the time the canals are finished the lake will be silted up. I congratulate the Minister on the item “purchase and improvement of lands for the preservation of bontebok, £7,250,” of which there are only 90 left in the world. I do not know how much land the Minister has purchased, but if there are only 90 left, it is a pity that these should all be preserved. With regard to the last item, the elephant reserve at Addo, I notice that these elephants have not been in that reserve for the last three years, but roam about on the farm of Messrs. Harvey at Barkly Bridge, who threatens to destroy them. There are only about forty left, and it would be a pity if Mr. Harvey was to carry out his threat. I would like to know from the Minister what he intends doing to get these elephants back into the reserve.

We are very grateful to the Minister for explaining his share, and I hope other Ministers will give us their version of their activities. From what the Minister has told us, I cannot see why we should spend that amount during the current year. It looks to me as if we are going on spending that globular sum every year. Perhaps the Minister of Finance will be able to make it clear. I would like to know what sums this country is spending on these social experiments—helping the poor whites and tenant farmers, and in these other ways—I am not disparaging it but I find in odd little corners that huge sums are spent; the Labour Department spends £245,000 on irrigation schemes. In the afforestation vote there is a sum which I take it also represents this social experiment. When I asked about the families in Barberton, I was told that came under the loan vote. We find something like £3,000,000 for irrigation schemes under lands, and other sums hidden away under the irrigation and the agricultural votes. I say “Tell us the whole of the story.” It is bewildering and confusing. Why do three big irrigation schemes figure under the Labour vote?

On several occasions I have explained why these irrigation schemes come under the Labour vote. My hon. friend is wrong; it happened last year, I think. During the very severe drought in the Cape midlands at one time the Union Government and the provincial administration were keeping and feeding some thousands of people; the Government thought that was uneconomical and put them on road work. Two schemes were started as relief measures, and we had to put them under the Labour vote. As soon as these schemes are finished, the Treasury will make a readjustment. In any case the scheme will bring back to the State certain revenue, but a large part of it will be unproductive. The irrigation schemes are more or less on the same basis. They were started as relief works— Buchuberg, Oukloof and Kalksluit. Kalksluit is now being dropped. These schemes are uneconomic in the same sense as all the schemes were uneconomic, and we deliberately started them as uneconomic schemes because they happened to be in the area where we were feeding these starving people.

I have never been able to understand why we get on the loan votes under “Lands and Settlements” a vote of £21,000 for Triangulation and Topographical Survey. I understand this work is for a trigonometrical survey. We have been told that this is ordinary routine work. You have permanent salaried officials who do this work. It comes on every year. Why this should be paid for out of loan vote, I have never yet been able to see, nor has the Public Accounts Committee been able to see it. The chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is here tonight, and he will bear me out when I say that, after taking evidence, it was the unanimous feeling of the committee that this should come out of revenue and not out of loan. How can you call it capital expenditure? I would like to ask the Minister why there is recurring expenditure out of loan vote, an item of £250, in respect of the elephant reserve. I do not understand the item “acquisition of land in Kruger National Park”.

It is thereto show you that it is non-recurrent.

I think it will be best for me immediately to answer the hon. member’s two points. The hon. member is wrong in comparing the trigonometrical survey with other words, such as registration offices. We are here concerned with an entirely different question. The survey is not a thing that will continue for ever, while the registration offices will last as long as the country does. If at any time I want to transfer land to another I have to go to the registration cffioe, but the trigonometrical survey is another matter which will stop as soon as the whole country has been surveyed. Trigonometrical survey is necessary to get a correct survey of our country. The hon. member will be astonished to learn that a considerably large number of mistakes are made in ordinary surveying; we have already effected many alterations and when the trigonometrical survey is completed, surveys will be much cheaper in future, because it makes the subsequent work much more simple.

But why should it come under loan vote?

For the following reason. When once it is finished then future generations will all have the benefit of it, and it is not right and fair for our generation to have to pay all of it.

When will it be completed?

I do not know. It is a slow matter, because the work cannot be done very fast. In any case it is, in my opinion, unfair to pay the expenditure out of revenue when future generations will have more benefit from it than we shall.

Is it not unfair also to make future generations pay for it?

No, we have the same principle in the case of railways and public works, and trigonometrical survey is on a par with them. It is therefore desirable and fair that it should come on the loan estimates, so that this generation shall not have to pay the whole amount. With regard to the other point, the elephants in the Addo Bush, I have already said that they are just as troublesome as the South African party. I have already bought additional ground to keep them in. Everything is now ready, but the difficulty was to get water there. Most of the elephants are at present on the farm of Mr. Hartley, and he has promised that if we pay £180 he will drive them into the reserve. The reason that they did not stop there is because there was no water.

No, they are afraid because you did too much shooting.

There was no water, and all the expenditure was incurred to get water. Quite a number of boreholes were sunk without giving water. Then dams were built, but that also was useless. We have now finally got a borehole with plenty of water, and a trough and a dam have been built into which the water runs when the trough is full. The dam was not very strong, and I have given instructions that oxen should be driven into it to trample down the embankment, I intend giving instructions that the supervision should be entrusted to the parks and game reserves board, of which the hon. member is a member, and then they can supervise the matter.

I would like to ask the Minister a question in regard to this land settlements item of £625,000 and a further item of £75,000. I see that in the annual report of the Secretary of Lands there is a total of over £3,500,000 expended on this land settlement scheme under the Act of 1912. I believe I am correct in saying the interest is four per cent., and the Minister, I believe, is paying five per cent, for the money.

That is quite correct.

Could the Minister give us some idea of what will be the eventual loss or the loss per cent, under this scheme. We are spending a lot of money under the scheme, and I think it would be useful if we had information as to what this is costing the country. We are borrowing the money at five per cent., and we get four per cent., so now we are, losing one per cent. per annum and over 30 or 40 years it would amount to a very large sum. These are amounts which we know, and are definitely committed to write off. I think we should have an idea what the amount is.

In reference to this item, £16,550, how much of this is to be spent under section 11?

The whole lot.

How is it to be apportioned between the provinces, and what procedure is to be adopted in allotting that amount to I should like to ask the Minister what this £35,000 for the purchase of land for public and general purposes, item No. 7, is.

I wish to draw attention to these two schemes at Karos and Buchuberg, £51,000. Here again we have an item which occurs under the Lands Department, and again under the Labour Department. It is very confusing when we find the same vote repeated under different heads.

I am responsible for finding the resting place for the various expenditures shown here. We do it on certain generally accepted principles, which have been approved by the Public Accounts Committee. The estimates are framed by the Minister. So far as the Labour Department is concerned, the work on the weir referred to is debited to that department in the circumstances I have explained. My hon. friend here (the Minister of Lands) is going to settle the people on that land. Kaross was constructed, not by the Irrigation Department. The construction of the weir is proceeding, and the Minister of Lands is getting busy to prepare the ground, so that when the weir is finished, we can go straight ahead.

Under the Lands Department, it appears as “weirs and furrows”, and there is also an item under the Labour Department. That is where it is confusing.

So far as Kaross is concerned, at the present moment I have 80 probationers there, and the land has been levelled. When I took over I found the people there and I had to do something with them. Altogether I had about 120 probationers. I have had the ground levelled. I should explain that, whenever the public works or other Government department wants to build, they come to me and I have to buy the land. Re-allocation for the money available for section II, purchases will be made in November. We used to borrow money at 3½ per cent., and those times may come back again.

Never.

I am not so pessimistic. I only hope that these people who get these benefits will show more appreciation—there is the long term of repayment, and they are getting their money more cheaply than we can get it for.

Is the interest out of the Loan Vote?

That I cannot say.

I wish to ask the Minister about the £15,000—Development of Sundays River Irrigation Settlement. Is it to give water to the present settlers, or are you preparing new ground for prospective new settlers? And then with regard to the £25,000 for the purchase and development of land for native settlements, where is this land being purchased, and what development is going to be done? What natives do you propose to settle on it?

The Addo elephants are a nuisance because the problem to get them on to that land has not been solved. I would like to know whether the Minister knows what is going on on Crown lands with regard to game destruction in Zululand?

No, that is out of order.

In connection with the Addo Reserve I hope the Minister will see that as soon as possible it comes under the National Parks Board.

I said that.

I wish to press on the Minister the urgency of the matter. The Minister knows these elephants have got out and are doing a lot of damage to neighbouring farms.

The item is not on the estimates.

£250 is to be spent at Addo.

That is for water purposes.

It is no use having the water unless the animals can be driven to the place where they use the water. They are now doing all sorts of damage. There has been a good deal of shooting and poaching in that reserve. Unless those elephants are got into the reserve soon, I think the neighbouring farmers will get exasperated and lose patience, and take the law into their own hands and shoot those elephants. I again urge the Minister to waste no time in getting the reserve under the control of the board.

With regard to the elephants they are not a responsibility of my department, but of the provincial administration, but I felt that they should be preserved because they are of a special kind. Knowing that the reserve was too small I stepped in with a view to its being made sufficiently large. I am negotiating at present. I want it to be proclaimed a national park. I want to do it, but I cannot do it departmentally, or as Minister, and I have to get powers from both Houses—

Can you do it this session?

No, I cannot do it, the time is too short. I have no desire to give these people worry about these elephants. The body to look after these animals at present is the provincial administration.

Loan Vote D put and agreed to.

Loan Vote E, “Irrigation,” £591,000, put.

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