I move—

I do not think it is necessary to make any explanation except just this that all that is being asked here is that the Government through the Governor-General shall be enabled to give the same facilities in South-West Africa in relation to voting by post as are in force in the Union. In other words, that our Act can also be made applicable to South-West Africa. For this purpose resolutions of this House and of the Senate are required.

Mr. M. L. MALAN seconded the motion.

I am not objecting to the motion, but I would like to put it to the Prime Minister and to the House that this motion will now apply voting by post to South-West Africa. Speaking from my own experience, and I am sure it is the experience of most hon. members, this system of voting by post, for which at one time we clamoured, is not proving so effective as we thought it would. On the contrary, it is proving expensive and inconvenient in many directions, and rather than extend the principle to South-West Africa, I would suggest that the Government should take into consideration the revision of the whole system. I would prefer to have a system making voting compulsory, and a system of continuous registration, which would be very much more effective than having to look for voters, not only throughout the Union, but now in South-West Africa as well. At the same time, if this system of voting by post is to remain, I do not see why South-West Africa should not suffer as we are suffering.

This motion is introduced at the request of South-West Africa, otherwise I am prepared half to agree with what my hon. friend says.

They do not know what they are asking for.

Motion put and agreed to; resolution to be transmitted to the Senate for concurrence.

I move—

I regret very much that I must ask the House to refer this matter back to the select committee. It is a case with which I have a great deal of sympathy. The man has done excellent work since his break in service, but the administration considers that it would be a very serious thing for the service if a precedent of this kind were established, and therefore I suggest that the matter go back to the select committee, so that they can reconsider it, and so that the administration can put forward their case. This man has been quite a good man since his break in service, but unfortuately some years ago he made a mistake, and the railway administration think it would be a very bad thing for the service if that mistake were condoned in the manner now recommended.

I am very sorry to see that the Minister, although he is sympathetic with the applicant concerned in this case, wishes to have the matter referred back to the select committee. I think that would only have the effect of this man losing his ten years’ service, because I understand that he is going on pension at the end of this month, or at the end of next month. The effect of referring the matter back to the Select Committee on Pensions will be that he will be entirely out of court, and will not be able to apply again. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter, and to adopt the recommendation made by the select committee. The break in the applicant’s service was only a matter of a fortnight, and if the small break of a fortnight is condoned he will have ten years’ service which he will otherwise lose. This man has rendered excellent service since he was taken back. I wish to read to the House a letter from the goods and passenger agent, Germiston, to the A.G.M., Johannesburg, dated 4th May, 1926, with regard to an application from Pollintine—

I wish to refer the House also to another letter, one by the stationmaster at Potchefstroom to the assistant general manager, dated 29th October, 1919, relating to Pollintine—

I submit that when a man has made good to that extent, that is, has not only given a clean record of nearly 23 years’ service, but has during that time rendered meritorious service during two critical periods in our history, the least the House can do is to accept the recommendation made by the Pensions Committee.

It seems to me from the facts we have before us that this man undoubtedly made a mistake in the past, but the fact that he was again taken into the service immediately after his discharge, to wit, fourteen days later, proves unquestionably that he was a very efficient official. Let me say at once I do not want to excuse the mistakes he made previously because that may result in other people making the same mistakes, and then thinking it will be quite all right, but what I want to say about the man is this, that it seems that after he was reemployed he never again committed that fault. Everyone of us may commit a fault, and I think that ought to be remembered. I therefore agree with the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Strauss) and I hope the House will adopt the recommendation of the select committee.

The Acting Minister of Railways and Harbours says he has every sympathy with the case, but fears that the condonation would result in the institution of an undesirable precedent. Surely that is just such a matter as comes within the purview of the Pensions Committee, a committee which deals with individual cases, for which there are no precedents, on their merits. The Pensions Committee, I understand, creates no precedents. The merits of this particular case have been ably stated by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Strauss), and I do not think there is any necessity to send it back for review. If, after 23 years’ good service, a fault of this character, involving a break of only fourteen days, cannot be condoned, we are not very helpful to the employee who wishes to rehabilitate himself. The committee has treated this case on its merits, and what the Minister has said does not sustain his view of the case.

If this recommendation is adopted a precedent will be created which may cost the State thousands and thousands. We have had many similar applications before the Pensions Committee which have never been granted. What will become of discipline in the service if a man, after an offence and punishment, can come back at any time without suffering any loss through it? I have no doubt that the man deserved his punishment. He was repeatedly warned before that time, but he continued until he was dismissed. I must say to the honour of the Railway Board that they are just as good to the railway staff as any other body towards any other class of official. They always give a man another chance. We must bear in mind that the Railway Board has a tremendously great responsibility. If they had not given him another chance, then the man would possibly have gone to the bad, but because the punishment was inflicted he became one of the best officials. I know from experience of many cases where the railway administration is inclined to re-employ a man. But if we grant this man’s request, then it gives everyone the right to return and ask for the same thing. The House must very carefully consider the matter.

The unfortunate applicant for condonations, pensions or gratuities has to suffer under a very heavy handicap. First of all, he has to escape the lynx eye and the greedy hand of the chairman of the Pensions Committee, and this chairman has another opportunity of raking the unfortunate applicant fore and aft by addressing himself again to this question in this House. If a man can possibly get through that committee with such a close observer as the chairman of that committee is, he is entitled to everything he gets. A little bird has whispered to me—the Germiston wagtail, in dulcet tones—that the vote in the committee was six to three. Neither you nor I, sir, know that to be a fact, but we can suspect it is true; and I am going to pin some of my arguments on that assumed fact. Presumably my hon. friend who has just sat down was one of the three. If he were not, then he is not adopting the right course in arguing as he did just now. He has no right to argue like that. You know how close that investigation is in the select committee. After that close investigation, rather a pin-pricking investigation, if that committee accedes to the request of the applicant, the last man in the world who should oppose it in the open House is the chairman of that committee. I always had the impression that it was his business to support the findings of that committee even although he might not personally be in favour of those findings. When the acting Minister of Railways and Harbours argued this case and moved that we should send it back to the select committee, if my hon. friend will forgive me, I would say that is rather a dishonest way of dealing with the question, because the House knows that if it is agreed to, it is tantamount to rejecting this application. Why does he not move openly that we reject it? If I may say so, it is rather a mean way of dealing with the question. As to what was said about a precedent, is there not a danger of creating a precedent in another direction, one which will gain a reputation for this House of being mean and contemptible in its treatment of its public servants’ My hon. friend (Mr. Strauss) has given us firsthand information as to the opinion the superior officers of this gentleman held as to his qualifications, conduct and character. One little lapse! Has no hon. member ever had a lapse? I am not looking at any particular hon. member, but taking a comprehensive view of the House. It shows the offence was not regarded as heinous when, immediately after he had been discharged, he was taken on again; and that, to my mind, is the strongest argument in favour of this gentleman getting the relief that is asked for. I do not like to make comparisons, but contrast that—I must do so—with the first recommendation of this committee’s report. I am not going to mention the name. That is within the knowledge of the House. A gentleman gets ten years added as if he had actually made his contribution for this period—if I read it correctly —and here this poor, unfortunate fellow asks for the condonation of a fortnight’s breach— a breach of which any hon. member might have been guilty—on account of having committed some delinquency. I ask the Minister to withdraw from this position and not ask the House to refer it back. If he persists, we will call for a division, and my vote will go for opposing its being sent back to the select committee.

I wish to controvert the statement of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), as to his references to the chairman of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities (Mr. Cilliers). I have sat for four years on that committee, and I can say a fairer man I have never come across; and I think it will be necessary for the hon. member (Mr. Madeley) to apologise. I would just like to say, with regard to this particular case, that first of all each case is taken on its own merits, and that being so, I support the granting of this application. I know, of course, that we are up against what might be called a dangerous precedent; but in view of the fact that the applicant more than rehabilitated himself and did his duty in the way he did, it is absolutely necessary, to my mind, and fair and just, that this break in service should be condoned. We have to take individual cases. After all, the Pensions Committee and Parliament are dealing with cases that are outside the law, and we have to take every individual case into consideration on its merits. It is because the man had been rehabilitated and because of his service that I vote for this.

I hope the Minister is not going to take the view he expressed, evidently as supported by his department. I have also been on this committee, and can agree with the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), that if a condonation gets through there, it is like a camel passing through the eye of a needle. We must have discipline in the service; but taking this case on its merits, there is this to be said, that the man had 22 years’ service after this break, and that service was meritorious, as indicated by the letter he received from Sir William Hoy. I believe the committee must face facts and must maintain discipline in the service at all costs; but in this case, there is an absolute case for the condonation of two weeks, because the break took place when the service was not, as far as discipline was concerned, as it should be. The Minister should either face a vote in this House, and let the committee know for all time what the attitude of the House is on this question, or he should withdraw all opposition to this recommendation.

I want to appeal to the Minister to withdraw his objection to this recommendation. We are dealing here with an official who served for years on the railways and who is now being punished in connection with his pension for something he did years ago, and owing to which there was a break of 14 days in his service. If the recommendation is accepted it makes no difference to the pension fund. The arrears will be paid. All we are doing is to condone the breach and to give the man what is practically his due.

I just want to defend my self against the attack made by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). I think it was very unfair of him. I voted against the recommendation in the Pensions Committee, but I did not rise to oppose it here. Hon. members have given reasons owing to which they have spoken in favour of the recommendation, and I considered it my duty as chairman of the Pensions Committee to bring the other side of the matter to the attention of this committee. Hon. members can now vote as they please, but it is my duty to point out the other side of the matter to them. If I then am the terrible man on the Pensions Committee, then the hon. member should appeal to Parliament to put somebody else on it in mv dace.

I also know a good deal about this matter inasmuch as I was a member of the Select Committee on Pensions. We dealt with this case in the same way as with the other cases strictly on its own merits. We thought we were making the recommendation because the person concerned, after his dismissal and re-employment, rendered good services over a very long period, but that he made a mistake no one can dispute. It is now for this committee to decide whether the series of mistakes the man made should be overlooked so that the break in his service can be condoned in view of his reinstatement in the service and the way he subsequently conducted himself. It was on that ground we recommended it, but if the recommendation does not pass, there can be no question of injustice towards the official concerned because it is a fact that he made a mistake.

The difficulty I have, and I have no doubt it is shared by other members of the committee, is that we have little or no information about this matter. All we as members know is that there is a select committee appointed by this House to deal with these matters, to take evidence and make recommendations on that evidence. No arguments or facts have been adduced to convince members that the select committee’s recommendation is wrong. I am impressed by the fact that the railway administration itself condoned this man’s error whatever it was, I do not know what the nature of it was, by taking him back into the service, a fortnight after he left it. We have evidence that for 23 years since then he has rendered exemplary service. I have seldom heard anything better than the testimonials from his immediate chiefs which were read out by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Strauss). You see how difficult it is for us to give a reasoned decision other than by supporting the select committee in the absence of any information germane to the issue which would enable us to come to a conclusion different from that of the select committee. I hope that under the circumstances the Minister will feel it is right and reasonable to withdraw his motion and let the select committee’s recommendation become effective.

As I said, when I moved this amendment, I have a great deal of sympathy with this case, and I moved it back purely on the ground that it created a very difficult precedent, and if we agree to let this case pass it is going to have repercussions perhaps not foreseen by some hon. members who have spoken, whose hearts, I quite agree, are in the right place, but whose heads are perhaps not quite so sound. If we let this case pass it seems to me it will naturally lead the railways into refusing to condone cases of a similar kind. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) I think was not here at the beginning of the debate, when the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Strauss) stated the facts very clearly, that this man was dismissed for intemperance. It is quite clear that the railways in future will not take such men back if it means that they have not only to condone the offence, but also the break in service. I am certain that all members of this House will agree that in no service is it more important than in the railway service that intemperance should be treated with the very greatest severity. There are so many classes of work in the railway service dependent on the certainty that a man is in full command of his senses that if we got into the habit of condoning intemperance, it would be a very serious thing. I may say that the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) made me rather less sympathetic towards this case than I was before he started, especially when he made certain remarks in regard to the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers), the chairman of the committee. No man within my knowledge during the last nine years has ever taken the chair of a committee of this House and performed his duties with such painstaking hard work as the hon. member for Harrismith.

That was exactly my testimony.

Perhaps I was not able to sift the wheat from the chaff. This man for the last 23 years since he was taken back into the service has done his work without a single blemish. He was only put out for a fortnight. The railways say that he was taken on again for the sake of his wife and child. That was a very good reason for taking him back, but, at any rate, since that date he seems to have pulled himself together and has done very excellent work for the service. If it is quite clear that it is for these very exceptional reasons and that this will not became a precedent—and I hope the Pensions Committee will consider it in that light—for all kinds of less necessitous cases being dealt with on these lines, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.

With the leave of the committee, motion withdrawn.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

Remaining recommendations having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

Resolutions reported and considered.

On the motion that the report be adopted,

May I ask the chairman of the select committee if he can give this House any explanation of the reason that influenced the select committee to recommend that Col. de Villiers, the commissioner of police should have ten years added to his actual service, for pension purposes, without any corresponding contributions to the Pensions Fund? This seems to me to be a recommendation of a very far-reaching kind, and one would be glad to hear what the reasons of the committee were for agreeing to this. Many years ago the pension laws made provision for the addition of complementary periods to an official’s actual service for pension purposes, but I understood that with the introduction of the Pensions Act of 1923 that privilege had become a thing of the past.

The memorandum of Col. de Villiers reads as follows—

All this can be done by the Pensions Committee, and the committee has granted it on that ground.

I do not want to attack this particular item but it does seem to me that it opens up the whole question of what transpires in the Select Committee on Pensions. I want to ask the hon. member to acquit me of any desire to attack him personally. As a matter of fact, when I spoke last time, I was giving him a testimony. I understand that the hon. gentleman was appointed chairman of the committee because he always very carefully studies any public expenditure, and my remarks were made with a view to saying that any applicant who could pass the lynx eye of the hon. member, was entitled to anything he got. To the hon. gentleman and his Government that should be a very high testimony indeed. What I am trying to point out now is the fact that the chairman of the committee states that his committee does not necessarily enquire into all the merits of a case. Now the hon. member read out a memorandum from the treasury and as far as I could gather, that memorandum contained a recommendation from the department. What do we read in that? This, that because a department— especially the treasury—with which a person is connected, happens to recommend any application it is ipso facto granted or refused, according to the recommendation made by the department. The hon. gentleman did not give us any details, he simply told us that a recommendation had been made by the treasury, and that, therefore, the committee had granted it. We must take it that if the treasury does not recommend, the application is not granted. I will concede all the sympathy in the world to the members of the committee, but it is abundantly clear from the attitude of the chairman this morning, that the guiding and governing factor is the recommendation of the department concerned. My hon. friend, when asked this morning what were the merits of this case, did not give us any arguments in favour of it. He simply read the memorandum from the treasury. This has caused me serious alarm because I had always thought that any case submitted to the committee was fully enquired into and that the granting or refusal of an application was the result of an examination by the committee of the merits. I can quite understand that the committee would ask the department concerned to give its opinion and to state its views, but that is a very different thing from taking the view of the department as the guide which ultimately must be accepted for refusal or acceptance. That is how it appears to me. The acting Minister of Railways and Harbours was talking about precedents this morning, but this appears to be the most dangerous precedent of all, because the underlying principle seems to be set up that no case shall be submitted and enquired into and decided upon its merits. I think that is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.

Motion put and agreed to; report sent to the Senate for concurrence.

I move—

This Bill is brought forward in order to provide for two railways: the first is from Springs to Nigel, and the second from Tuinplaats to Marble Hall. The first line is 21 miles in length and will cost £141,000 and will go from Springs station and connect with the Natal main line at Nigel station. There are no particular difficulties connected with it. The board in its report expressed the view that the line, from the very initial stages, should pay remarkably well; in addition, the labour department is providing £34,238 towards the capital cost conditional on civilized labour being employed. The line will carry a considerable amount of traffic. It will serve the Springs Mine, Daggafontein, East Daggafontein and the Nigel Gold Mining Companies. I do not anticipate that the House will have much difficulty about this. The other line is a line from Tuinplaats to Marble Hall. It is 37½ miles in length and will cost approximately £123,000 of which the labour department will pay £29,604 to cover the cost of employing civilized labour. On this line the estimated loss for the first year is £813. In the first instance, this line was suggested as a development line and the board turned it down. Subsequently the Iron and Steel Works wished to get the line built in order to be able to get their limestone from the quarries of Marble Hall, and a contract was entered into with the Government that the Iron and Steel Corporation would convey 50,000 tons of ore per annum from Marble Hall to Pretoria. That is one of the principal items of produce which this line will carry. In addition to the estimated amount which is shown as traffic on this line from Marble Hall to Tuinplaats, anything put on this new extension of the line will give additional strength to the remaining portion of the line, that is, from Tuinplaats to Pienaar’s River, and from Pienaar’s River to Pretoria. There are further possibilities of traffic on this line. There is at present an irrigation scheme there and that itself will become a portion of another bigger scheme, which if developed will bring a great deal of ground under cultivation; there should be considerable agricultural crops and there will also be development of cattle farming. There is a possibility of developing marble quarries there and a much greater use may be made of marble in South Africa than is the case at present. The Iron and Steel Corporation want to get their limestone from Marble Hall because they cannot get it from any nearer part in the necessary quality or quantity. The nearest locality from which they can get the quality and quantity they require is many miles further distant, and this arrangement is very favourable to them as their bill for this one item will be increased by roughly £10,000 per year, if they have to carry that limestone from the other area which is further distant from Pretoria than Marble Hall. The contract with the Iron and Steel Corporation is for 30 years, and is for a minimum of 50,000 tons per annum. The line must be ready for occupation within 18 months from the 31st March last, and the estimated time which the railway consider necessary for the construction of the line is twelve months. I think I have given hon. members all information about the purposes of the line. The clauses speak for themselves.

I propose to deal only with the second line mentioned in the Bill. The Minister described the first line as a practical and business proposition, but I notice that he was particularly careful not to refer to the second line in those terms. At the outset I wish to deprecate the Government dealing with two lines in one Bill, as it places those who object to the construction of the second line in a very false position. However, in committee we shall have a lot to say in regard to that line, and I promise the Minister that an amendment will be introduced. We had expected to enter on a period of economy on our railways, but this is the sort of thing we are getting. Right through the last general election, and for months before, we were told that it was highly desirable that a change should be made in the representation in Parliament, because it was said that there were not sufficient business men in Parliament; and we were informed that non-business men were unable to deal with business matters. Now look at what the Government does. The only business man in the Cabinet is forced to introduce a measure which is, perhaps, the most unbusinesslike one ever introduced into this House. The railways, for some time past, have been looked upon as a very convenient spending department, and I am sure it is against the wishes of the acting Minister of Railways that this system is carried on. Allow me to refer to the last report of the Railways and Harbours Board, which recommends the building of the Tuinplaats to Marble Hall line. Turning to page 5 of the board’s report for the year ended December 31, 1932, we find the board saying—

Further down on the same page, the board says—

This line is to carry marble, not marbles.

On page 26 of the Railway Board’s report, appears the following passage—

Then, later on, we have the budget speech of the Minister of Railways, in the course of which he observed—

The Minister stressed these words, “Lede sal besef en onthou.” Towards the end of his speech he told us—

In both these instances, a very serious warning is sounded by the Railway Board and the Minister himself, and generally all will admit that for some years past such a warning has been necessary. We have been waiting for that warning from persons in high positions. Every consideration has been given tö the fact that the expenditure of the railways has been too great, and I find myself in the position of agreeing with the remarks of the Minister of Railways. One of our greatest handicaps has been the enormous debt burden we have to bear, mostly for railway purposes, and we are suffering under an extraordinary burden imposed on us by some of these non-paying branch lines. I wish to make it perfectly clear that if branch railways were the only means of developing the country, I should not oppose them, but there is a new system of transportation which should be considered before we enter upon the construction of any more of these expensive branch railways. The probable accumulated railway deficit at the end of the year will be £3,500,000. The Minister estimated his weekly earnings at £450,000, but I find that this estimate is not borne out by the official returns, which are as follows for the week ended April 1, £395,000; week ended April 8—the highest week for the year so far—£430,000; week ended May 20, £407,000; week ended May 27, £327,000, and for the week ended June 3—the latest for which we have the official figures—£411,000. In no case are we anywhere near the £450,000 estimated by the Minister. In the face of all that, are we to continue our present policy, particularly when we remember how very severely many of the railway employees are suffering? Men of 50 are being compelled to take their pensions, and that is at an age when most men require every penny they can get to continue the education of their children. I can quote many cases where men who have not these responsibilities have come forward and said spare those with families and pension us. The administration has refused as in such cases the pensions must be paid out of revenue. But surely even at the expense of revenue some consideration should be given to those men who have served the country so well. Men are forced to go off. We find that artizans have had to put up with very severe cuts and with short time, and that improvers have been reduced to the position of labourers.

Artizans as well.

Yes, artizans as well have been reduced to the position of labourers. We find that in spite of all this the board is prepared to spend a lot of money on a line which cannot possibly be payable. Has the Minister had any other report, may I ask, from the Railways Board than those two before us? I find that provision is made in section 130 of the South Africa Act that in a case where the board put forward a report, they shall advise whether the proposed works or line of railways should, or should not, be constructed, and that if any such works or lines shall be constructed contrary to the advice of the board, and if the board is of opinion that the revenue derived from the operation of such works or line will be insufficient to meet the cost of working and maintenance, and of interest on the capital invested therein, they shall frame an estimate of the annual loss which, in their opinion, will result from such operation. There is also provision that such estimate shall be examined by the Controller and Auditor-General, and, when approved by him, the amount thereof shall be paid over annually from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It seems very clear that the legislature anticipated that there would be the closest possible enquiry. If you look at Act 17 of 1916, Clause 3, it will be seen that it is laid down that the report referred to in the South Africa Act shall be a full and exhaustive report accompanied by maps and charts, and setting forth details, as far as possible. These details are stated, and it is provided that in a case of a new line of railway the probable effect on the traffic of the existing lines shall be stated, and generally that the board shall take such measures and secure such information as may enable Parliament to be informed and satisfied as to the expediency or not of carrying out the construction of the proposed new line. Then it goes on to say that if the Minister departs from the advice of the board, special attention shall be drawn to the matter in the next annual report of the board. All this clearly shows that unless it is perfectly clear, in the opinion of the board, that this will be a payable line, Parliament should be fully informed. I should like to give the House some figures with regard to our branch lines. Formerly we had annual reports on these branch lines. Since 1925 or 1926 these annual reports have been stopped, but in 1928, after much pressure, we received a report. I would remind the House that, in 1928, the railways had the second largest income in its whole history. In that year, we had a report from the railway administration. The figures were based on the result of four months’ working. They took two months’ seasonal working, and two months’ non-seasonal traffic. There was a loss on 61 lines of £589,000. On 3,809 miles of railway the loss was £589,000. In other words, on every mile we lost £152 for the year, or equivalent to £S,700 per annum on this particular line which the Minister asks us now to agree to build. On 26 lines a loss of under £5,000 each was shown; on 15 lines a loss was shown of between £10,000 and £20,000 each, and on nine lines there was a loss of over £20,000. In one case, although the receipts declined by £7,000, expenses increased by £22,900. In another case, the receipts declined by £8,000, and the expenses increased by £21,000. In another the receipts declined by £12,000 and the expenses increased by £55,000, and in yet another the receipts declined by £24,000, and the expenses increased by £55,000. All these lines were reported by the board as payable lines when they were constructed. The board showed that the revenue would exceed the expenditure on these lines. Let me give a few examples of some of these lines, examples of losses: Touws River to Ladismith, 88 miles, with a loss of £26,000; Sterkstroom to Maclear, 171 miles, loss £36,682; Harrismith to Warren, 35 miles, loss £4,863; Springfontein to Koffiefontein, 89 miles, loss £4,869; Matubatuba to Gollel, 94 miles, loss £23,133; Napier Junction to Kokstad, 164 miles, loss £44,493.

And the Simon’s Town-Cape Town line?

If the hon. member wishes to have figures regarding Simon’s Town-Cape Town, I shall also give him the figures for Johannesburg-Pretoria for the year. Now with regard to the board’s estimate, if we go through the whole list, we shall find many examples, but I will give you a few examples only of the under-estimation of cost. In the case of the Matubatuba-Pongola railway, the original estimate of the cost was £419,760, whereas the revised estimate was £631,358, showing an increase of £211,598. The original estimate in the case of the Upington-Kakamas line was £113,000, the revised estimate being £154,070, showing an increase of £41,070. The original estimate for the Ceres-Prince Alfred’s Hamlet line was £37,570, but the revised estimate amounted to £54,940, an increase of £17,370. On the George-Knysna line the difference was under-estimated by £138,621.

Were there not over-estimates?

I would like the Minister to show me if there were. I have had to find this information for myself, and as far as my investigations go I have not found one. On these lines we find generally there was an increase of 33 and one-third per cent. on the estimates. On practically all our branch lines the revenue has been over-estimated, and the expenditure under-estimated. I say “practically” because the Minister may have some information, and if so, I hope he will give it to us, and it would be refreshing to know that in some cases the estimates have been on the right side. In 1927 in this House, it was very clearly shown that on nine lines there was an over-estimate of £100,000. Here, in regard to this line now before us, we have the position that actually the Railway Board anticipates a loss. Nevertheless, we go gaily on and we forget there is a change in the transportation system, and we try to spend money on a line which the board itself shows to be non-payable. The Minister may claim that this line has been guaranteed to some extent. Let me give him a few instances of these guaranteed lines. We have the Utrecht branch line on which the loss for the year was £3,130, and from April, 1910, to March, 1932, the loss to the administration was £41,855. On the Messina line the loss for the year was £42,911, and the net loss to the administration from August, 1915, to March, 1932, was £631,100. Then we have the line to the manganese mines, and we do not know what is going to happen. At present we are in the dark. I think, and I think even the Minister will agree with me, that the position is going to be exceedingly serious, as far as the administration is concerned. We come to the Zebediela line, which was considered only last year by the select committee, and here it is perfectly clear there is going to be a loss to the administration. This line was built under circumstances similar to the line now under discussion, and it is interesting to know that here the Railway Board estimated an amount of £154,605 as its cost. The actual cost was £189,505. The estimated annual loss by the Railway Board was £1,500, and the actual loss was over £5,000. The railways fortunately asked for a full guarantee. I should like to read, first of all, the position in regard to the losses on this railway, and if you look at page 34 of the select committee’s report, you will find a statement by the general manager of railways and harbours, which reads—

But on this line there was an actual guarantee for the full loss. That, of course, is in dispute now, but this line to a great extent works for the benefit of the country, and is not like the present line. An hon. friend mentioned that only one European and many natives are employed. On the Zebediela line, the company spends in wages per annum £21,500 on European male employees; £6,700 on European girl packers; £26,000 on native wages; £85,570 on stores, and £44,000 on railway rates. They employed 130 European males, 263 European female packers and graders, and 205 natives. Their case came before the select committee, and I admit they made out a very strong case, but, on principle, the select committee felt they could not assist them, and this is the resolution which it passed—

Now here very clearly the committee felt that they had no right to assist the African company while we had these very heavy deficits on the railways. The position has not improved in regard to that. Yet here we are building a line which at the very start off the Railway Board says is not payable, certainly not for the first year, and as for other years, 1 shall give information later. On the 7th December last the railway administration actually threatened by notice in the public press to close down some of the branch lines and they said, all lines, if they did not have all the traffic. What guarantee have we here that all the traffic from this area will be carried by the railway. They also considered it very unsatisfactory that the motor transport had not been properly checked by the Transportation Board, and that even more serious was the donkey transport. Well, I do not know that they are not going to have donkey transport in this area and a good deal of it. Now let us see what the Minister told us last session in conjunction with what the railway administration said. The railway administration in their first report in respect of the building of this line, said they had been approached with a request to provide suitable railway transport facilities in order that the Marble Hall quarries might he developed on a large scale. I understood from the acting Minister to-day that the administration had been approached by the steel and iron works so as to enable them to get marble chips. That is quite different from what the Railway Board says in its first report in February, 1933. Then the Minister in his speech said—

And the board in regard to the same point says—

That is the reason the Railway Board gives for building this line. What a prospect—potatoes, pumpkins and water-melons. Then we find another reason the Minister gave—

We find we are to build a line on the slight possibility of something happening which will provide, or as the Minister says, should provide, a substantial increase in production, and all this in face of our past experience. The Minister goes on—

I am sorry the Minister is not here because the Railway Board differs from this. They say, on page 2—

And yet we are surprised that we do not thrive. It has been claimed that marble is a very heavy material, and therefore you must have a railway to transport it. We know that very heavy loads come in from Paarl, and as a matter of fact the Road Motor Transportation Board has actually given exemption to some of these quarries to bring in their loads by motor, because it has been found that these dressed stones transhipped from time to time to the railways, and on to lorries again, are damaged in transit.

What does that cost per mile?

What has that got to do with the question? It will be a road built for industrial purposes, not to enable those who, like the Minister, wish to rush around on billiard-table roads such as the Paarl road is. It will be a road fit for a particular purpose and one not requiring roads of perfect surface. Whatever the position is, I say that you will spend a larger proportion on labour if you build a road than you would by building a railway, and if your object is to give employment, it is much better to build roads than to build railways. My time is getting short, so I shall confine my remarks to two other points. The Minister in his budget speech referred to the improvement of the roads, and he showed that the railway itself had been able to put on very much heavier lorries than they could do formerly, and that farmers are being very greatly helped thereby, and he tells us that the last experiments made by them in regard to these lorries showed that these lorries could carry from 150 to 200 bags of grain. That is to say that they could carry 40,000 pounds of grain. Both the present and the late Minister of Railways have spoken about the improvement of the roads, and I cannot see why we cannot go on improving our roads. To-day the Government does not help towards the improving of roads, but with their help these could be improved greatly and they would be of greater help than the building of railways. The Minister said that the road conditions were considerably improved. Unless you can show that it is possible to build payable railway lines, the proper thing to do is to build roads, to assist men into employment by building these roads, and then, if the railway administration still wishes to have all the traffic, it can put on its heavy lorries, which have been proved to be very useful in the past and to answer very well. Unless we are determined to spend unnecessary money in the future, we should extend our road policy, and we should see to it that every facility is given to those who want to have heavy material moved, that this heavy material can be moved by lorry. If it is the intention to build this line simply at the request of the iron and steel works, there is really no excuse at all for building it. All the traffic that the iron and steel works wish to be carried, can be carried by motor lorry. The Railway Board has said quite clearly that this line will not pay in its first year, but now, in view of the request made by the iron and steel works, they seem to consider this a good opportunity for putting forward their recommendations.

I hope the Minister will not be guided by the objections raised by the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. van Zyl). I do not think that he knows a great deal about the state of affairs in the Transvaal, in fact I doubt if he has ever been there except, perhaps, on a flying visit to Johannesburg. Even as regards railway lines in the Cape, the hon. member’s advice apparently has never been very good. I refer to the line to Sea Point. I don’t know whether the hon. member advised it, but I think he must have done, because he has been the member for Sea Point for a very large number of years, and at the time when the line was electrified, he was a member of the Standing Committee on Railways. The State must have lost a large amount of money on that line, whereas this line, proposed in the Bill, will be a good paying proposition and is going to be a good business proposition. The Minister has told the House that the Iron and Steel Corporation has guaranteed that there will be no loss in freight in regard to the 2,000,000 tons that are to be carried at 6s. per ton. Probably that alone will pay for this line. It is not an expensive line. I think it will cost about £123,000. It is a line which will open up the country round about Tuinplaats and Marble Hall and it will bring the farmers very much nearer to the market. The railway will help to establish a new industry, a marble industry, which is a very good one, and will give employment to a large number of people. The marble is of very good quality. The high commissioner in London in a letter dated May 9, last, says, referring to this marble—

Sir Herbert Baker, in his description of South Africa House, says—

Then, falling back on prose, Sir Herbert Baker continues—

That shows that Marble Hall can deliver the goods, for surely what is good enough for South Africa House in London is good enough for any building in the world. I hope that this time the Minister will proceed with the Bill authorizing the construction of the Marble Hall line, which will prove a very useful one.

We now come back to the consideration on its business merits of the question of the construction of this Marble Hall line, as to which there are one or two serious defects to which I wish to draw attention. The hon. member for Jeppe (Dr. H. Reitz) and the Minister both remarked that the proposition was contingent on the payment to be made by the iron and steel company for the conveyance of limestone from Marble Hall to Pretoria. I presume that if the company found any difficulty in the utilization of this limestone, and the contract between it and the owners of Marble Hall could be terminated, that would make a very substantial difference to the advice the Minister has given to the House. Looking at the report of the Railway Board it is clear that it is based on the assumption that there will be a continuance of the supply of limestone from Marble Hall, for, if the supply fails, the iron works will not be responsible to the Railway Department under this guarantee, which would thus fall away. The iron works agree to consign by rail a certain minimum quantity of limestone from Marble Hall to Pretoria. Suppose that limestone when it is quarried turns out to be insufficient in the lime content required by the iron works, then they are not bound to pay any freight at all. This is a legal point, and I should like to impress it upon the hon. gentleman. They undertake to consign it, but they do not undertake to mine it. Does the hon. gentleman think these iron works are so unbusinesslike that they have undertaken to receive from the company any limestone they please to give them? What the Minister has failed to tell us is what is the nature of the contract between the iron works and the company. I imagine a content of 90 per cent. of limestone will be necessary, because they can get from other sources limestone of a purity of 97 per cent. Consequently until we know how far this company can continue to supply limestone which will fulfil the requirements of the iron works, this guarantee may prove to be absolutely valueless, because in the language of the law it is an implied condition of this undertaking that limestone will in fact prove to be available for conveyance by the railway administration. If the limestone is not of that quality which the iron works can call for, then obviously they are not under any obligation to consign it. When, therefore, the Minister tells us he has a guarantee for 30 years, he is on a very slender foundation, and consequently in the absence of a definite assurance on that point, what value are we to attach to his advice that we should authorize the spending of this large sum of money? This is an undertaking to consign limestone. What if the limestone of adequate quality is not there at all I That brings us to the point—what is the quality of this limestone? I say definitely that if this limestone is unavailable, or the content is insufficient, this undertaking to pay 6s. per ton is discharged. If the Minister will put that to his law advisers he will find that this is not a mere random view which is expressed. Let us consider then, in so far as we may consider it, from the “businesslike” report of the Railway Board functioning on business principles, whether there is limestone of sufficient quality on this farm. Here I do wish to complain very strongly of the manner in which the Railway Board handled the matter in the first instance. On the 27th February, 1933, in the last week of a dying Parliament, we had a report put before the House, in which we were told that the marble at Marble Hall was reported to be of good quality. There is another reference which states that this opinion was based on a report given by the Government Mining Engineer. It seems perfectly clear, from the subsequent report of the board, that there was no such report in existence at that date, and after thé House had decided not to act upon the first report, the Railway Board proceeded to build up a special case, to justify its original conclusion. There is another very singular fact which creates in my mind the very worst misgivings as to the way in which the report was put before the House. When the first report, dated 27th February, was put before this House, we were told that a guarantee had been obtained from the South African Iron and Steel Corporation to take 2,000,000 tons of marble chips from this quarry for a period of 30 years. There is no misunderstanding about that. When you come to look at the guarantee, you find the curious fact that it is dated 31st March, 1933, more than a month later, so that the Railway Board was acting at the most upon a verbal guarantee for 30 years by the directorate of this company. If that is the way they do their business, the sooner we have a reformed railway board the better. But if, in fact, there was no verbal guarantee, I think the Minister will agree with me that the original report did not properly represent the situation at all. As I shall point out when I come to the report of the agricultural extension officer, where we shall find that information has been put before us to justify the original report, very serious doubts must arise in the mind of anyone as to how far the board, having injudiciously committed itself, for some urgent and pressing reason not disclosed, to submit this report in the last days of February, 1932, now is almost compelled to try and justify its original representations. Now on the question of the quality of the limestone. After all, if that fails, this money will be lost. Let us look at the information that we have before us. We have this highly coloured letter written by the architect of South Africa House who probably had three or four tons of this marble sent to him, on which he made some flattering remarks. So far so good. But how much more is there of it? Here we have the Minister placing before us a letter giving an expression of opinion written by an architect in London after an examination of a selected piece of marble sent to him for the purpose of inclusion in South Africa House. Where do we find any expert report which we should get on such a matter— for unless we have some expert advice in regard to this marble, it means that we are simply gambling with this large amount of money which we are asked now to vote. In March, 1933, after the Railway Board had been put to it to justify the report given to Parliament, it referred to a report by the Government mining engineer, who said that many million tons of marble would be available for mining in the area. What the Railway Board says in that connection is in the nature of comment. It is all very nice, it sounds almost like a fairy prospectus by a company promoter. Let me point out that the Government mining engineer is depending on some estimate given to him by Dr. Krige. Now I do not know who Dr. Krige is and I should certainly like to have the opportunity of reading his report. It may be a good report, but all the Railway Board can tell us about the report of this geologist, who apparently inspected the site, is contained in some casual reference contained in the report of the Government mining engineer. Now we come to the quality of the marble. The acting Minister of Railways, who has always impressed upon us that we should proceed on business lines, puts this before us. The quality, the report says, appears to improve in depth, but no definite information is available about the quarries, which, as the report adds, at present appëar to be quite shallow. What happens if they go deeper and the quality proves to be defective? What is the Minister going to do about the £123,000 which will then have been spent? That is the defect of the scheme. The scheme depends on the quality of the marble, and surely everyone has to admit that that has not been examined and that on sinking even a few feet deeper, that marble may be found to be defective. Nobody can tell us what depth has been reached and that experiments of real value have been made to determine the quality of the marble. Assuming that the quality proves to be defective, the company, I take it, will go into liquidation and the Minister will then have to approach the Iron and Steel Works and say, “I want payment for the balance of the 30 years mentioned in this contract, under which you undertook to consign marble for a full 30 years.”

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting.

I was endeavouring, just before the House adjourned, to make the point that the whole of the scheme depends on how far it has been proved that there is a deposit of limestone of sufficient quality to justify the construction of the line. That is the main point we have to consider—on which the House has not been supplied with adequate information. Surely the matter is of sufficient importance for the House to be informed of the whole of the Government mining engineer’s report. We cannot expect to be satisfied when only selected extracts from his report are published. Until that point is answered I shall be unable to vote in favour of this proposal. Although the agricultural development of the country through which it is proposed to construct the line is really of so trifling a character as not to warrant anyone taking up time discussing it, I feel we should know why there has been this rather extraordinary development in the description of the agricultural prospects of the district between the months of February and April. In February we were told that the development of this area was very meagre. An extension officer of the Agricultural Department then comes along to give us a glowing account of what might be done in that district. What is very remarkable is that the responsible railway engineer, in his original report, pointed out that over an area of 20 miles there was no water at all, that there were two farms, which were unoccupied, while a large portion of the area affected was occupied by natives who derived a very precarious existence from what they were able to raise from the land, land which is so densely covered with bush that the railway officer could not find his pegs. There is no water in Marble Hall, and generally the railway officer describes this locality as bushveld, an area of land covered with scrub. This is inconsistent with the eulogistic remarks to be found in the second report of the Railway Board. Why was this information not given in February, and why are we now presented with such a glowing report? When we come to the figures of estimated revenue, we are told that the total revenue to be anticipated from the line is £26,000. How that is arrived at I do not know. That figure comes down from the blue as far as I am concerned, but what I do see is that earlier in the report we are told that the conveyance of goods and minerals will yield a revenue of over £11,000. I shall be glad to know how the total estimated revenue is made up, and if the total revenue is to be what is estimated, what particular allowance is made for the conveyance of limestone. My main point, however, is that it cannot be questioned by anyone who reads this report that if this limestone fails to show the minimum content which must be called for by some agreement of the contents of which we have not been informed, then this railway cannot operate and a total loss will be incurred. Why was the agreement not printed for our information? If that proves to be the case, then I say that the iron works are not bound to take the marble, and if no one can tell us what marble is available from the deposit mentioned, then the proposal is a gamble. I ask the Minister whether those are the business principles on which he intends to conduct the railway committed even temporarily to his charge?

One might ask oneself what is really behind this agitation against the proposed building of the railway to Marble Hall. I have no shares in the marble and certainly never will have, but the Railway Board went there a few years ago and enquired into the possibilities of extending the Tuinplaats railway. This line at the moment is not paying. In any case no branch line pays at present. There is actually a possibility, a great possibility now, that if the Tuinplaats line is extended to Marble Hall, it will pay. Apart from the fact that marble has been found there in large quantities, the report of the engineer shows that seven boreholes have been made to a depth of 200 feet and the bottom of the marble has not yet been reached. The dimensions of the marble are three-quarters of a mile by three miles. When one reads the report one gets an idea of what it will mean to South Africa if that marble is mined. According to the estimate of Dr. Krige there are 10,000,000 tons of marble and its quality is of the best. I would just like to read to the House what the report of the Government mining engineer says about the marble—

This opinion speaks for itself, the only objection is that the marble is too good ! I am therefore surprised at the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) saying that he is so doubtful about the possibility of further developing the marble quarries. Not only are we supporting the extension of the railway owing to the fact that there is such an amazing quantity of marble being found there, but also owing to the assistance that it will give the farmers there. It is a new area which I am acquainted with and can assure you that if there is one area which has good chances it is this one. We find that the report of the agricultural expert says—

There are approximately 15,000 head of cattle in the area.

The figures above exclude native crops, which are usually considerable, but include the production of the Hereford Irrigation Scheme.

As far as agricultural commodities and implements are concerned, it would appear that more agricultural implements will be required than were estimated for in the original traffic statements, if the proposed line is constructed, but in this instance also only estimated requirements can be recorded.

It is submitted that the area has a high potential value from a farming point of view, and large scale development must inevitably take place once the major obstacle hampering progress has been removed.

Whereas the existing farm products include wheat, tobacco, maize, peanuts, kaffircorn, and other crops, it was submitted that dairying, beef production, and production of oxen, sheep, etc., can be greatly increased. It was contended that the greatest development must take place in lines of farming requiring an efficient transport system, viz., fruit, vegetables, dairying and beef production. Soils, climate and general conditions are undoubtedly favourable.

Then I want to call the House’s attention that there are irrigation schemes in that area such as the Losberg scheme, by which about 18,000 morgen can be irrigated and this will considerably contribute to the traffic on that line. I cannot understand the hon. members for Sea Point (Maj. van Zyl) and Cape Town (Gardens), who are opposing that line. We are out to develop the country and here we have an opportunity to make an existing branch line pay by extending it. Another point we should consider is that the line can be easily constructed, there are no mountains or rivers and the cost of construction will only amount to £123,199, and the estimated capital cost amounts to £127,519. For this little sum we have an opportunity to develop the marble quarries, and also agriculture in that area. I, therefore, hope that the House will take no notice of those hon. members, but will give its hearty support to the Bill.

I think the House will understand the hesitation of railway users in voting for a Bill of this character because of the enormous losses which have taken place on our branch lines in the past, and further than that, the manner in which those losses have been hidden away. It would be a very good thing, and this is a very good opportunity, to draw attention to this phase of the matter. It would be indeed desirable if the people of this country were made aware of the losses that have taken place on each of the branch lines; it will be news to many that no statement of that character has been issued since 1928, and that statement is at least interesting. It was issued by the chief accountant of the South African Railways and Harbours, showing the financial results of the working of the branch lines for the year ending 28th September, 1928, based on four months’ actual working—two months’ seasonal traffic and two months’ unseasonal traffic. We find that the loss exceeded half a million, and that was after making certain allowances with regard to feeding the main line. There is no reason to suppose to-day that the losses are any less than they were in 1928; and if no further result comes from this debate than to encourage the Railway Department to issue reports on the losses of these lines, it will have served a very good purpose. This statement shows that the annual loss was £581,592 per annum. I think the House will appreciate that it is the railway users who have to bear this burden, and it is really not a charge on or at any rate not paid for by the State, but by railway users. I was interested in the speech of the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. van Zyl), and I had made up my mind almost to vote against this Bill; but having heard his reasoning, I feel very much inclined to vote for the Bill. Now the total loss on branch lines in 1928 was £581,592, and the Cape Province is responsible for £326,592, of that loss, the Orange Free State, for which many of us have not a very good word to say in other matters, had a loss of only £26,183. In the Transvaal the total loss was £84,117, while Natal contributed £144,958 to that loss. It will be seen that while the larger proportion of the Cape is more than half of the total, it does not make allowance for the losses that have taken place on what are nominally branch lines like the Sea Point line; and if you add that, the losses of the Cape Province would add tremendously to this total. The hon. member did not draw attention to that, and there is another matter to which he might have drawn attention, and that is the continual losses that take place on the Cape Town-Simon’s Town line. Members know how large that loss is. I think I am right in saying it is about £250,000 per annum. I hope the acting Minister will convey that to the authorities, because if that loss took place in any other part of the Union, fares would have been raised and some efforts made to do away with or at any rate minimize that loss; yet it continues year after year on that line. If you take those losses, you will find that the Union railways are carrying very heavy burdens for the Cape Province. You have in addition a loss of £250,000 for the year for the Cape Town-Simon’s Town line, and if you add another £100,000 for the other lines, you get about £750,000, which the Union is carrying for the Cape Province. The references of the hon. member were a good deal sectional or provincial. I am one of those who feel, and I think it is the feeling of the House too, that the sooner we get rid of these provincial and sectional feelings in this particular respect, all the better. I know it is perfectly true, as has been said, that the calculations which have been made, and the reports of the board have all gone to the wind in the past in connection with branch railway lines. I have been looking over the list to-day, and it is true to say that there would be a justification for the House being suspicious in voting for any extension at all of branch lines, because of its experience. With regard to the line under discussion, I notice first of all, that one of our industries is associated, that of the iron and steel industry. Fifty thousand tons of traffic per annum is a fair commencement. I look also to the revenue to be obtained from the Natal sugar industry and from other sources; and on examination, I have come to the conclusion that this line (notwithstanding our experience of branch lines, and the heavy burden to be maintained by railway users in maintaining them, because of their losses) ought to be supported. I see the loss is put down to about £800 per annum and there is a guarantee of £1,000, and that is putting it in a better position than most of these lines we passed years ago. One can only express the hope that this recommendation of the board will come to fruition and that it will be realized; and if realized, there will be no loss on this line. You have had an industry started in Johannesburg some years ago of cut and polished marble, but I understand it was not that particular marble which was wanted and the company was not a success and was eventually liquidated. If the marble is what it is represented to be, there must be a very big opening in the Transvaal for this; and with the information before the House, I beg to offer my support to this Bill.

I would like to support this Bill. The hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. van Zyl) was very dissatisfied at being compelled to vote on two railway lines in one Bill. He has already swallowed the camel, and now the gnat is sticking in his throat. On previous occasions he has repeatedly supported such Bills, one of which contained as many as 26 railway lines. I cannot therefore see what his present objection is. As he knows, it is the custom of the Government to move for the building of new lines for the year by means of one Bill. Provision is made here for the building of two lines and both are intended to advance industrial development. The line from Springs to Nigel is connected with the gold-mining industry and the line from Tuinplaats to Marble Hall is concerned chiefly with the development of the marble industry. It is remarkable that hon. members do not object to the line where no guarantee will be given, but they are fighting one where a guarantee in fact is being given. No guarantee is being given for the line from Springs to Nigel. But there is one in respect of the line to Marble Hall, not only by the company which gives a financial guarantee, but also by another large company that it will take a certain quantity of goods per annum over that particular line. I admit that in the case of the Springs to Nigel Jine the industrial development has already taken place, and therefore we can to some extent, calculate on support, but we cannot always take up the attitude that there must first be development before we build a railway line in order to assist it. I want to point out in this case that a line is sometimes necessary to make the development of an industry possible. The company gives a guarantee of £1,000 a year, and the estimate is that for the first year there will be a loss of £813. Let us assume that the loss will be greater. It is quite possible, for that was our experience in the past. Then I also say that there is at any rate the guarantee of £1,000 a year. To that must be added that the Iron and Steel Corporation is entering into a contract to transport for 30 years 50,000 tons per annum over that line. The hon. member for Sea Point now asks why a railway should be built because he says traffic facilities have developed and there are other means of transportation. He, of course, refers to motor transportation. Has he read the report of the Government mining engineer on the matter. He says in his report—

I repeat the last sentence—

To develop that industry it is absolutely necessary, a sine qua non that there must be railway facilities. It is impossible to do it any other way. What is the use of us laymen saying: “Use other means of transportation,” when it is very clear here that they will be no good? The by-products of the marble can possibly be carried by other methods, but then the difficulty remains that the splendid rich marble which is lying there cannot be developed. The chippings can be carried, but not the actual marble. The development of this marble industry is of very great interest to our country. In the first place, it gives us marble for building purposes. This is of very great value; even from a cultural point of view it is of very great value for us to have and be able to use good marble in the country. It can, e.g., be used for monuments and also on buildings. Why should we not make an attempt to quarry the marble seeing that, according to reports, we have quite sufficient marble there? The report is very favourable; the Government mining engineer says—

Besides marble, there is also limestone which can be used in our iron and steel industry, and which they really need. The Tron and Steel Corporation, I assume, would not have concluded the contract and taken up that attitude if they were not convinced that it would be in their interests to get limestone from there, because they could get it from other places as well. They, therefore, made proper enquiry and came to the conclusion that it would be best for their business to get the limestone from here. The sugar industry also will need the gravel. According to the report of the Railway Board, we read—

Accordingly there are two important industries which will take some of the products of the marble. Then there are cement, lime, etc., which are of great use. We are very much in favour of our mineral wealth, even if it is marble, being developed for our own country. Moreover, it will lead to great avenues for employment. I am very thankful that the Department of Labour is giving £29,604 to the Department of Railways for the work. They are helping to build the railway, and to use civilized labour, for which the railways are very thankful. It has, however, been said that at the moment only one European and a number of natives are being employed in the quarry. My information is that the company undertook, as soon as the railway was built, to employ only white labour in quarrying the marble. It will do so if it is provided with proper transport. We do not know how many labourers will be employed; it depends on the developmnet. I further want to point out that in the estimate of the revenue of the railways, marble for building purposes has not been included in the traffic revenue. The income is only based on the chippings, on the by-products of the marble. It is a point which I think we ought to bear in mind on the question of whether a branch line will pay or not. The estimate made in the blue book is based only on the by-products and if there is to be quarrying of the marble for building purposes it will still further increase the revenue of the railways and give them more than the estimate which is before us. When I consider all these matters then I cannot see how we can be unwilling to agree to it after the Government has by means of the railway officials and the Government Mining Engineer, made full enquiry into the matter which it has brought before the House. Reference has been made to another line which does not pay, the Zebedelia line, but I must point out that in the case of that line there was no contract, but the company had to deliver a certain quantity. The company did, indeed, give a certain guarantee and they fulfilled it, but it was not said that for a certain number of years they would deliver a certain amount of freight to the railways. The difficulty of the Zebedelia line arose in consequence of the drought. The line had to be maintained entirely by agricultural development. Here that is not the case. Here it is the minerals and a contract is entered into for 30 years. The two cases are not on the same footing. In this case mention is also made of the possibility of agricultural development, and although that is a fluctuating thing, it must be borne in mind. The report says that farming includes—

But we cannot depend too much on agricultural development because it is a fluctuating thing. There is, however, a very small sum given in the estimate of the revenue over a distance of 37 miles, viz.—

I must say that it looks rather low to me when everything is taken into consideration. The figure given for the transport of goods and minerals. £11,195, which does not include marble, is a conservative estimate, and I think everyone will admit it. And even if the loss of the Railway Administration were over the £1,000, estimated for the first year, then we could not even then say that we ought not to build a railway, when owing to it quite a new industry can be started. For this reason I support both proposals, the railway which is being built under a guarantee, and the railway without a guarantee.

I listened with considerable surprise to the opposition from the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. van Zyl). Let me remind him of some of his words in 1929. He said—

Now I also want to remind him of what he said to me when the question of pulling up the Sea Point Railway was before the House. He said that we up-country members would be better employed if we concerned ourselves regarding the branch lines up country. This railway was costing the country something like £20.000 per year. Let me return that compliment to the hon. member with compound interest and when he talks, about the losses on branch railways and quotes figures, let him take into consideration the important factor that every branch railway is a feeder to the main line. Does the hon. member take into consideration the fact that these branch lines have been of immense value in the exporting of the products of this country. No, he knows nothing about branch railways, except what he reads in books. Surely, here is a great State industry, this iron and steel industry. Some say that it will not pay and others that it will. Why handicap it in regard to a very necessary article that it requires? Why handicap it in regard to getting those articles there? Here we find that the nearest point from which these articles can be got is at the Marble Hall deposits and here we find members objecting and arguing that that is the only object with which this railway line was built. This line, which I understand from those who know, will open up a rich agricultural part of the country—I understand that the potential agricultural development of the country through which this line will pass is very great indeed. We hear members opposing this line because they say that a road can be made from those deposits to the steel works and that lorries can carry twelve-ton loads over this road and that that road can do all the work required, so that the building of a railway line would be obviated. Do hon. members realize what a twelve-ton load is, and what the cost of construction of such a road would be per mile to enable it to carry a twelve-ton load? I understand that this is turf country, and in summer time when you have your rains up there, the country is practically impassable. That is as impracticable a scheme as I have ever heard of. It costs a lot to construct a road capable of carrying four-ton loads. To carry twelve-ton loads we should have to construct highways like the old Roman roads—Appian Ways. It must not be overlooked that £29,000 are to be contributed by the Labour Department, for the employment of civilized labour in the construction of the proposed line. At a time like this, when unemployment is so rife, that is a very valuable point. I must tell the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. van Zyl) that the world is not coming to an end, and that South Africa is not always going to be in the depressed state it is to-day. Perhaps, in 18 months time, we shall be glad that we have this line. I have great faith in my country, and I am going to support the second reading of the Bill.

I was afraid that the hon. member (Mr. Deane) was going to wind up by saying that he was not going to support the second reading of the Bill. I am getting worried about this collusion Government—it is becoming “uncollusioned”; it only needs a proposal to construct a branch line to set everybody at everybody else’s throat. I have got up to try to compose these difficulties, and after I have finished, the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. van Zyl) will agree that I have done something in that direction. The hon. member who has just sat down has been rather unfair to the hon. member for Sea Point. The latter knows very well that politically I am not very much in alignment with him, but on questions of fact the hon. member has been accused of making a sectional examination of the railway position. I listened very attentively to him, and I did not hear one expression from him setting the Cape against the Transvaal. On the contrary, it was only in answer to interjections by hon. members, who apparently come from the north, that he said anything at all that pinned his examination of the railway position to a particular part of the country. It is only fair to draw attention to that. Now I want to treat the railway position as a South African one. I would say to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) that he made the strongest appeal for sectional consideration of any hon. member to-day. In effect, he told us that he started out by being against the Marble Hall line, but now supports it because he read into the speech of the hon. member for Sea Point a matter of clashing the Cape against the Transvaal. I hope, when the hon. member gets older, he will mellow down. I view these things rather more broadly. I appeal to the House to realize its responsibilities in this matter. I do not know any hon. member who knows anything at all about this railway. No one knows anything about it, and least of all the Acting Minister of Railways. He cannot even give us any information about it. I wish to draw most serious attention to the fact that early this session I appealed to the Government to realize its responsibilities towards the unfortunate miners’ phthisis sufferers, and bring in a many years overdue Bill. When I did that I was informed that there was no time to deal with the sufferings of these unfortunate people, and that Parliament had been called together only to pass the estimates of expenditure. Yet we find now that almost at the last moment, when every hon. member is preparing to pack up his correspondence, and everybody is anxious to get away, we have this suggested branch line foisted on to us without any information at all. I am not against the line. I am not for it either, as I do not know enough about it, because all I have are the Railway Board’s recommendation, or non-recommendation, and one or two telegrams. Those telegrams may be correct, they may reflect the true position in the country immediately contiguous to this line, or they may not. They may be sent by interested persons, or they may not. But because of that very fact, that I cannot say definitely whether this is a true representation of the position or not, we should pause and refer the matter back for reconsideration by those in a position to do so; they should give us a close examination of the position, when we have more time to go through their reports than we have in this very brief session. I have received the following telegram—

Nonsense.

I dare say if the hon. member who interjected “nonsense” appeared on a public platform in the Bronkhorstspruit district, they would convince him much more forcibly on this matter. This is coming from a public body which can claim to be regarded as intellectual as the aggregation of hon. members in this House. This is the Erasmus Village Council, people who are close to this thing. They are in their own district, and presumably they have given this matter consideration. But how am I to judge? How can the hon. member on the other side judge? He is talking out of a sentimental affection for certain other hon. members in this House, and that is a very bad foundation on which to build a parliamentary reputation. I have another telegram, and this is perhaps even more to be regarded than the first telegram I read, because it asks us to scrutinize. No hon. member up to now has scrutinized the position. I cannot scrutinize until I get the information—

How does my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Railways like that? That sounds like the old days when the hon. gentleman was in opposition. It is very much like the language he was wont to use. The telegram proceeds—

This is a remarkably intelligent individual who has sent this telegram. He shows a wonderful prescience and a clear-cut appreciation of the requirements of the country. This man wants the Benoni railway, and I agree with him. He goes on—

Magnificent ! If that is the full extent of the employment that this expanding and tremendous industry is doing, and is about to do, we are building a railway at a cost of £129,000, in order to keep 60 kaffirs and two Europeans in employment. A magnificent achievement for £129,000 ! He goes on—

He is afraid that Parliament will get into a mess, and he is very anxious that we should escape it. I cannot oppose this; at the same time, I cannot support it. I have no information. All I am asking is that we shall send this back to the Railway Board for closer examination, and a further report to Parliament next session. What is the argument advanced for the building of this railway? It is that the line is wanted for iron and steel works in Pretoria. I understood that the works were established in Pretoria because, amongst other things, of the fact that they had all their requirements in the vicinity. The ex-Minister of Labour would have told us, if he had been here—he is unfortunately away—that there are as many tons of limestone in the immediate vicinity of Pretoria as there are at Marble Hall. My hon. friend the member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) raised the point of the guarantee. I could not follow him into all the intricacies of his legal argument; that is beyond me, I have not the capacity. What I did see, however, was this, that the only guarantee so far as this company or corporation, as they call themselves, is concerned, is a guarantee of £1,000. There is only a guarantee of £1,000 in hard cash, and that is not a guarantee in the ordinary way. It is not a thousand pounds put into the hat ready for the Government to take out. It is a guarantee given to the South African Railways by somebody, to carry 50,000 tons of limestone per annum over a period of 30 years. Who gives that guarantee? The guarantee is to carry 50,000 tons of limestone per annum for the Iron and Steel Corporation in Pretoria, and the guarantee to do that is given by the Iron and Steel Corporation. And who is the Iron and Steel Corporation? The Government, because though it is on paper a sort of half and half concern, the Government and private shareholders sharing in the capital expenditure of this concern, yet we do know that from time to time the Minister of Finance has had to come to us, and Parliament has authorized him to spend the necessary money to take up the shares as the public would not do so; so that in effect the Iron and Steel. Corporation of Pretoria is a Government concern. Our money is involved, and we are guaranteeing one department of the State against loss at the expense of another Government department. Does the House appreciate that in order that we shall aid a certain industry that employs the tremendous number of two Europeans and 60 natives, in order to guarantee their continued existence, we are being asked to build a railway at a cost of £129,000, to guarantee the carriage of a certain tonnage of this stuff to Pretoria, the guarantee being issued by our left hand to save our right? That is a ridiculous state of affairs. I am not going to ask the House to turn it down. I am urging considerations why the House should take further cognizance of the position, enquire more deeply into it, and not to be ready like a foolish school-boy to agree to this, that or the other, simply because it is said to have been enquired into by the Minister. I can quite understand the attitude the Minister would have taken up if he had been sitting on this side of the House. How he would have made the welkin ring with his denunciation of this foolish finance, but the hon. member is at the moment the parliamentary expression of the administration over which he temporarily presides. If he were over here he would be enquiring meticulously into all the ramifications of a proposal such as this.

You have had experience.

I have had experience at both ends of the stick. I never had to swallow my words as my hon. friend is doing. No case is made out, not for the rejection or the acceptance of this, to my satisfaction, at all events, but a case is made out for further enquiry. Just a word about branch lines. Needless to say, I support this other railway in the Bill.

An IION. MEMBER [inaudible].

No, it is not Benoni. My hon. friend made great play of the fact that our branch lines are not paying. I agree with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) on this, and I do so seldom. You cannot take our State railway system altogether from the £ s. d. point of view, or the ledger point of view all the time. There is this question of country development, which we cannot estimate truly or correctly in £ s. d. We can feel only the genera] effect of it. What I really want to bring home to this House is that every foot and every mile of every branch line of our railways are paying their way on income and expenditure. It is only when you pay interest that you find these lines failing from the financial point of view. The Minister likes it; he is parasitic in his outlook, and he likes interest. I refer the Minister and the House to this—there is an estimated loss of £813 on this one line; when you look at the figures you will find that there is an actual profit of income over expenditure of £4,000, but when you deduct the interest on the capital expended, then you have this deficit of £813 on paper. I want to remind this House that our whole railway system is mulcted in interest to the extent of over £6,000,000, despite the fact that the railways were relieved from this sum of £13,000,000. Still the railways have to pay £6,100,000. Now that I claim to be frenzied finance, and if you look back over the early history of our railways and get the records, you will find that this little country of ours, with a European population of 1,750,000, has paid over £80,000.000 in interest alone, and it is that that is killing our railways. Let me remind the Prime Minister of the pregnant words used by the late Mr. G. W. Malan when he was Minister of Railways and Harbours, when he said that before many years are over our heads, our railways would be bankrupt. He did not use those exact words, but it is in “Hansard”. He said that the railways would not be able to bear this tremendous burden of interest; and it is a matter for serious consideration on the part of the Government. I object to interest being paid out, and to our poor unfortunate railwaymen who are engaged in running the railways, and by their efforts make a profit, being mulcted of their wages, salaries and allowances to pay this interest, because of a mistaken financial policy.

The hon. member must not go further on this line.

I have gone far enough. If I can only drive into the minds of members of the House a little receptivity, and a determination to do the right thing by the human factor in this country, I will be satisfied. I think I have demonstrated most conclusively— I think I have to myself—that we would be very foolish indeed to define our attitude for or against this particular railway, without very much more information on which to go. I urge on the Minister to withdraw it. If he does not, someone will move its deletion in committee, and I will have to support it. He should send it back to the Railway Board and get all the information he can—and from Dr. Mess.

I rise with considerable difficulty, because I feel, for one thing, that I must not lightly take up a stand in criticism or opposition of the Government, and for another, I feel that I must not lightly turn down any recommendation that may be made by my hon. friend the acting Minister of Railways and Harbours, at whose feet I have sat for so long in matters of business and commerce. I feel, however, that I would not be doing justice to myself if I allowed this particular proposition to go through the House without making one or two remarks concerning it. After a careful study of the report we have had concerning the Tuinplaats-Marble Hall line, I can only come to the conclusion that at some time this line was promised to these people, and the coalition Government feels it must implement this promise, and that is the only intelligible ground for this House being asked to support the Bill. I cannot in reading this report satisfy myself that on economic grounds there is the slightest justification for our proceeding with this line. I am not anxious to stand in the way of the coalition Government implementing its promise, if this is a fact. With regard to the Railway Board’s recommendations, I think we can take it that, whatever else may be said, they will not in actual fact get more traffic than they have indicated. They have drawn up a prospectus with an optimism which I do not think is justified by the facts; it is a prospectus which would not deceive a child, least of all would it have deceived my hon. friend the acting Minister of Railways and Harbours at one time. Were I to ask him, were this line a private undertaking, to invest money in that undertaking on the strength of that prospectus, he would think it is high time I was out of Parliament. According to the figures that the Railway Board give us they show a total revenue from goods and minerals of £11,195. The only traffic, however, that is tangible in all this, is 50,000 tons of limestone which the steel corporation will take. The total revenue to be credited to this 37½ miles of line is 37½ parts of 120 of a total of £12,500 equal to approximately £4,060 and how they succeed in expanding it to £11,000 I really cannot follow. On the Railway Board’s own figures the loss on the line is much more likely to be £5,000 than £813. Let us also remember that the revenue which will be derived by this line will be at the expense of other lines. If we take limestone from Tuinplaats, we are going to reduce the profits or increase the loss on the Taungs-Pretoria line. The Minister has said the reason for this is that lime railed from Taungs will cost Ils. 3d. per ton as against 6s. per ton from Marble Hall. That is a big loss of revenue to the railways. The Minister has indicated that the steelworks will save £10,000 per annum if they can get this limestone from Marble Hall, but let us not forget that the £10,000 is going to be lost by the railway administration. If, on the other hand, the steelworks are going to save £10,000 and if in actual fact the loss on the line is going to be £813, why did not the Minister insist that out of these enormous savings, the steelworks should guarantee this loss? There is no other corporation that would get a line laid down for itself unless it guaranteed such loss, yet here the steelworks are to save over £10,000 at the expense of railway users without being asked to guarantee a trifling loss like £813. I suggest a far better undertaking from the steelworks would be one to cover the loss on the line. In regard to this undertaking itself, the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) has already indicated in a way which certainly convinces me, one of the ways in which this guarantee could easily come to nothing. This guarantee, however, implies another undertaking because it is no guarantee at all unless in turn the railway administration guarantees the steelworks that for 30 years the rate between Marble Hall and Pretoria shall not be more than 6s. I imagine this binds the administration not to charge more than 6s. per ton for the next 30 years. If that is so, it is a most serious departure from precedent as far as our railway practice is concerned. I feel that the Marble Hall quarries for some reason or other have been singled out for most favourable treatment. I happen to be a large shareholder in a small colliery. We supply to the South African Railways almost as much material as Marble Hall is going to supply to the steelworks, but the railway never suggested that they would put down our railway line for us. We had to pay every penny ourselves. When collieries have to pay for their railway line why should the Marble Hall quarries be treated on a more favourable basis? It is treating the limestone deposits in a way that is very unfair to other people who have to pay for their railway lines. The example of Zebedelia was a good one. There you had a large property. Because of the damage to the fruit it could not be transported by road. They had to have a railway line whether they wanted it or not and they had to give a guarantee against loss. They asked what the probable loss would be and they were told £1,500 per annum. As a prudent business concern they allowed £3,000 per annum to cover the loss, but in actual fact it was £5,000 per annum—£2,000 more than they had allowed for. Did the railways come along and say “you have done your bit, you have given all the traffic you undertook to supply, the loss is much heavier because our calculations have failed and we shall give you some relief”? No, they made them pay up to the last penny of their guarantee. There is, of course, the alternative of having this limestone carried by motor. A twelve-ton lorry needs no better road than a one-ton lorry. Sooner or later we shall in any case have to have a road to the Marble Hall quarries. I suggest you should spend as much capital expenditure as is required on that road now and let us supply twelve-ton lorries with six wheels and self-tipping bodies and carry the marble chips by that means. I had some figures given to me as to what that would cost, and I found that the actual expenditure on eight 12-ton lorries—although seven could do the work— would be not more than about £18,000, and the actual running costs of these lorries both ways would not be more than 8d. per mile. So that for a capital expenditure of £18,000 and an annual expenditure of approximately £11,000 we could do the whole of this limestone business. I am told, further, that if the limestone quarries would put this out to tender, they would probably get an offer for the whole of their output to be carried at 1s. per mile without any capital outlay at all.

What is the price of the road?

I don’t know the country, but you can usually make a road in that kind of country to carry 50,000 tons per annum for something like £2,000 per mile. The chances are that some bits would cost you more, and others would cost you less. The great point is that this road would have to be made sooner or later. Obviously a road will have to be built to act as a feeder to the rail-way line. In addition to spending all this money on a railway line we shall also have to build a road, and I suggest that the building of a road would be a better way to meet the position than what we are doing now. I find it very difficult to support the Minister’s request that we should pass the building of this line at the present time. For once in a way I find myself rather in agreement with the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), and I should like to add my voice to his in a request that the Minister should take a little longer to consider the question. It is a serious matter for some of us. This Tuinplaats railway may mean nothing by itself, but if the Tuinplaats-Marble Hall line is an indication of the Government’s policy in regard to railway matters, then one of two things must happen, so far as people like myself are concerned. Some of us may go into revolt against such a policy, and others will have to give up any idea of participation in public life.

I am convinced that if my hon. friend who has just spoken (Mr. Sturrock) and his predecessors knew what the conditions were in the part that is under discussion, and considered it all, they would be of a different opinion to the one they expressed here this afternoon. I think it is necessary that I should just mention a few things in connection with the question of a railway to Marble Hall. It is something which has been going on for some time and it has: always been turned down because the Government always thought that it was unquestionable that the line could not pay if there were no other factors to be considered. I will refer to the other factors in a moment. It was said here that our friends at Bronkhorstpruit are opposed to it. I mention this in passing. I am not surprised that they are opposed to it, because they have now been for years asking for the construction of the railway from Bronk-horstspruit to Marble Hall. That is therefore their great objection. I can assure the hon. member that I would almost prefer to extend the line from Bronkhorstspruit, because that would bring a railway near my farm. With regard to this railway now applied for, we must not forget certain things. Firstly, we are concerned here with a state of affairs which has never yet existed, namely, an extreme pressure for opportunities to supply work for the unemployed, and it was that, in the first place, which made us think, a year ago, or about 18 months, I think it was a year, of this railway. It was during the time of the previous Minister, when the late Mr. Charlie Malan was in charge of the railways. It was then agreed, last year, that the railway would be built and the Government decided to do so. The reason was that we then had a state of affairs which required that there should be opportunities for the unemployed to be doing something, and we had to give them something to do which would benefit the State. To that must be added other factors, because without the two factors I am about to name it would still not have been done. The first factor was the iron and steel industry found it advantageous to enter into an agreement with the persons mining the marble ore, to do something, which immediately made the Government realize that it gave an entirely different colour to the whole position. The railway has now got almost enough earnings to make it pay. As hon. members know, there will be a deficit of about £800. Someone has said here, I think it was the last speaker, that it would be more, namely about £4,000. Now let it be £800, or for the sake of argument £4,000. I say, therefore, that there were two factors which made it possible if the railway was built, that it would pay by reason of the opening of the marble mines there, and the use of all the scrap for the iron and steel industry. But then there was another factor, and it is especially this I want to refer to. It is the factor which weighed very much with me, at any rate, namely the future of that area along the Olifants River, which adjoins that marble quarry. It is very interesting to know that in the time of the Milner regime a survey was made for a big catchment dam in the Olifants River, I think about 30 miles from Witbank. It was then found—and a very favourable report was issued—that 1,700 morgen of land in the area of the Springbok Flats, would be put under irrigation by that dam. The dam had the further advantage which hardly any other water scheme, excepting the Pongola, had, namely that it was provided by a river which had never run dry a single year, and which for some months every year would be able to entirely fill the dam, and make it overflow. In other words, it has one of the most permanent streams which can be found there. Therefore with regard to water, we can be certain that there will be a good supply which can be reckoned on. The Minister of Finance and I went there twelve months ago, to see for ourselves everything that was going on there. I must say that although it would have given me more satisfaction if the land, on the whole, were more fruitful, it was nevertheless such that when that scheme is completed it will be one of the best schemes which we have in the country as yet. Now the question arises why it should be done now. Why was not this scheme carried out in the past? I will give the reason. In Lord Milner’s time a report was made, as I have said. It is contained in a blue book, and hon. members will find it interesting reading. That report argues that with the permanent stream preliminary development of the ground can be done by deviation barrages, while one could, in the meantime, go on and irrigate as much as possible of the ground. That was done. In that way e.g. the Hereford scheme arose. The water was turned out, and in that way the ground was irrigated. The development which has already taken place along the Olifants River was done, therefore, on the perennial stream without a conservation dam. The irrigable land is now so great that it is using up all the water from the permanent stream, so that the time has come to build a conservation dam, and in that way to put the land under water. Those people are practically entitled now to demand that the Government shall intervene and see that a dam is built, because they practically said at that time, at any rate they were brought under the impression, that they could just go on with the development, and that when all the water was exhausted a conservation dam would be built. Now it is very clear to me that that scheme will have to be carried out just as soon as the survey is finished. I want to say that the Irrigation department and the Irrigation Board are having the necessary survey done, and as soon as it is completed the Government will have to intervene and see that the required money is available to dam up that water. According to the survey made under the Milner regime the costs would amount to about £800,000. I am prepared to agree that they will amount to £1,000,000, but then we shall really be getting something which will be an asset to the country. I am mentioning all this because when this scheme was submitted to us eighteen months ago by which we would be able to irrigate 17,000 morgen of land, it was clear that however much motor lorries could carry the railways would be greatly benefitted by it. Even if it was only on account of the development of agriculture there then we should already have had to consider the building of the railway. When there is added the transport of marble and the supplying of limestone to the iron and steel industry we felt that the time had come to build the line. The more because in that way work could be given to the unemployed on a sound basis. For those reasons the previous Government decided that the line must be built now and I have not the least doubt, after what I have heard and know of the position there, that that railway is practically the only one which will meet the needs existing there.

I think the House is in agreement with the criticism of the hon. member for Sea Point. That the policy pursued in the past in regard to the construction of branch railways has been a wrong one. Fortunately the railway administration is now adopting a different policy. The argument of the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. van Zyl) in regard to the Zebedelia line that the Government should have insisted on a guarantee proves that the departmental method now adopted is the correct one. The hon. member’s argument that the Zebedelia company has got into difficulties is beside the point altogether. The railway department is insisting that the terms of the agreement shall be carried out, and that the Zebedelia company shall pay. With regard to the line proposed to be constructed from Marble Hall, I consider that the railway administration has got quite a good contract with the Iron and Steel Company. I would like to pass one word of criticism regarding the suggestion that the limestone should be carried from Marble Hall by road, instead of by rail. To do that, something like £74,000 would have to be spent on the construction of a suitable road, and its maintenance would involve a yearly expenditure of £18,000. The essence of this scheme now before us is that the limestone shall be delivered at the iron and steel works at Pretoria. If the scheme suggested, viz., to construct a road and to deliver the limestone at Tuinplaats was adopted, it would mean the construction of facilities for handling the limestone at Tuinplaats and loading it again into railway trucks. This double handling would increase the cost to such an extent that the iron and steel company would have to abandon the contract. The whole scheme hangs on the delivery of this stone in Pretoria, and unless that could be done at the rate quoted of 6s. per ton, I am sure that the company would turn it down.

I have listened to this debate with a great deal of interest, but I am afraid that the arguments opposed to the building of the line have not been very convincing as far as I am concerned. I want to deal with one or two of the points raised. The principal point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) was that the contract we have made with the steel works was unsound. My advice is to the contrary, so that it seems there is one set of lawyers disagreeing with another set, but I think that the advice of the Government advisers bears the stamp of being reasonable to the ordinary man in the street. If the hon. member reads this agreement, he will see that the Iron and Steel Corporation have agreed to consign over the said railway to Marble Hall station, not from any definite quarry, a definite amount of freight per annum. The hon. member says that in his opinion according to law, if the corporation find they cannot get the limestone or if, in their opinion, the limestone is not of the quality they require, then they could refuse to consign the limestone, and at the same time refuse to pay the Government any damages for the loss sustained by the Government. That is what I understand the hon. member’s argument to be, but, if he refers to the second paragraph in the same agreement, he will see that if the limestone deposits at Marble Hall are sufficient to furnish a further quantity of 500,000 tons of limestone, in addition to the 1,500,000 tons, then the said corporation undertakes to consign a quantity not exceeding 500,000 tons of limestone during the said period of 30 years, or during a period of 10 years after. I don’t want to have a legal argument with the hon. member, because I know he can easily beat me with his technical knowledge in that respect, but what I would like to ask him is this, why, if the undertaking in paragraph (1) was intended to be subject to the same conditions as in paragraph (2), which he says it is, why was it necessary to put in Clause 2 at all, that the excess quantity of their undertaking should be subject to the condition that the limestone is available? Arguing from a negative point of view, it seems to me perfectly evident that Clause I means that they have got the stuff, and that if they don’t deliver it, they have got to pay for it. As far as I can see on that point the contract is sound. With regard to the argument of the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. van Zyl), I don’t see the relevancy of his argument about other branch lines. The hon. member’s argument is that because branch line A does not pay, branch line B should not be built, because that also will not pay. The hon. member emphasized strongly the point that he was not prepared to put down any further branch lines because of the general state of affairs, and because he says that branch lines will not pay. The hon. member brought up the old question as to the value of estimates of the cost. He gave us several branch lines where the capital cost was considerably greater than the estimates of the cost. I have a list here of branch lines in which the estimated cost was a great deal less than the actual cost, some running into a good many thousands of pounds. The list shows that the Addo-Kirkwood line was estimated to cost £87,550, the actual cost being £85,724, and the saving £1,826; the Bothaville-Bultfontein line, estimate, £351,000, actual cost, £333,121. Now the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) is rather anxious to know something about the Wagner report and the capacity and prospects of Marble Hall. If I had known that the hon. member was so keen on getting this information I would have given it to him. In the “Journal of Industries” for July, 1919, and in Bulletin 43 of the Industries Department, he will get very full information as to the Marble Hall position.

How far was it proved?

The report is a very satisfactory one, and I will give the hon. member an opportunity of seeing it.

It is not proved yet.

Now the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) says this Bill should not be brought in because we have not attempted to bring in a Miners’ Phthisis Bill, but when he comes to the Springs-Nigel line he is heartily in accord with that going through, and I suggest to the hon. member that if the one line requires time for consideration, the other also requires time. The hon. member brings up also the whole question of the iron and steel corporation and the distance the limestone has to be conveyed on the railways. It is quite true that the original report of the iron and steel corporation did suggest bringing the limestone from a more distant place. The freight from Marble Hall station to Pretoria is 6s., and the distance 120 miles, whereas from Taungs the place previously suggested, the freight would be 11s. 3d. and the distance 322 miles, showing a saving of £17,879; Derwent-Blink water, estimate £223,860, actual cost £163,027, saving £60,833; Greytown-Rietvlei, estimate £131,520, actual cost £108.015, saving £23,505; Hermon-Porterville, estimate £187,680, actual cost £176,603, saving £11,077; Imvani-Qamata, estimate £102,586, actual cost £76,472, saving £26,114; Klaver-Bitterfontein, estimate £466,009 actual cost £369,467, saving £96,542; Klerks-dorp-Maquassi, Vermaas-Ottosdal, estimate £535,060, actual cost £388,208, saving £146,852; Molt eno-Jamestown, estimate £233,200, actual cost £214,140, saving £19,060; Onderkaremba-Witvlei, estimate £348,300, actual cost £206,965, saving £141,335; Potchefstroom-Los berg, estimate £146,696, actual cost £145,288, saving £1,408; Wintersrush-Koopmansfontein, estimate £123,511, actual cost £106,026, saving £17,485; Koopmansfontein-Postmasburg, estimate £310,420, actual cost £304,417, saving £6,003; Witvlei-Gobabis, estimate £96,427, actual cost £65,025, saving £31,402. It is hardly necessary for me to point out that it is entirely illogical to say: “You need not worry about the estimate; it is bound to cost a lot more than the estimate.” There is no proof of that, and it does not seem to me that we should worry ourselves about things that may riot happen. Then the hon. member suggested that perhaps we might get donkey transport coming in and competing. As far as this contract is concerned, they have got to consign 50,000 tons of limestone, and they have got to deliver that for conveyance to Pretoria. That is one item, and one large item of the revenue, which is definite. Surely we are not going to say to the iron and steel works that they have to convey this from the longest distance because we want the biggest freight. That is the argument that has been used. I was surprised to hear from the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock), when he suggested that the railways should hold up industries to ransom: that traffic should go the longest distance in order to get the greatest revenue. I do not think the hon. member realized the implication when he made the remark. It is to our advantage, is it not, to work all these industries in the cheapest possible manner, particularly the iron and steel industry, because if it does not work in an efficient and economic way, we, as a country, will have to bear the burden. Then comes the question of the value of these roads. My information is that the roads mentioned by the hon. member will cost at least £2,500 per mile, and in addition to that one bridge has to be built, and if he takes that into consideration, plus the cost of the road it is piling up a pretty big bill against £123,000. I think that the case with regard to both these lines has been sufficiently proved.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee to-morrow.

The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) has dealt with a variety of subjects, which I shall endeavour to refer to as briefly as possible. He has enquired what recommendations of the Native Economic Commission it is proposed to carry into effect. As he has stated, the report of the commission is a very long one and during the brief period that I have held the portfolio of native affairs I have not been able to spare the time fully to digest the matter contained therein. I may say, however, that most of its recommendations are in accord with the policy the department has adopted for very many years past. Take agricultural development for instance. Large sums of money have from time to time been spent, especially in the Transkei, for the improvement of native stock, for better cultivation of the land, and in propaganda to obtain from the natives a response to the efforts of the officers to encourage progress. It must, of course, be realized that the natives, especially those in the remote portions of the Union, are not prone to adopt European methods and this conservatism on their part is one of the chief obstacles to progress. Where the natives have been responsive much has been done in the direction of improvement. The commission, however, goes further and practically recommends the use of compulsion. I am not in favour of such a policy which can only lead to trouble. It must not be assumed that nothing has been done in the improvement of land. So far as funds at the disposal of the department will allow, a good deal has been done. A sum of over £20,000 has during the last three years been spent in providing water in the dry portions of the Union and a further provision for this purpose has been made out of the development account funds during the current year, which altogether allow of an amount of £35,000 being spent for this purpose. Boreholes have been laid down, windmills, handpumps and reservoirs erected. Irrigation furrows too have been constructed in the northern Transvaal at a cost of approximately £3.000 while in the Marico district irrigation works are in progress, to cost about £3,000. Where the natives have shown any tendency to make the utmost use of the efforts made on their behalf, the department has been only too willing to assist them. Outside the Transkei an agricultural staff consisting of one director of native agriculture, two assistant directors, one in Natal and one in the eastern province of the Cape, has been appointed together with six district supervisors, while during the present year a staff of 108 native demonstrators is also employed in agricultural work amongst the natives. This is exclusive of the staff maintained by the general council in the Transkei. An agricultural school is maintained at Fort Cox in the Kingwilliamstown area, where a large number of native students are being trained in agriculture. Two similar schools exist in the Transkei. Stud stock, poultry, etc., are being maintained at these institutions and the progeny sold to natives at cheap rates. Good seed wheat is also distributed and in Bechuanaland and the western Transvaal much success has been obtained by the distribution of vegetable seed to natives in those areas where cultivation is possible. The department is alive to the necessity of encouraging better cultivation of the reserves and the raising of quality cattle, and in so far as the conservatism of the native will permit every effort is made to push the natives along. It is useless however to spend large sums of money in areas where the natives are not yet ripe for this sort of work. The hon. member has also raised the question of funds for native education. As he is aware, provision in the native development account is insufficient to enable the department to make any further grants. The administration and control of native education is a function of the provincial councils, which receive subsidies from the Government through my department. As he is also aware, a commission has been appointed to consider the whole question of the financial relations between the Union Government and the provinces and it is hoped that as a result of the report of this commission this matter will be placed upon a definite footing. The hon. member should realize, however, that expenditure on native education has grown from £451,000 in the financial year 1926-’27 to £602,000 in the financial year 1931-’32. Since then it has unfortunately been practically stationary due to the absence of any funds in the development account from which to provide for expansion. The hon. member has also dealt with the question of distress. Unfortunately the recent drought has played havoc with the crops which promised so well in the native areas during the first half of last season and my information leads me to the conclusion that there will be a lack of food available in the reserves and certain other portions of the Union before another season is reached. The Government is alive to the seriousness of the position and arrangements have been made for the provision of relief works in those areas where the distress is already acute. It is also making every effort to find work for natives on the mines, and it is to be hoped that with the advent of better times certain diamond, asbestos and manganese mines might re-open to the great benefit of the native population. The hon. member may rest assured that every effort will be made to relieve distress where such genuinely exists and the officers of the department will report from time to time the position in the Territories. The hon. member has also asked for information in regard to the distribution of mealies during the drought in Zululand. Those mealies were distributed on a basis of repayment, and I have every confidence that the major portion of the amount will be so recovered. Up to 31st December last year the amount of £9,500 had already been paid in. In regard to the payment of their obligations, the Zulus are gentlemen. It is not the case that the traders were able to deal effectively with the situation which arose. There were practically no mealies in Zululand, and but for the fact that the department took over the distribution, the natives would have starved. Special arrangements had to be made by the department with the Railway Department and it was only by such special arrangements that the mealies were ultimately brought to the homes of the people. The hon. member has referred to the pressure put upon natives for the payment of taxes. The Native Taxation Act 41 of 1925, is a revenue measure and the responsibility for the collection of taxes under that Act rests not with my department but with the Inland Revenue Department. Members may be assured, however, that if there is reason to believe that the Act is being administered in a harsh and unsympathetic manner, so as to involve natives in serious and unnecessary hardship, it would be my duty to intervene and do my best for those in distress. It must be realized that unless very active steps are occasionally taken to remind natives of their obligations, there is a natural tendency to escape the Revenue authorities. On the other hand, I am convinced that the large majority of the magistrates throughout the country, who are the receivers of revenue, are disposed to leniency when the occasion deserves and in the vast majority of cases give suspended sentences so as to enable the native to look round for the money. There have been cases where magistrates have not been sufficiently mindful of the difficulties experienced by the natives in meeting living expenses. It is, however, difficult to secure uniformity where the Act leaves the individual officer free to exercise his discretion as to whether or not the native is in a position to pay his tax, and no doubt cases of hardship occasionally occur. I have, however, instructed the authorities during the prevailing distress not unduly to exercise extreme pressure in the collection of revenue, but I am fully alive to the danger involved in any remissness to make the utmost efforts to secure payment where it is at all possible. Johannesburg is full of unemployed natives. The hon. member seems to consider that the restriction of passes to proceed to Johannesburg is a hardship. On the contrary it would be no kindness to permit a native to leave his own location to proceed to to the Rand in search of work when there is none to be had. The hon. member has also made enquiries in regard to the issue of trading licences to natives. In so far as the urban areas are concerned, the question is governed by the provisions of section 22 of the Natives (Urban Areas) Act. It is common knowledge that the Free State municipalities are strongly opposed to any facilities to natives to trade in the urban area locations. The Act, however, provides that the Minister may direct the municipality to issue such licences after due enquiry into the merits of the case. A conflict having arisen in the Kroonstad area, the Native Affairs Commission was asked to make the necessary investigation. I have not yet received the report of the commission, so am not in a position to make any statement in this case. In regard to the wool subsidy, hon. members will realize that it is utterly impossible to ensure that each native wool-producer receives the benefit of the subsidy. The department therefore had to devise some means by which some benefit could accrue to natives generally from this provision. The only satisfactory way of achieving this object was to enlist the sympathy of the traders, who have always been interested in the welfare of the natives residing in their sphere of operation. The location trader is the medium through which the subsidy, to which location natives are entitled under the Act, is claimed. Upon consigning wool produced by natives in a reserve, the trader must make a declaration which he sends to the firm to which he consigns the wool for export. The exporting firm then on export, submits to the Agricultural Department a claim supported by the trader’s form and other returns prescribed by regulation. The Department of Agriculture then pays over the subsidy to the Native Affairs Department. A native may sell his wool direct to the exporter and so receive his subsidy direct. The Native Affairs Department pays out subsidy. The amount of subsidy received for each district must be divided by the total number of sheep in the district and each owner is paid out in proportion to the number of sheep owned by him. It will be realized that there is hardly any other way of overcoming the requirements of the law and the Auditor-General. It is quite evidence that in the areas where the payments have been so low the traders have not taken steps to see that all the wool exported has been duly accounted for. Unless the returns required by the Agricultural Department are submitted, no money accrues to the department, since it cannot pay out for wool in respect of which no subsidy has been claimed. If the hon. member can satisfy me that any scheme he suggests will satisfy both the law and the audit requirements, I shall be only too pleased to adopt it. In regard to the request of the hon. member for the removal of restrictions on the export of stock from the Transkei, I am afraid this is a matter which solely concerns the Department of Agriculture. On the 13th March last, this department in conjunction with the secretary for Agriculture, agreed upon certain regulations to operate in the Transkei. These had to receive the approval of their Minister, but I have not yet been advised of the final decision, which rests with the Minister of Agriculture. The hon. member for Aliwal North (Mr. Sephton) has also referred to the provision of £1,000 on the estimates for the relief of distress. This of course, is not the only provision. There is an annual provision on the Vote of a small amount to deal with ordinary cases of destitution amongst natives who have no friends. On the Loan Estimates a sum of £16,000 is provided for certain relief works. The question of soil erosion is a serious one in the district referred to by the hon. member and if, unfortunately, the necessity for relief work arises in that area it will be a recommendation to the local council to proceed with anti-erosion works with the assistance of the department. The hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller) has also referred to the Economic Commission report, to which I have already replied. He has referred to the training of native nurses. I may mention that from the Development Account a sum of £3,500 has been spent for some years in pursuance of a policy to subsidise such hospitals as provide the means of training for native girls. The hon. member has also raised the question of subsidies for native shows. This is an old-established policy of the department and provision has for many years existed for this purpose. Unfortunately, owing to the depression, the provision is not as liberal as it might be under normal circumstances. This year the sum of £300 has been provided. Grants are made on application by the native commissioner according to the standing and scope of the work of the society. Provision is also made in the development account for grants-ing-aid. I may mention that in previous years grants were made to the agricultural societies at Eshowe, Ndwedwe, Nongorna, Barkly West, Fort Hare and other places. The general council in the Transkei also makes liberal grants to agricultural societies in its area. In regard to the training of native nurses the question of which was raised by the hon. member for Aliwal North (Mr. Sephton) I want to say this:—Such action as is practicable having regard to the funds available, is taken to encourage and promate the training of native nurses. The Government itself is not in a position to provide such training and after careful consideration it was decided that the object in view could best be achieved by making grants from the native development account and other funds under the administration of the Native Affairs Department to approved hospitals and institutions rendering health services to natives on condition that they should at the same time train native nurses. The following is the basis upon which such grants are made:—(1) For each necessary and approved medical practitioner giving not less than six hours instruction each week to native probationer nurses, £100 per annum: (2) for each fully qualified matron actually supervising the training of native probationers, £60 per annum; (3) for each qualified nurse or other approved person supervising the training of native probationers, £25 per annum. If a grant is paid in respect of a matron, grants for nurses depend on the number of probationers on the following scale:— (a) 4 to 6 probationers, 1 nurse; (b) 7 to 9 probationers, 2 nurses; (c) 10 to 12 probationers, 3 nurses; (4) for each native probationer pursuing a course of study for the registered nurses certificate examination, £20 per annum; (5) for each native probationer pursuing any other approved course of medical study, £10 per annum. During the financial year 1931-’32 the following grants were made from the native development account and the Native Welfare Vote (Natal) respectively to the institutions mentioned on the basis indicated above, viz.: Native Development Account, £3,075 and Native Welfare Vote (Natal), £550.

I would like to direct the Minister’s attention to one way in which I think we might be able to relieve the congestion of natives in some of our towns.

Please speak up. I can’t hear you.

In the last few years of curtailment of farm labour, there has been quite a flow of natives into the towns on the chance of their getting work, without any assurance thereof. They live in the towns on their friends and relations and in quite a number of places it has become a serious matter. They are in distress and the amount that is available for the relief of distress is not too great. I have been in correspondence with the Minister’s department and have asked that recruiting should be allowed of natives for the mines in such towns. I particularly have Grahamstown in mind. The city council has petitioned the Government to throw open the native location there—that is the location in the town —to recruiting of natives for the mines. The department has been approached and I know the Minister is finding out whether it will affect the farm labour position. I am only asking this in respect of the native locations in the towns. There is no doubt about it that there is a great aggregation of unemployed natives in the towns, which is not healthy for the towns and for those natives who are in employment and who are now called upon to maintain these other natives. Certain divisional councils, acting presumably on behalf of the farming community in their areas, have asked for the same thing, but there I think more information is necessary in order to ascertain whether farmers might, as a result of further extensions being given for native recruiting, be unable to obtain a sufficient supply of labour for themselves.

Will the Minister clear up the matter of jointed cactus?

What?

I am very glad the Minister does not know what jointed cactus is.

Oh, yes, I know.

The question of the payment of the cost of the eradication of jointed cactus is divided into three, the financial responsibility resting partially on the provincial council, partly on the divisional councils, and partly on the Government or private owners. When divisional councils apply to the Government for the payment of the cost of the eradication of jointed cactus in areas occupied by natives, they are referred from one department to another; the Lands Department refers them to the Department of Native Affairs, and that department refers them to the Lands Department. Will the Minister clear up the matter of liability by these two departments. I also want to know if the Minister is considering the advisability, and the justice, of remitting the poll tax which, for a considerable number of years, has been imposed on natives? This tax is a very heavy one, £1 a year. At any rate, it should not be collected from men in continuous unemployment. But if a man is idle for part of the year, he can afford to pay a reasonable tax. Quite a number of farmers regularly pay the poll tax for their natives, because they feel the tax is a very unfair one, and is excessive, being out of all proportion to the natives’ wages.

I would like to know what the Minister’s policy is in regard to native poll tax. There are some magistrates who are very severe, they simply put the natives into the gaol in crowds. Others concede a little more. The treatment is unequal, and it is very inconvenient for the farmers. The farmer wakes on the Monday morning and finds his boys in gaol. Then in the northern districts where there are diggings we find that the digger goes to his claim on Monday morning and instead of 15 boys he possibly finds three or five, the others are in gaol. The 1925 Act provides for an extension of time, and also for exemption in certain cases. This is in cases of natives who are old, and who cannot pay, but we have cases of young, strong boys which should also be considered. I know of one case where a native of that kind was for nine months laid up after an accident; when he got up the police arrested him and put him in gaol. It is inconvenient for the fanners and for the diggers. Then there are certainly people to-day who, because the farmers are so impoverished, have no money at all, they get their mealie-meal, tobacco and coffee, but they never see any money from one year’s end to another. It is almost impossible to-day for those natives to pay poll tax. Then those natives are working on the diggings to-day. They earn 8s., 7s. 6d., 6s. and 5s. a week without food, and they have families, wives and children to maintain. They get practically nothing and they cannot pay the poll tax in these bad times. I want, therefore, to ask the Minister please to ask the magistrate not to be so hard on these people.

If the hon. member had been in his place when I replied he would have heard me answering all those points. It is, in the first place, a question of the taxation of natives, and is not my concern but that of the Minister of Finance.

But will you make representations?

No, because I think the natives ought to pay their tax. I do not see how I can ask the Minister to write the tax down any more. I have already asked the magistrates not to be so severe. I am certain that the magistrates do not act in that way. I have already made representations to them on the point raised by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. Hockly) about the jointed cactus. I must answer that the Minister of Agriculture is introducing the cactoblastis and if this is a success it will assist us a great deal, and will save us from very great expenditure. If we have to destroy the jointed cactus in the old way it will cost us a great deal of money. If the cactoblastis succeeds it will save us a lot of money. As hon. members know, there are many farmers in those parts, in the district of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, who also have prickly pear on their farms. If the Minister of Agriculture undertakes the matter I cannot also go and expend a lot of money on the land of the natives.

†The farmers are being consulted about the recruiting of native labour for the Rand. I am inclined to agree with hon. members that there are a number of natives in locations who could find work on the mines. I do not think there would be any great objection to the suggestion being carried into effect.

I would like to point out to the Minister that in the urban areas there are many unemployed natives. In my own constituency alone, out of 20.000 natives, men, women and children, we have 950 adults unemployed. If it were not for the charitable instincts of the natives towards one another, these unemployed natives would be starving. These people have to pay the poll tax, and in the urban areas they have to pay rent for their houses. Further, the natives are paid at a very low rate. Only last year the railway department reduced their wages by 6d. per day. That 6d. has not been restored, and I understand that it is not going to be restored this year. Natives have to live and find their poll tax and pay rent on 2s. per day. The effect of this is that natives are now listening to pernicious doctrines, and I am afraid that some of them are embracing communism. Communistic doctrines are spreading into the Transkei and native territories, and if we are not very careful we are going to stir up a great deal of trouble for ourselves in the territories. I think the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Grahamstown is a good one, and I think we ought to make provision for unemployed natives by sending them to the mines or anywhere where work can be obtained for them.

I note that the Minister admits that the natives have not had a fair deal in connection with the wool subsidy, and states that the traders have been lax. The position of the traders has been pointed out by me, the forms they have to complete and the red tape of officialdom making them chary of doing the business. You cannot compel the traders to send in those returns. The system devised by the department has been a failure, and the natives should not be penalised because of the failure of traders to send in returns. I think this is a matter which should be referred to the Native Affairs Commission, and that the commission should be asked to visit the Transkei with a view to devising some system which would ensure a fair deal to the natives in connection with the wool subsidy. I would like to know what the Native Affairs Commission is doing. We had a report last year of about ten pages, but there was nothing in it. I have not seen one of these gentlemen for about four or five years, but I think this matter of the wool subsidy is one which is essentially a matter in regard to which the Minister should say to the Native Affairs Commission, “Go into the Transkei and enquire about it.” With regard to East Coast fever, I may say that I have received a letter from the Minister of Agriculture this morning, with reference to the matter which I raised in this House a few days ago. Whilst not being quite satisfactory, he has made considerable concessions which I hope will prove beneficial to native owners of cattle. This is the first time that representations made by me in this House have received such prompt attention from the head of the Department of Agriculture and it is interesting to note that I have had official intimation of the position before the Minister himself has been advised.

I just want to say a few words with reference to the poll tax for natives. I want to assure the Minister that in the Cape Province, especially in the Eastern Province, the conditions are not what they are in the interior where casual natives are employed on a large scale. In our parts we are now paying, owing to the hard times, 10s. to a native. He in addition gets his food, clothes, and perhaps a little grazing for his stock, but when we calculate that in this way he earns £6 a year the Minister will possibly understand how difficult it is for that native to pay a poll tax of £1. I can assure you that we now have natives who are prepared to work merely for their food. The drought and the bad prices have caused so much necessity among the natives that they are prepared to work just for their food on the farms. I think that the Minister should try to bear this in mind, and to suspend the poll tax in those parts for a year or two. I know that the Minister has not the sole decision on that point, but he can, as the head of his department, put a proposal to that effect to his colleagues.

May I just say a few words in answer to the hon. member. Let me assure him that we have the same position in the Transvaal and there the natives also pay their £1 a year, and when they cannot pay the law makes provision for it. The Minister, e.g., can in extraordinary cases allow an extension of payment. When a native, e.g., gets above a certain age extension of payment can be given formally, but I cannot write off the tax. There is constantly more demand for the provision of education for the natives, but where is the money to come from if the natives no longer pay their £1 a year? I cannot therefore see how I can act as the hon. member proposes. If a native is in absolute poverty he will get an extension, but I cannot propose to my colleague that we should abolish the tax.

I think the Minister misunderstood me. I am not advocating a complete abandonment of the native poll tax which would include the natives who live in the towns and send their children to school, but I am pleading for the red-blanket natives who work on the farms and whose children never get to a school. They are having a very bad time now and I think it is unfair for them to have to pay for the education of natives in the town.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 23, “Defence,” £777,342,

I think this is a favourable opportunity for dealing with defence matters on a broader basis than is customary. We have a new Minister of Defence, a new Chief of the General Staff, and if grievances are ventilated now I fear that the Acting Minister will only say that he will make a note of them. I dare say hon. members are aware that for some time past the international landscape has been filled by two matters, the economic situation and the problem of disarmament. We have been so busy with the economic situation here that we have not had time to give consideration and time to our defence matters, and I do not know whether we are so secure in our little corner of the world, or so much wiser than other people that we can neglect these matters. I think I am not far wrong when I say we have unduly neglected these matters for some time past. The evidence which I will bring before you will justify that statement. We should, of course, take the utmost interest in the Peace Pact which was recently initialled, as we should, and we are glad that a provisional agreement has been reached, and we hope it will lead, to a greater extent, to peace and thorough disarmament. We support, by money and influence, the League of Nations, the primary object of which, I take it, is to settle differences as they arise between nations without resorting to war. All these efforts, which are praiseworthy and deserve to be supported, are intended to prolong the period of peace, and to avert some wars at any rate, but are we justified in thinking that any of these efforts will succeed in abolishing war, and can we make our arrangements with the certainty or expectation that war is not going to happen as it did in the past? All history tells us that the story of mankind has been one of struggle, strife and war, and I do not see anything to justify us in believing that wars will altogether cease in future. Why, only a month ago, a considerable war was going on in each of two continents, Asia and South America, and one never knows when an outbreak may occur again. In these days of a shrinking world, it is very hard to say of any nation that it will not feel the repercussions of the effects of war. National boundaries have been fixed as a result of war. The treaty of Versailles fixed new international boundaries in a way which is not entirely satisfactory to everybody. As I say, all national boundaries have been fixed as the result of war, and at the moment I cannot remember any instance of boundaries being changed or readjusted, except as the result of further war. It is indeed difficult to see how any nation can be induced to adjust boundaries on any considerable scale, or make alterations to boundaries, at the desire of its neighbours except through the pressure of war. The conclusion I have come to, and we must all come to the same conclusion if we think it out, is that war is as inevitable as death. It must come sooner or later, but, just as in private life, we try to postpone death by sanitation, healthy living, medical science and research and so forth, we know that death must come. We know that all men have died in the past, and so we must come to the conclusion that all men must die sooner or later. The world has never been able to get on without war, so far, and I can see nothing to justify the belief that wars will not recur in future. Just as we try to prolong our lives so we should try to prolong the period of peace, and postpone the calamity of war. Every effort in that direction merits our earnest support. Take another parallel; I suppose we have all wondered why fires break out. Is there any reason why fires should break out in any city or dorp as they do? We know there is a fairly constant average of the number of fires that break out, and it is the same as to war, because modern civilization is mixed up with very combustible material. That is the position in the civilized world to-day. The civilized world is full of explosive materials, and it takes the greatest care and circumspection to prevent them going off. We make all arrangements to prevent fire, and to deal with it as effectively as possible; if we are wise, we have machinery to deal with it, and we do our best to keep it in working order. If we are prudent we insure and pay considerable premiums, according to the nature of the risk, for obviating the most disastrous consequences of destruction of property by fire. The insurance premium this little country is paying against war, or its consequences—which may mean to us personal poverty or national dishonour, and we try to insure against either or both of these events happening—this year amounted to no less than £777,000. In former years it has been considerably more, and nearer to £1,000,000. Let us see what we are getting in return for that expenditure, and the information I am going to give the committee is not my own. I go to the best possible authority—the chief of the general staff. We have no one to blame but ourselves, if we neglect the warnings that are given to us by those who are best qualified to speak on the subject, and who have the right and duty to warn us. We have the report of the Department of Defence for the year ending 30th June, 1932, by the chief of the general staff. He commences, quite rightly, by quoting from the previous year’s report, from which he pointed out that financial considerations had so affected the activities of the force that, if continued, efficiency would be sacrificed, and if long continued, it would be permanently impaired. That was two years ago. No one can imagine that things have gone better since then; in fact, this further report says that this process of deterioration has gone on. It says—

What has been the result of these cuts? Continuous training has again been suspended, issues of ammunition for practice purposes cut by 50 per cent., capitation grants reduced and issues of uniform and equipment for troops suspended, defence rifle associations’ training suspended, no provision made for grants for the upkeep of rifle ranges, no provision for field exercises and so on. It states further—

I do invite the attention of members to the significance of these words. Field training has been suspended and without it it is impossible to produce a trained and disciplined force. He speaks of a reduction of training facilities for the defence rifle associations and so on, and even the cadet movement is losing ground. One of my objects is to show that the position of the defence force does not emanate from my own imagination but is contained in official reports, and I hope that members may perhaps be induced to give a little more attention to this important matter. I am justified in so summing up the position at present as I am not saying any more than the chief of the general staff has said that we have now a force, if we can call it so, largely unarmed, only partially clothed, imperfectly equipped and almost entirely untrained. All these words are fully justified by the report of the chief of the general staff from which I have quoted, who is in the best position to speak on the subject. I think I am not wrong in inviting the serious attention of the committee to the whole situation. Surely, if we go into the matter there may be a possibility of utilizing such funds as may be voted by Parliament from time to time to better advantage in future than in the past. What has our vote in the past produced? It has produced absolute inefficiency so far as military matters are concerned. For various reasons we are to-day in a transition stage in world affairs. These disarmament proposals, I hope, will bear fruit. Coming to local matters, we have a new chief of staff who, no doubt, will carry on the work of his distinguished predecessor. We have a new Minister of Defence and both the Minister and the chief of staff will no doubt take the opportunity whilst in Europe to study newest developments and to see what improvements can be made and what efficiency attained in our present arrangements with the funds that may be voted by Parliament. I may be pardoned for drawing the attention of the committee to the principles that should underlie our military arrangements. The principles of war are very simple and unchangeable and cannot be better summed up than in the words of a very successful American general in the civil war. The secret of his success, he said, was “getting there fustest, with the mostest men.” That was his way of putting it. By getting there first and occupying a superior position, he was able to occupy the ground and use his superior force to the best advantage. Napoleon put it in more scientific military language when he said that as in physical science the strength of an army was estimated by its mass, multiplied by its velocity. In war it may be said that velocity is far more important than mass. Compare, for instance, the effect of a rifle bullet of small mass but great velocity with the result of a push. Mobility has usually been the secret of military success, whether you express it in the words of the American general or in the words of Napoleon in all matters pertaining to warfare, and we must see that we take advantage of modern means of mobility to the fullest extent. In a book I read recently it is stated—

In military movements, it is not necessary to rely altogether on roads. Nowadays motor vehicles are able to go anywhere across country. We know how the Sahara was crossed and 1 may recall to members that in 1926 seven motor cars travelled 10,000 miles in western Mongolia where there were no roads. It will be seen that the energies of the military and naval world are to-day largely directed towards speed. Speed is nowadays one of the predominant factors in warship design. The speed of motor cars and transport generally is being hurried up and we are getting astonishing results from speed in the air. Here again we have in South Africa not only the favourable air conditions, but the most suitable personnel. We all know the splendid record put up by South African airmen both in peace and in war. It is a truism that a nation does well to rely on its natural advantages in making its military arrangements. We have the case of island nations like Great Britain relying more on sea defence, nations like Switzerland, who require no naval defence, but whose main defence is infantry, owing to the mountainous nature of the country. Again, we have regions where the horse flourishes. I am thinking of the part of Russia occupied by Cossacks who developed a cavalry that became world famous. A nation should develop its military arrangements as far as possible on its own natural advantages and resources. And here we have in South Africa and in this House, too, some very eminent exponents of the doctrine of speed and of safe transit, both in the air and on the ground, and surely we should, in our defence arrangements, provide for the use of those resources and advantages. Now these estimates of ours do not reflect that there is the slightest idea in the minds of the authorities that there is any means of getting greater military mobility. We are still content to have our military speed confined to the speed that you can get out of legs, either from men or from horses. And I do not know either whether they are aware that it is necessary to afford man any greater protection than that which is afforded by his skin, or whether they are prepared or understand that it is not altogether wise to make the offensive ability of a man depend simply on the size of the gun which he can carry. We should consider very earnestly, as other nations are doing, the absolute necessity of developing greater speed on the part of our troops and armour protection for operations. We can only do that by means of motor mechanism which is now available. We are to see to it that if our men are to get there, they are not shot down as they will be if they are not protected, and we should also see to it that they are armed with a better weapon than a single shot rifle. It is hardly necessary to remind the Prime Minister of what we saw at Aldershot in 1926 and 1930 when we beheld mechanically propelled vehicles transporting troops with great rapidity, and, at the same time, maintaining their offensive ability. We should be prepared for that, should there at any time be any attack upon our shores or upon our liberty by a civilized nation, an enemy will be so equipped, and we shall be hopelessly handicapped. We do not want to spend £770,000 every year, simply in maintaining our internal peace. I hope that that bogey has gone by the board. If ever at any time any trouble were to arise, no matter what the race or colour of the people who disturbed the peace, a whiff of tear gas now would be effective in the quelling of any disturbances that might occur. It is obvious from what I have quoted and said that our defence force is in a lamentable state. Are we content to let it go on like that, are we content to keep on spending these large amounts of money and get these poor results? I realize only too well that the body of officers, non-commissioned officers and men that we have are doing their utmost, but no one can expect a body which is unclothed—that is, in a military sense—unarmed, and which has not been given an opportunity of practising the military art, to be in an efficient state. I hope that a new start will now be made. We are still hanging on to the old traditions of the past—however glorious those old traditions may have been, we must adopt modern developments. The methods that obtained then are out of date now, and it is time that we made a fresh departure. It is hopeless to obtain the necessary mobility of our troops unless we do something in the direction of obtaining greater mobility of mind on the part of those entrusted with the direction of our arrangements. I want to make that point clear. We have not made those frequent changes in our headquarters staff which are desirable. I am not reflecting on anyone, but in no other army in the world is a staff officer allowed to hold his appointment for longer than four years. Unfortunately, while I am giving the greatest praise to the gentle-man in question, our chief of the general staff has held his appointment for three times that length of time. The small size of our force, it may be claimed, has made it impossible for us to make those frequent changes, I do not agree for a moment. I hope the distinguished work done by our late chief of the general staff will be suitably recognized, but the fact is that our system was wrong. No officer should have been in the unfortunate position of being kept in one post for twelve years, when the extreme limit is regarded as four. I am not casting any reflections, because even the great Napoleon himself deteriorated through his holding his great appointment too long. And then we have the instance of his conqueror, the Duke of Wellington. He was commander-in-chief for a very long time, for over 20 years, with the result that the British army got into a lamentable condition, and this sad condition was fully disclosed when the Crimean war came along. We must have some means of obviating that, and I am going to suggest some means. It would pay the country handsomely to have a much larger permanent force, not simply a few hundreds, rather a few thousands. We should have a permanent force of such strength that it can be properly trained and not so many men taken away from duties outside military instruction as to render their training unsatisfactory. I am going to suggest that it would pay this country handsomely if we had such a permanent force, from which we would be able to select most of the recruits for the police force. They would be men who had been under observation for a long time, the selection would be made from those whose characters were excellent, and whose suitability could be guaranteed. It would make the retaining of police depots on the scale on which they are now unnecessary. These men, of course, would have to have special training in police duties. I do not see either why many appointments in the public services such as lift men, messengers and caretakers, minor customs and revenue officers, should not be given to those who have passed through the forces and who could be recommended for other appointments. There are many other appointments for which I think those men who have had military training would be admirable. These men would give satisfaction to the Government, and if my suggestion were acted on, it would be a great stimulus to recruits of a good standard to join the permanent forces, knowing that if they did well, and came out with a good record they would be provided for. And that is not the only advantage. Those permanent forces would require officers and non-commissioned officers. I wonder if it is realized that very few members of the present permanent staff have had any regimental training whatever. Not having had regimental training, it means that they have never had the ground work of their position through being associated with care, management, instruction and leading of a regular unit. It would be just as difficult for a carpenter to build a house without passing through the workshops. In other armies no man can serve on the staff unless he has had regimental experience, and after filling his staff appointment for four years or less he is sent back to regimental duties. It is recognized in other countries that it is absolutely essential that there should be a full understanding between those who lead and direct, and those who follow and obey. Some of the permanent force instructors and staff officers should go overseas in order to get extended experience, and become acquainted with what other armies are doing. This suggestion ought not, in the long run, to cost much more than is being spent to-day, and the result would be so beneficial that it could not be measured in terms of money. At all events, we would have an opportunity of obtaining greater efficiency than that which is disclosed in the report. It is a wonder to me how we have been able to get such excellent men as staff officers, seeing that they have had no opportunities of obtaining preliminary training. It is obvious what a greater asset they would be to us if they had had previous regimental training. I hope this matter will be gone into. Let us remember that there is no such thing as a heaven-born soldier. One of the weakest points in our system is the fact that those in responsible positions have not been fortunate enough to have had the advantage of such a preliminary training as I have suggested. The only remedy is to enlarge our permanent force, so as to enable the lines I have indicated to be followed satisfactorily.

The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has dealt at great length with and has criticized the military policy of the Defence Department. I should like to refer to another branch of defence—the policy in regard to naval defence. Before I do that, however, I would like to see if I can probe a little into the mystery at Pretoria of what happened in regard to the scrapping of the “Protea.” You will remember that during last session it was decided that the “Protea” should be scrapped, and that the personnel should be discharged. Various representations were made to the then Government, and finally, there were representations in which certain members of the present Cabinet took part, suggesting that, as a new Government was about to be formed, the final decision with regard to the abandonment of the “Protea” should be held in abeyance. It was felt that as the question was a matter of policy it was only reasonable that the new Government should have an opportunity of considering it before it was put into effect. That was agreed to by the new Minister of Defence, and Parliament rose, and away went the new Government to Pretoria. The next thing we heard of was that a new Minister of Defence, who is not here to-day, announced that the “Protea” was to be scrapped, and that it was not a question of policy, but of administrative detail, that the previous Government had decided to scrap the “Protea,” and that the date when it should be done was left to the new Government. I want to know exactly how that happened, because the whole idea was that the new Government should consider it in order to decide whether that policy should be put into force or not. It came upon us at a great surprise down here to find that the new Minister considered the matter decided by the previous Government. The only other information we have is that the Minister of Railways, when he was asked what the position was with regard to the scrapping of the “Protea,” replied to the effect that the opinion of high and able authorities was that the” Protea” was quite useless as a naval unit. If that represents the Government’s view, that statement is very much at variance with what most of us believe to be the fact. I would like to quote a statement made by Admiral Tweedie. He said that there could be no better school for the training of seamen, and he concluded his statement with regard to the “Protea” by saying that it was therefore a serious blow when he was told that the “Protea” was to be paid off. Admiral Tweedie said that the “Protea” contained officers and men who formed the nucleus of a service whose value could not be estimated in pounds, shillings and pence. The” Protea,” as I have stated, was a part of a policy in regard to naval defence in South Africa, hut we have to face the fact that the “Protea”is scrapped, and that a policy in regard to naval defence, which has been carried on in South Africa for the last ten or eleven years, has been abandoned. The scrapping of the “Protea” marked the termination of an experiment started in 1921, and if we face that fact we are entitled to ask the Government what policy is to take its place. I do not think anybody will consider the present position either satisfactory or creditable to this country. In comparison with other dominions, and with other parts of the commonwealth, of course the position is impossible. The proportionate expenditures of the different dominions on naval defence have been quoted very often in this House, and they are fairly well known, but to-day those figures will show that, whereas in a country like New Zealand they are spending something like 9s. per head on naval defence, we have before us a reduced expenditure in South Africa of something under 2d. per head. With these figures in mind, I think nobody here will suggest that the position is satisfactory, or that something should not be done. If we look back we see that South African naval defence has gone back ever since Union. Before Union the Cape and Natal between them were contributing £97,000 in cash in lieu of having their own naval service. The Union continued to pay that until 1921, when there was an imperial conference, and an alteration was made in the arrangements. Instead of continuing to pay it in cash, it was arranged that the cash contribution should be discontinued and that South Africa should contribute in kind. It undertook the extension of the naval dockyard in Simonstown, to establish the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve as part of the defence force training, and to establish a South African naval service, of which the “Protea” formed the principal part, from the training point of view. From that date the naval contribution has averaged something like £71,000, or a reduction of 27 per cent. on the combined efforts of the Cape and Natal before Union, and that has now been reduced to the figure of £38,000; in other words, cut down one-half—and to-day the Union of South Africa is contributing towards the defence of her sea routes, keeping her coast ports open and the highways of her seas available for her ocean-borne trade a little more than one-third of what the Cape and Natal were contributing before Union. That is why I say it cannot be regarded as satisfactory or creditable. We in South Africa during the last 20 years have been very anxious and eager—and quite rightly so—to grasp all the privileges of freedom, but I am afraid we have not been quite so ready or anxious to undertake the burdens of freedom. The defence of South Africa is one of the burdens of freedom we must undertake. All other countries, whether inside the British commonwealth of nations or outside, have made provision for protecting their ocean-borne trade. In proportion to the increase of South African overseas trade, both imports and exports, which in 1925 amounted to something like £150,000,000, our contribution towards naval defence should be something like £200,000. If we paid in proportion to what the other dominions are paying, it would be something like £2,000,000, but proportionately to what the provinces were paying at Union, and to our increase in trade, we should be paying £200,000 a year in what, after all, is only insurance in its most effective form. All the other dominions have increased their naval votes in proportion to the increase in trade and to the increase in the value of coast ports and harbour assets. There are members here representing the various coastal ports, and there are other members who, at least, know what those ports look like. There are members here who, in the past ten years, have voted millions of pounds for spending on those coast ports. I ask you to consider the increase in the value of ports like Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and Durban, and to consider whether these assets so developed are not worth some insurance in the form of naval defence. It seems to me that these arguments to anyone who thinks about them are so overwhelming that they jump to the eye and they cannot be contradicted. It is a thousand pities that our country is separated by so many miles from the sea, and that large numbers of the population have never even seen the sea. That is the trouble. I have never felt that there was hostility or unwillingness to bear our liability. I have always felt it was the difficulty of the nonrealization by a large section who simply do not know and have had no opportunity of knowing what the sea means, and what naval defence means, not only to the coast ports, but to everyone in the country. At the present moment, all these assets, our sea-borne trade, our fishing industry, our whaling industry and the livelihood of those who derive a living from the sea, are protected by the British taxpayer. I do not want to emphasize that point, because if I did it would look as if I were suggesting that there was an unwillingness on the part of South Africa to shoulder her share of the burden, and I have said that I do not believe that. I would like to ask the Government to give a lead to the people of this country. Let the Government set the seal upon the statement that South Africa in the interests of her people should make a more adequate contribution towards naval defence, not because it is the British navy, or anybody else’s navy, but simply because it is our own bread and butter that depends upon the protection of our sea routes and assets. I think that this is an opportune moment to bring this matter before the committee. I think this is an opportune moment to ask the Government to express an opinion, and I think it is the right time for the Government to declare its attitude on this matter, a matter which affects the whole country, a matter which has upset and worried the whole of the coastal areas, who are perhaps more alive to what it really means, because at the present moment the Minister of Defence is overseas. He has gone overseas to attend the Economic Conference, and it is to be hoped that he will take this opportunity, while he is overseas, of conferring with people overseas about this matter of national defence by seas as well as by land. It is to be hoped that he will take the opportunity of consulting the committee of imperial defence as to what they think we should do in regard to naval defence. Assuming that the Government is ready to carry its share of responsibility in regard to our naval defence, which I am sure it is, assuming that the Government is ready to make an adequate contribution towards the naval defence of South Africa, we want to know from the Government whether the Minister of Defence will take the opportunity of consulting with the naval authorities in England, and with the Admiralty, and possibly with Sir George Tweedie, who, while he was in South Africa, tried to work out some scheme for naval defence in South Africa, we hope he will discuss with them the whole question of future policy, both financially and otherwise, because we know that it is quite clear that any suggestion of developing the South African naval service as a unit has been tried and has failed, and has been abandoned, and that, therefore, it remains to decide what else we can do in the common interest with the funds at our disposal. It seems to me that the time has come when we should offer to pool our contributions, it seems that the dominions should pool their resources in this common police work of the Empire trade routes, and I hope that the Minister when in London will discuss it from that angle, and that he will be guided by the Admiralty and by the Committee of Imperial Defence, who are co-ordinating in all these things, as to what contribution we should make towards naval defence, and I hope that, if that is the line taken, that it will also be arranged, that if South Africa does make a contribution in cash, instead of trying to maintain our own service, an arrangement will be made to enable local recruitment to take place for the naval service in South Africa. I think that we have every right to ask for that opportunity to be given to our people, and I believe that the South African people, if given the opportunity, will be in a position to furnish very good recruiting material to the sea forces of the commonwealth. There is just one more point, and that is the appointment of a naval staff officer to the Department of Defence. I think that our naval defence question has suffered greatly in the past, through the fact that we have no man conversant with naval affairs on the staff of the Defence Department. I hope that will be dealt with as well.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

I wish to refer to the item “Special Service Battalion £40,000.” I desire to bring to the notice of the Minister that, right through the country, there is a great deal of suspicion as to the aims and objects of this battalion. Many thinking people—people who have the interests of the country at heart—are suspicious about it, and want to know much more about it. Both the conception and inception of this labour battalion have been veiled in too much mystery. People are desirous of knowing whether it is to be a purely labour corps, or whether, at the same time, it is to be a semi-military body. If it is to be purely a labour corps, why is it necessary for the men to have military training? I have never yet known in South Africa that labourers had to undergo a course of military training. If it is to be purely a labour corps, what sort of work will the men have to do? We also want to know what they are going to look like. When people remember the activities and the opinions of the Minister of Railways and Defence, and certain of his opinions about democracy, they begin to be very suspicious. This is taken in conjunction with the fact that the Minister, not very recently, paid a visit to Russia and got a fairly intimate knowledge of Bolshevism. I do not suggest that he professes that form of government, and I do not know whether he has a speaking sympathy with the methods they use in Russia. He has not been to Italy; he will probably go there one of these days, but we know that he is going to Germany and we know that there is a lot that he can learn in Germany. Many people have a fear that this labour corps is a nucleus, in the mind of the Minister of Defence, for a South African Nazi or Fascisti corps which is going to be put under the direction of the Minister. People want to know more about this corps. They want to know whether they are going to wear black shirts— imitation is the sincerest form of flattery—or brown shirts in memory of the Minister’s antecedents, or red shirts, or some other fine colour not known south of the Vaal River. Will they wear a swastika? If they are going to have military training, is this corps going to be the nucleus of a corps which the Minister of Railways and Defence would like to have as a sort of state guard against communism, bolshevism or devolution. If devolution is never going to take a more serious form than hon. members on my left it will be comparatively placid. What we want to know is what this corps is going to do. Are they going to make roads, to build bridges, to build railways, help with the afforestation schemes, or are they going to sweep streets and polish the handle of the front door, as it were. There was a labour corps established in Hungary in 1918, and the chief work they were eventually used for was for keeping down their fellow labourers. I don’t suggest for a moment that this corps will be used for such a purpose, but there are many people in South Africa who would like to be put at rest with regard to this matter, the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) who is not here at present, probably for one. This corps which was born so innocently, might, it is suspected, develop into a tear bomb squad to be used by the hon. the Minister of Railways as he thinks fit. If they are going to have military training, we would like to know how much military training they are going to have, and what form this military training is i going to take. Are they going to be sent to Roberts Heights, are they going to play about there with guns and rifles and aeroplanes and tear bombs? We also want to know how long that military training is going to last. They sign on for six months, but will they be kept, on longer? We also want to know whether when they leave this force, they are going to be enrolled in a reserve force. Are we going to have a sort of tear bomb reserve, or when they leave this corps are they going to sever all connection with it? If you have this rather potent force, I would like to ask whether the Minister of Railways and Defence is the best Minister to have such a dangerous plaything. The Minister has one virtue, which is that he is young, but generally young people are rather impetuous. If a force like this were put into the hands of the Minister of Labour, it would be perfectly safe, and if in the hands of the Acting Minister of Railways, it would also be perfectly safe, but if this force is in the hands of the very able but rather impetuous, Minister of Defence, especially after he has been to Russia, and when he returns from Germany, where he may learn a great number of things, it is quite another matter. The hon. the Minister of Railways is, I would not like to say, contemptuous, but he is very near it. He has got Prussian antecedents, and he does not believe much in democracy. When we have a Minister who does not believe too much in democracy, and who has a potent weapon like this … [Time limit.]

I do not intend to make a long speech on this Vote this time, nor to make any serious criticism. It is often said that the “Defence” Vote is of minor importance and ought not to play a very big rôle in our budget. There are, however, still many hon. members who will agree with me that the vote is of importance and that defence will yet play a big rôle in the future, and be of great value to us. I would like to mention the provision which is made under D (1), i.e., the £40,000 for the special service battalion. I want here to express a feeling of gratitude to the Government for instituting this admirable and magnanimous scheme for the training and upbringing of 1.500 citizens, and offering an opportunity to 1.500 of our young citizens, who have left school and whose outlook for the future seems so black. There was a time when it was very easy to bring it home to every parent that he ought to have his child properly educated. Thousands of parents really exhausted themselves and got into a state of poor-whiteism in order to give their children an opportunity to have a proper education. The position is that in our country there are thousands of lads who have passed their matriculation, their B.A., and the B.Sc., for whom there is no opportunity in our industries, the public service, and the work of the Union to make a living in the present circumstances of the country. Here now we have an opportunity which the Government has created for the train ing of 1,500 young citizens, especially the children of needy parents, because the condition of selection of these candidates is express that they must be sons of parents who are not able to provide for them in life. These boys I understand will go to Roberts Heights and there they will receive a proper and guaranteed training under efficient officers. The boys will in future have the privilege to qualify themselves to be incorporated into the standing services of the country. I said in the past you could give your sons and daughters a proper education and it would then be a legacy for them to a certain extent. They could then go and work, but the industries to-day offer no living for the children any longer. Tn other directions we have had surpluses of produce in respect of which we had to pass quota Acts. We even had to pass a quota Act to forbid certain people streaming into the country, namely the immigration Quota Act. It seems to me that we will here again have to pass a quota Act because it seems that the positions in the police force, railways, prisons, etc., in future will be filled by the boys coming from this battalion. I want, however, to point out to the Minister that approximately 4,000 leave our schools annually who have passed the matriculation, and in view of the bad business in the country there is no work for those boys. Here a commencement has been made for which an amount of £40,000 is being voted. I welcome that beginning and congratulate the Government on this step because I understand that various positions will be filled up from this battalion. I went myself to investigate matters and found that the boys will not only receive good physical training there, but that they will also have strict discipline and that their spiritual welfare will also be looked after. The boys come chiefly from poor families, but I am certain that some of the best material that this country can produce will be found there to fill the positions. There will have, however, to be a quota Act because all these boys cannot be put into the battalion, not even all the sons of poor parents. I hope the boys are going to do their best there, and that they will become a great asset to the country. I think I must also bring to the notice of the Minister that annually 20 boys who must be matriculated get the opportunity to go there and train as officers in the permanent force, or to be emploved as cadet officers in the air force. About 1,400 boys applied this year for that position, that is a proof of how critical the position is for these young lads. But only 20 of the 1,400 boys can be taken on. They have to answer further questions on forms to be sent to them. They must be medically examined; this costs 10s. They must send in their birth certificates; this costs 5s. In addition they must go at their own expense by train to appear before the board in Pretoria. I know of certain cases where boys travelled over 500 miles by bicycle to attend a meeting of the board and after a few minutes they were instructed to return home by the first train. I calculate that about £4,000 to £5,000 has to be spent by needy parents in cash to get the boys before the military board. I hope this will be cut out in the future. We know what strain the boys in South Africa come from and we must not, therefore, put this kind of difficulty in their way. I got the assurance that in future those 20 boys would be selected out of this battalion. That is wrong. What about the other boys who have also studied with borrowed money and have applied to become cadet officers?

I would like to express my thanks to the Government for the establishment of this special service battalion. I think it will remove the worry of many a boy. I am sorry about the remarks of my hon. friend about the Minister of Defence. Let me tell him that from my knowledge of the Minister of Defence he has done everything he has undertaken in a competent way. I think it is very clear that the boys will not wear brown or red shirts there. Where it will be of great assistance is where the boys are unemployed. They will now be enabled to go to Roberts Heights and to receive a good training there. It must certainly be going well with Humansdorp because the hon. member says there is dissatisfaction. Let me assure the Government that in my constituency it is welcome. The only thing we feel sorry about is that instead of 1,500 boys the Government cannot provide for 5,000. That would have assisted many more boys. Many boys are walking about unemployed now. They go to the docks to look for work, but do not get it. They are ready to go to Roberts Heights, and even if they only get military training there it will, nevertheless, give them a good preparation for life. I hope the Government will still try this year to take more children there.

I just want to make a few remarks on the item, Subsidy for Civil Aviation, £10,000. I understand that the contract with Union Airways expires very shortly, and no doubt it will be renewed. I would suggest to the Minister that if that is so, it is desirable that there should be a clause in the contract, to the effect that British spares and engines should be used. It is certainly taking a risk that need not necessarily be taken, if we are dependent on foreign countries for our ’planes and spare parts. I hope the Minister will give that his consideration. It may be more important in future than at present.

We are all sorry for these young people who are compelled to join the battalion, but I want to put hon. members right who object so much to the battalion. Everybody who has to deal every day with the parents of young people who are out of work know how great their anxiety is, and they are quite prepared to send their sons there. There have been many requests to be employed in this service. The object is to teach the boys discipline and that is of great use. At present many of the boys are walking the streets and being ruined. I would like to give the Minister the assurance that the boys who have applied, with whom I have come in contact, are glad that they have the certainty of something being done for them, because they then have an opportunity later on of getting into the police force or some other section of the public service. Hon. members must understand that the object of the Minister is to get the boys off the streets so that they can become good citizens of the country. But I would like information from the Minister on one point. I find here that the cost for cadets is estimated at 5s. a year per man, while last year it was still 1s. 6d. To what is the increase due? I ask it particularly because we find that the grant to rifle associations has been reduced from 1s. 4d. to 1s. 3d. These rifle associations are of great importance, especially to the country population. I would like to know what the reason of this increase and decrease is. We know that amongst the mothers of our people there has of late come a feeling against the cadet system, and here we find now that the costs are not only increased but are four times as much as before. I would like to know what is the cause of these costs when the amount for rifle associations is being reduced, because all of us in the countryside feel that it is very important that rifle associations should be increased and our boys be taught to handle a rifle.

I wish to raise two points, one of which was raised by a previous speaker, namely, the establishment of a special service battalion. One realizes that this represents a well-meant effort on the part of the Government to provide at least temporary employment for certain boys who might otherwise be on the streets, but Juvenile Affairs Boards look upon the establishment of this battalion with certain misgivings. I personally do not share them, but I should be glad, and the country would be glad if the Minister would offer some explanation of what these battalions are, and what their intention is. It has been suggested that these boys may become militarised, and that this may imbue them with the military spirit. So far I agree with the hon. member, but I do not suspect the Minister of Bolshevik or Nazi leanings. On the other hand, the opinion has also been expressed by members of the Juvenile Affairs Boards that however well intended this scheme may be, it may serve the opposite purpose, in that boys are taken away for a year when they should be looking for work and at the end of the year they may be let loose, having lost twelve months in hunting for employment. That is an objection, too, which I think can be met but I should be very glad if the Minister would inform us upon this subject. The other point is in regard to the allowance of £500 to each of the Boy Scouts and the Voortrekkers. On the face of it, if this means exactly what it seems to mean it is an excellent move. These are magnificent bodies which do a great deal for the youth of this country by inculcating discipline and morality and sober and steady habits, but these are bodies that can only be managed by voluntary service, and I hope the Minister will assure us that these are to be entirely free grants which imply no interference with the conduct of their affairs.

I want to pursue the matter of the labour battalion. I understand the civil service is going to be largely recruited from this battalion. I think this is a very serious state of affairs indeed. You are going to eliminate immediately your best class of applicants for the civil service.

Where do you get that from!

The whole thing is wrapped in too much mystery. These are the suspicions people have. If the hon. member knows better he must have been let into the inner secrets.

But where do you get it from?

From the reports in the newspapers, and from the speech of the hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) a few minutes ago. It is a serious state of affairs if we are going to recruit the civil service from this source because you will immediately eliminate the better class of applicant, your thoughtful person, your university student and the man who has no time for mock heroics but who wants to work. Instead of having that thoughtful type in the civil service you will be building up a semi-military civil service, with the advantage that every junior clerk will be able to throw a tear bomb with commendable precision, but, on the other hand, you will eliminate the best class of people. The question arises whether a military training fits one for any other vocation in life. Very often we find that the military training makes a man unfit for a military vocation itself. We have great examples of that. If one reads books about the last great war, written by competent critics, one finds that hardly any of the generals on either side was really considered fit for his job. The Prime Minister, and the Minister of Justice, made a great success of war, but principally because they took it up as a side line. When they came opposite people with a military training, it was usually the people with the military training who ran away first. We, in South Africa, have had experience of taking military people into some department of our service. After 1922 a large number of ex-service men were taken into the police, and I think everyone will concede that the younger men who joined subsequently and had no military training were far superior, taking them all round, to the people who joined our police force, and who were ex-military service men. Then, if you are going to have a military battalion like this, there will have to be certain tests for the people who are admitted to it, and these are chiefly going to be tests of physical ability, not of mental ability—yes, boxers— and it will be interesting to speculate where these boxers could be most profitably used. The Acting Minister of Finance might be able to use some, very profitably, as tax collectors, or as a guard outside his door, when he next receives a deputation from the Chamber of Mines, they might be useful. As one of our great South Africans said, we must explore every avenue, and it will be interesting to see where this is going to lead us. I would like to know the exact amount of chest expansion required for a fifth-grade clerk in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs coming out of this battalion. No, we must get away from this Prussian idea. It proved a failure in Prussia, and it will be a much greater failure in South Africa, where we are a democratic State, and democratic principles are deeply ingrained in our national character. We have to get away from these tendencies which are foreign to our national outlook and to the accepted standards of the South African character. And if we are going to try and form our civil service into a semi-military body, then we are playing with something which is very dangerous and may lead to dire results.

The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has been dealing with a subject which has caused a good deal of concern to many people. I am sorry that on so serious a subject he should have thought it necessary to be humorous. Apparently the hon. member has so little realization of the great distress which prevails among our young fellows whom this battalion is meant to serve, that he treats it as a joke. If he had been in Pretoria during the last three months when a few applications were received from all over South Africa from young fellows who desired to enter the defence force, to find some way out of the difficulty in which they were as they could not earn any living at all, he would not have treated this subject so humorously and he would have re-considered the remarks which he made here. We have young fellows entering this battalion, men who have matriculated, young men of 20 and 21 who have made two or three applications to join in the defence department, young fellows who were gradually sinking lower and lower, with the hope of finding employment, getting less and less. Some of these young fellows in the intervening periods have been forced to take work on the roads with pick and shovel. If the hon. member had known of that, I take it that he would have welcomed this effort to uplift these fellows and to give them some hope in life. And I say that it is a very good thing for young fellows to have a certain amount of discipline instilled into them and some hon. members of this House would be all the better for it if they knew something about discipline. Apart from that it seems to me that it is not a question of trying to recruit for the public service. The object of this battalion is to give these young fellows some immediate work to relieve them from the distress in which they are. It teaches them a certain amount of discipline and it will be possible to recruit men from that battalion for the prison service and not necessarily for the ordinary departments of the civil service. The Government has taken this step of training these lads and of giving them decent discipline and I think that it is one of the best things that the Government could have done. I think that hon. members of this House would be far better advised to give their hearty support to this effort than to take up the attitude which the hon. member for Humansdorp has seen fit to adopt.

Mr. Hattingh, I am addressing you personally because of an incident which occured the other day in which I was one of the chief actors. The attitude which I adopted on that occasion appeared to reflect on you personally. I refer to the time when I protested at not being seen and I want to express my personal regrets to you if you thought that I slighted you. I apologise freely if you have that impression. And now I was delighted to hear the speech of the disciplinarian on the other side, the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock). It is very remarkable how fully prepared people are to see the other fellow disciplined. The hon. member over there is no exception to that rule. He lacks a considerable amount of discipline which he wants the other fellow to have. Does the hon. member really advance the contention that these boys are being taken into this battalion in order that they shall be relieved of unemployment? Then why are you not taking the whole lot, then why the limitation and why this physical test to which my hon. friend here (Mr. Sauer) has rightly referred in a humorous way. And referring to this question, occasionally a little humour does quite a lot of good. But I agree it is a serious question, very serious. Another hon. member was at pains to suggest that one of the objects of this special service battalion is that they can form the nucleus for training camps from which they can draw our future entrants into the public service. Do not both these hon. members who have spoken on this matter know that the educational requirements insisted upon for entry into this service battalion are standard six? A bright outlook it is for our public service if that is to be the standard of education to be insisted upon. My experience is that these lads are the children of parents who find it impossible to keep them at school; the parents find it necessary to send these children to work because they have to do it, they cannot keep their children at school any longer after standard six and the probability is that the vast majority of this battalion, I believe the number is to be 1,500 will not have obtained a higher educational standard than standard six. It is serious. The trade union movement of South Africa, is regarding it as remarkably serious especially in view of the fact that our economic life is in such a condition that it is quite possible that advantage may be taken of the present position to reduce the standard of living, and the trade union movement has a very shrewd suspicion that there is an ulterior object underlying the idea of forming this special service battalion and that object is to have a battalion ready in time of economic strife such as is not unknown in this country. The hon. Minister of Posts and Telegarphs shakes his head. Well, he is rather a youth on the Ministerial benches and he has so far been confined to the sacred groves of the Senate where they are not so very much in touch with everyday life and he does not understand what is likely to happen and what has happened. I can assure you that we have had a very painful experience of this sort of thing before, when youths were called out on the Reef to shoot down their relatives. Will any Minister give the trade union movement a definite assurance that in time of economic strife these lads will not be called out. Not one Minister gives that assurance, so there is ground for very grave suspicion. The Minister who incepted this scheme has gone across the seas to discuss, what to him, are bigger and graver problems. I do not know who is acting for him, for we have had so many acting Ministers that we do not know exactly who is who. However, I suppose there is some Minister acting for the Minister of Defence, and I would urge upon him to get into touch with the trade unions and to obtain an expression of opinion from them. The class from whom these lads are drawn are the very class who compose our trade unions, and these unions view this business with considerable alarm. I think the only branch of our public service which might draw on this special battalion is the police. My friends say, “Let them try.” One of the worst features of our police is the introduction of militarism. If the Minister in charge of this Vote were to go to London, and get into touch with the city and metropolitan police, he would find that they steadily set their faces against the military training for police. They say the police should be in touch with civil and not military life. If you militarise the police, you make it inefficient. The members of this special service battalion will be well disciplined. They are to be paid 1s. per day. True, they will get their food and quarters, but they will become accustomed to living on 1s. a day, so when they go back to civil life, they are not likely to put up the big fight which their brothers and fathers are likely to do for better working conditions.

I am very glad that the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has mentioned this matter to-night, because there is so much misunderstanding about this battalion, which is called by us the Pirow battalion. I, personally, welcome this with all my heart, and if the hon. members for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer), and Benoni (Mr. Madeley) will only undergo the training for a few hours one morning which the hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) and I have almost every day, then they will not talk wittily and humorously on this serious subject. We have to deal daily with hundreds of boys who have not enough food for a single day and who only see a dark future before them. I think that a better scheme has not yet been found, or could have been found. Let me just mention a few points why I am in favour of it. I hope the Government is not going to end at 1,500 boys. With the hundreds and hundreds of poor with whom we have to do, we always find that the man you can depend upon has been a fellow who was previously a soldier or a policeman, who possibly, through no fault of his own, finds himself in the position he is in to-day. I go further and say that the great curse of us Afrikaners to-day is that we lack discipline in all phases of life. I am, therefore, glad that I have the opportunity of just saying a few words about road making. If it depended on me not a single boy would be put to road making, for it is the most demoralizing work I have ever known. The boy who was clean when he was sent there comes back after six months as a drinker. Physical exercises to be gone through by the boys have been referred to. It breaks one’s heart to see how many boys who apply for a post in the police or in the defence force have to be rejected every year because they are physically unfit. One of the objects of this service is to feed the boys well, and to make them physically fit for their work once more. The Metropolitan police have been mentioned. How can we compare the Metropolitan police with the police force in South Africa, where we are surrounded by millions of natives I In South Africa the object of every father must be to see that his son can shoot well. I cannot see that we need be afraid of our boys becoming too militaristic in South Africa. Another great advantage of the special service battalion is that it once more creates hope in the hearts of the despondent youths that go there, because they are now going to be given a preference for appointments that are vacant in the police and defence forces. I understand that the training will be for at least six months, and during that time they can learn a lot. I say that our police force in South Africa is second to no police force in the world, and their course of training is only five months. The youths are going to have a training of six months, and then they are going to get the preference in the defence force and the police force. There are, therefore, honourable careers open to them, while to-day they have nothing but a dark future before them. A joke has also been made of the fact that the boys are only required to have the standard VI certificate to join up with the special battalion. I am an ex-commissioner of police, and in the old days we also only demanded standard VI, but we always had a good service. The great thing, however, is that the boys will learn discipline, and it is the discipline for which they will be thankful for the rest of their lives whatever their career may be. I say again that they will yet be very thankful to the Government. I want to give the South African party the credit that while they were in office a similar proposal was made when the conditions in South Africa were not, by a long way, as dark as they are to-day. Along with thousands of others I am particularly grateful to the Government for this step.

I only have to say that I feel I must be right in the remarks I have made in view of the offensive remarks the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) made in reply. One knows perfectly well that when the hon. member for Benoni is most offensive his opponents are probably correct. I want to ask the Minister what the reason was for disbanding the South African Engineering Corps, and I cannot find anything on the estimates in the way of gratuities for the men who have been dismissed. I should like to know who are undertaking the duties formerly undertaken by the members of that corps, and why gratuities were paid in the case of the men of the “Protea,” seeing that there is no provision at all for the payment of gratuities to the members of the Engineering Corps.

I should like to say a few words on the point brought forward by the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) with regard to civil aviation. Now that the contract is to be renewed, there is a very good opportunity of carrying out the suggestion of the hon. member that a stipulation should be made to ensure that the material used and the engines and spare parts, and so forth, should be from Britain or of British manufacture. I agree with the suggestion of the hon. member for three reasons. In the first place, because gifts of aeroplanes were made by Britain to South Africa some years ago, and it would be a graceful act of appreciation of those gifts. Secondly, it would be in the spirit of the Ottawa Conference, and thirdly, it would ensure the delivery of spare parts and machines as they are required, which, in view of the disturbed state of Europe, is very desirable.

I do not intend to follow the debate in all the aspects that have been brought up this afternoon, but there are certain points of importance which I had better deal with at this stage. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) gave a repetition of his speeches in the past in which he criticized the defence force. I can assure the hon. member that we, with our small population, are not behindhand as against any other country in respect of guns and small arms for the defence force. They are the same which are used by the British army. There are certain arms for which no standard has yet been fixed, but the Imperial army authorities have themselves not yet decided upon it, and if they introduce improvement into the British army we shall adopt their standard. The hon. member also said that our defence force was behindhand because we did not have sufficient motor transport available. During the world war we managed with the transport that we have here. We made use of the motor cars that were in the country and if it were necessary again to move our troops fast then the means of transport will also be available. We are not a rich country and if we were to buy motors then perhaps after one or two years something would be found to be better and all the expense would be useless. As the hon. member himself said, we live in a time when we do not expect a war. All the nations are trying to get disarmament, and a war which will be fought in the future will in any case not be conducted in the same manner as the world war, but it will mainly be a war in the air. The hon. member says that the number of the staff in our defence force has gone down, and that is just the reason that we have taken the step of training 1,500 young men. It will not stop at 1,500, but we shall probably try to get 1,500 every half year. There are, of course, amongst them boys with little education, but there are also boys who have been very well educated, and we can subsequently employ them in the police, the prison service, or the railways. I am certain, too, that the mines would prefer to employ disciplined men, and that private employers would give the preference to well-educated and disciplined young men. Some hon. members say that they have an objection to such a system because this is a democratic country, but democracy without discipline means nothing, and therefore I am strongly in favour of our introducing this system. The hon. member for East London also spoke about the subsidy which was being given to the Union Airways Company. The subsidy is a little higher this year and the reason they could not come out on the subsidy is that they wanted to get better aeroplanes so that the service would be still safer. We hope that as the service is still developing hon. members will not object to this subsidy. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Waterson) has again brought up the Protea. We have already heard so much about her that I think the House is already tired of the matter. This is a ship which did survey work along the coast, and she has practically nothing to do with defence. It was all survey work within three miles of our coast for the safety of shipping, and now it is represented to the committee as being one of the battleships of South Africa. The same work which was done by the Protea and which cost the State £33,000 a year is now done by the Africana which is lent for that purpose for six months in the year. The people trained on the Protea were not trained for the navy but for the merchant service. Why then such a great objection to the layingup of the ship when the State saves £30,000 a year by it? The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Baumann) expressed the hope that we would find work for those men. That is the intention of the Government. Further, a question was asked about the allowance to the voortrekkers and the boy scouts. We fecl that that is a movement where our children learn discipline. It has a good object and teaches the children to treat older people and authorities with respect. We want to encourage it and we give that grant for the purchase of equipment like tents and pots, etc. They are not given to them now and they could be allowed to do with them whatever they want. The two movements have to satisfy the Defence Department that the money is used for the object for which it is given. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) wanted to know why the engineers corps in Pretoria was abolished. That is work which really comes under the Department of Public Works and it has been brought under that department. Some of the officials were taken over and those for whom there was no room have been provided for in terms of the law, and they got the allowance due to them. Now I come to the remark of the hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen). He wants to know why the provision for the defence rifle associations has been reduced, although there is an increase in the case of the cadets. Let me say at once that the members of the rifle associations only meet now and then and then they shoot during the morning or afternoon for their pleasure and then go home. In the case of the cadets we want to make provision for three or four training camps and funds are required for the transport of the cadets to those camps. It is for this purpose that the allowance is required. I am glad that the hon. member for Kroonstad (Lt.-Col. Terreblanche) and the hon. member for Zwartruggens (Mr. Verster) and other hon. members who know what military training is and the value of it, appreciate the steps the Government is taking to employ 1,500 boys in this new division. They can speak from experience and I am therefore glad to see that they appreciate it and even ask that the division should be strengthened. The hon. member for Kroonstad also pointed out that boys who want to be trained as officers have to go to Roberts Heights and that they have to pay their travelling expenses back. I will bring this matter to the notice of the Minister to enquire if there is not an easier way. I feel that there is something in what the hon. member said. In connection with the insinuations of the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) about the Minister of Defence in connection with militarism, his journey to Germany and to Russia, as well as red shirts, I only want to say that I feel that it is beneath me to reply to him. I only hope that when the Minister of Defence is himself here the hon. member will repeat those insinuations and will make the same speech. I can congratulate him that he has the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) as a comrade.

The acting Minister of Defence must not get annoyed because of the criticisms which have been directed against this service battalion.

I am not annoyed.

Well, that glare in your eye was affected? The Minister said my hon. friend (Mr. Sauer) was making insinuations, but he himself in his remarks on this question abundantly proved the truth of the contentions we made. There were to be 1,500 in this battalion, then another 1,500, and then another 1,500, until the whole of the youth of this country is militarised. “Discipline” is the word. The Minister says he would like to see them disciplined, and the mines would prefer to sec them disciplined. Shopkeepers like the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) would like them disciplined. What they mean is a subservient body. Sap their independence. That is what is underlying the whole thing. My hon. friend (Mr. Sauer) was perfectly correct, and I congratulate him on having brought this matter up to public attention in the House. You cannot dismiss it in the manner you are trying to do. Making a direct charge is not insinuation. The whole object is to militarise the youth of the nation, and make them willing to obey—to obey their employers, whoever they are. But I must say that in all this condemnation of the Minister and the Ministry I am happy to be able to sound a note of congratulation. I congratulate them upon having renewed this contract with Union Airways and upon having increased the subsidy, because Union Airways has unquestionably blazed the trail of civil aviation in South Africa. My hon. friend expressed the hope, supporting the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) that we should insist upon the machines being bought from Britain or being British-made. I will go further than that and I will say it is infinitely better that we should manufacture these machines in this country ourselves. Do not say it is impossible, because we have already had very fine examples of our ability in that direction in the turning out of certain airplanes at our R.A.F. workshops at Pretoria. I want to pay a tribute to the controllers of those workshops and it would do hon. members a great deal of good if they would go through those workshops and see how magnificently they are equipped and how they can cope with any aspect of the making or repairing of airplanes. There is a more important thing still, that we should insist that all our contracts and subsidies should carry with them the obligation to employ South African personnel. I do not hear the cheers now. There are cheers when one talks about British-made planes but none when one urges that South African personnel should be employed to the exclusion of all others, which is not being done to-day. We are giving £400,000 spread over five years to the Imperial Airways for trans-continental communications. We are not getting very much benefit from that. A certain wealthy section who can afford to pay £250 to go to England have an opportunity of doing so as a result of our giving £400.000 for foreign machines and foreign people to come here—whether they come from Britain or anywhere else they are foreign to South Africa—and in fact the whole of the staff has been imported from abroad. There is not one single qualified engineer or pilot—no, there are two qualified pilots who were originally South African—but all the engineering staff and even some of the passage selling agents are imported from abroad. That is a blot on our national escutcheon. We are at the beginning of civil aviation in South Africa, let us start it in the right way. The acting Minister of Defence is drawing upon our unemployed youths and making a special service battalion—it is going to be a special service brigade apparently—in order to ease the unemployment situation, and yet you have pilots, ground engineers and everybody else acquainted with aviation walking the streets of South Africa and unable to get a job. They are highly qualified people who put South Africa on the aviation map and I want to urge this on the attention of the Minister. Turn your attention a little in this direction and see that only South African personnel are employed by any contracting company, including Imperial Airways, who are pursuing civil aviation in South Africa, and if we turn our attention in that direction we shall be doing more for South Africa than by merely buying British-made machines. I am not jibbing at that, not for a moment, but I would rather make our machines here and rather have our own young South Africans employed in civil aviation. There is one other point I want to make and that is that in my opinion it is a mistake, it is another instance of our militarisation, to have civil aviation controlled by the military authorities. I will not pursue that, I merely state it. The House will realise the importance of the point I am making. Another point is this, that we have a very fine engineering staff in South Africa but they have to go abroad, either to Germany or to Britain, in order to get the highest ground engineer’s certificate and navigation certificate. You have opportunities in your workshops and aerodrome at Pretoria to give the necessary training for both certificates, and I would urge the Minister to turn his attention to these two matters, first of all to remove the control from the military side and have aviation civilly controlled and, secondlly, make it possible for training to be given in our workshops in Pretoria in order that our men may obtain the necessary certificates without having to go overseas.

The hon. member for Wonderboom (Dr. van Broekhuizen) and the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) are quite wrong if they think I am opposed to these boys being employed. On the contrary, I am very glad of it, but I am only afraid that they will be employed in a way which will be of no service to them. If, indeed, they are taken on in the permanent defence force, I have no objection to it. My difficulty, however, is this: that the boys are now getting a military training there, and they are entering a service for which they are not fitted, or if they are not employed in it, they are thrown on the street again, and have to walk about again looking for work, because they have not been trained for any kind of work. That is my objection. As for the acting Minister of Defence, I will give him the following assurance: that I will put the questions the public are asking, and if they are not answered, and if they pursue the direction which I fear, and I think bis fellow members in the Cabinet fear, I will most certainly put those same questions to the Minister of Defence when he comes back from abroad. I want to put the questions very briefly to the Minister. My first question is: what is the maximum time of service in the battalion? The fellows have to stop there six months, but what is the longest time for which they will be employed? My second question is: is there a reserve? After the fellows leave the service, are they put into a kind of reserve from which they can at any time be recalled to the mother corps? What is the position in connection with this reserve? My third question is: how much military training will the fellows get there? Will they get full military training or only a part? Fourthly, I want to know what kind of work they will do there? What work will be given to them? Are they going to make streets, build roads, or bridges, or what are they going to do? My fifth question is how far is the citizen force going to be recruited from this service? At present the object is very vague. I really see a danger in it. Or are those people going to become warders or constables? If I were certain that those persons would be appointed as prison warders and possibly also as policemen, I should be glad. In that matter, however, I agree with the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) that you do not want a military police service? If that is so, then I shall not be afraid, but I am afraid that a precedent is going to be created here which will make it very difficult for us later on. The sixth question I want to ask is this: if two people apply for a position in the public service and one of them was in this battalion, will he be preferred over the other? This is a very serious question, and I would like to have a reply to it. The position is that we are going to get certain persons, who do not like this kind of military service, these persons are mentally well equipped.

But they are bad citizens.

Are they bad citizens because they have a better head than the other man?

No, because they do not want to serve their country.

No, they can serve their country better, but not as militarists, and now they have to yield place to the man who has a military training. This is not a joke, that class of man wants to know whether he is going to get the same advantages as one who has served in the battalion. I put the question quite seriously, there are thousands of people in the country who, like me, are suspicious, and if the Minister will answer the question, it will assist a great deal to remove the suspicion and give satisfaction.

Inasmuch as the hon. member has now adopted a more reasonable attitude, I will answer the question. In the first place, I want to invite the hon. member to go to Pretoria—he has a free railway pass— and to go and look for himself. Then I come to the appointments in the public service. They are made by a commission, and the Government are not going to instruct them to appoint A or B or a man who is in the battalion. But the police and certain other services are outside of the Public Service Commission, and the Government has the right of employing those people. The hon. member need not, therefore, be afraid that those people will be engaged if they are not competent. They will be engaged on their merits. Then the hon. member asks what work they are going to do, whether it will be military work. Yes, they will do absolute military service and physical exercises to make them healthy and strong in future. Then the hon. member asks whether they would be called up later on when they were possibly employed or had gone back to their parents, and whether they would in that way be joined up with a unit. Yes, they will be attached to a unit, and if it is necessary it will be possible to call them up, just like the young people who have to attend the cadet camps who are also attached to a unit. The maximum time of their service is six months, but it is quite possible that the Minister will extend it to twelve months. We hope that the people will be able, as far as possible, to get through the service in six months and will find work, but if they cannot find work they will remain twelve months in the camp.

What are the requirements for admission?

At least standard VI, and an age of 17 to 21 years. As regards health, they must comply with the stipulations for admission to the police force or defence force. If they want to join up they must apply to the police on an application form from which it will be seen whether they comply with the requirements. If there are many applications a quota will be fixed by the Minister of Labour according to the number of applications for each district. In districts where there is an extraordinary amount of unemployment a larger quota will possibly be given.

Who is the member of the police force who will fix the size of the quota?

The commandant of police of the district or otherwise an official who fills a similar position.

I would like to ask the Minister this. The Minister says there will be a reserve battalion and these men will be placed on the reserve and can be called up at any time. Supposing they are at work, can they be called up then? Can the Minister give us and the trade unions an undertaking that they will not be used to break a strike?

No, I am not prepared to give that undertaking, because every citizen of the country must do his duty when called upon to do so.

What is his duty?

Whether he is a policeman, or a soldier, or an ordinary citizen, if he is called upon, he has to do his duty. So far as a man who is employed is concerned, surely we shall not call upon that man unless he is called out under the defence force regulations, under which the person who employs him is compelled to give him so many days’ leave to undergo his training.

We should like to have a definition of the word “duty”, The Minister says that any member of the defence force, any citizen, or anybody else has to obey the call to do his duty. What is meant by that? To break a strike—is that his duty? It is very interesting to hear that. When they go to the country, which I hope will not be very long, they will have to convince the people of the country that it is by way of doing their duty that men should be called up, in order to break a strike. I always understood that the very reason why the Nationalist party first came into power was because they took up the cudgels on behalf of these people who objected to the defence force and the police being called up to break a strike. One has very interesting recollections of the speeches that were made by the acting Minister of Defence, by the Minister of Railways, and by other Ministers too in regard to the 1922 strike, and it was because Ministers made those speeches, and because of the action they took on those occasions that they got into power. There is no question about that. But now that they are in power, they are quite prepared to use these young fellows who are being got into this battalion on false pretences, and because of their distress, and because of the abnormal economic circumstances—they are quite prepared to use them to break strikes because it is their duty—heaven save the word.

We have had several strikes in the Union since 1924, and we have never called out the defence force or the citizens’ force.

You called out the police, and you deported the leaders of the girls’ strike in Germiston.

If the circumstances of the country are of such a nature that they are going to upset law and order, then I think it is the duty of the Government to step in, and I can only say that that is a question for the Government to decide when a thing like that happens—and I hope it will never occur again.

Does the Minister think that they were doing their duty when they were called out in 1914?

I cannot allow a discussion on that.

I am trying to get at what the Minister regards as “duty”. I want a definition of what he means by that word, and by a policy of questioning him I hope to arrive at the kernel of the nut, not the colonel of the battalion. Were the defence force doing their duty when they were called out to hound down certain people during the Rand rebellion? Were they doing their duty in 1913 and 1922 when they were called out, always to break a strike? These are the disciplinarians. The leaven has made the bread rise, and association has borne fruit. They have made the acting Minister of Defence realize how necessary it is to have discipline, how necessary it is to have militarism, and to call these people out to do their duty in times of strife. The public will know what to do when that time arrives.

I did not intend to speak but the Minister has drawn me out. He said that there would be a quota fixed for each district. I want to ask him to make the quota for my district as high as possible. It is a very popular thing in my district. There are numbers of boys who have passed out of school and who have nothing to do and everyone of them wants to apply. I have had to sign testimonials until my arm was tired. Another reason why I ask that the quota for my district should be put high is that we in that part of the Free State are disappointed that the amount for defence is being reduced every year. The grown-up people and even the boys are accustomed to wapenschouws and free cartridges every year and those things are being curtailed. It was a privilege to the grown-up people and boys to get a little military training, and it was good for the morale of our young people and our nation. I can assure the committee that this service battalion is very popular in the eastern parts of the Free State on the countryside. Those who do not want it need not ask the Minister for any quota. I hope that my constituency will get double.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 24, “Agriculture,” £715,365,

The administrative and overhead charges in connection with the dairy industry seem to me to have advanced out of all proportion to the benefits which have accrued to that industry. In fact, I think the direct opposite is the case. In proportion as the administrative costs have gone up, so have the benefits dwindled and waned. In February last, when the Minister noted that the Dairy Control Act had been an unqualified success, that statement was endorsed by a member who, at that time, sat on this side of the House, and who has since then found a seat on the Dairy Control Board. As we all know, the whole object of this legislation and the establishment of export quotas is to stabilize our dairy market. What I object to is the method of determining that quota. I wish to indicate one or two points which seem to me to be in disagreement with the Minister’s statement that the Act is an unqualified success. The method of determining the quota is wrong. That quota is always determined on the previous year’s output. In this country seasons vary. You have one good year; the next is often a lean one, and it is wrong in assessing the quota for any year to base it on the previous year, which may have been a totally dissimilar one. I mentioned this to the Secretary for Agriculture at the time, and pointed out how wrong and fallacious this policy was. It inevitably happens that during a lean year, we have a quota which is out of all proportion to the output of that year, for the simple reason that I have mentioned. He told me that there was no other satisfactory method of arriving at a quota. The Dairy Control Board had, in fact, pooled their intelligence, and that was the best they could bring forth. I would like to give an instance as to what happened to illustrate my point more strongly. Two years ago the New England Dairy Company had an exceedingly bad year. The output was only half of the normal output, and it was ordered that year to export half of its inadequate output of cheese to be sold in London, where it realised less than 3d. a lb. nett, whilst the company’s local customers and others were unable to secure the cheese they so badly needed, and for which they were always ready to pay from 10d. to 11d. It would have been better if, instead of exporting half of that cheese, an attempt had been made to supply the local market at a reduced average rate. It would have been better if that had been done. There is another point to which I wish to refer. On Friday last the Minister replied to certain questions. He was asked up to what date the Dairy Industry Control Board fixed the quantity of butter to be exported by the several dairy companies in the Union and adjoining territories which are subject to the export quota provisions of the Dairy Industry Control Act—as follows—

In his reply to question (3) the Minister said—

In spite of the fact that the New England Dairy Company did not produce any butter during the year, and in spite of the fact that the Dairy Control Board had full knowledge of that fact, they insisted upon the New England Dairy Company exporting their quota, and they actually went so far as to purchase the quota and informed the chairman of the New England Dairy Company that they had done so and demanded payment for it. [Time limit.]

I would like to ask the Minister if there is any truth in the rumours that the Government intends to give the right to the central co-operative agency to import maize. I understand the Government intends to give the right to import 500,000 bags. If that is so, I, as a representative of a maize district, will deplore it very much, because it will mean that the price of maize will at once drop from 1s. to 1s. 6d. a bag. Owing to the over-production the maize farmers had to sell their maize at cost of production during the past three years, and this year, when there is, as it were, a deficit, they would be able to make up the loss in the past once more. I see from the returns that about 9,200,000 bags are expected this year, and then I understand that there are still about 1,200,000 bags of surplus maize from last year, or a total of about 11,000,000 bags. I know that the consumption per annum is about 12,000,000 bags, and as the price of sheep and stock has dropped so much, I do not believe that the people who in the past fed their stock with maize will buy maize again with the price of stock so low, so that the 11,000,000 bags will probably be entirely sufficient for the home consumption. If the Government really intends to allow the importation of maize, we, as representatives of maize districts, will have to face the music. I would like to ask the Minister if it is at all possible not to allow the central agency to import maize. It may be said that the co-operative societies are not able to deliver the maize, but the question in my mind is whether the members of the societies have been consulted in connection with the matter. I think that if that has been done they will probably say that they are able to deliver the maize which is short in the contracts with the mines. This is a very serious matter for the maize farmers, and one to which the Government must give very serious attention. The maize farmers are getting an opportunity this year to make up a little of what they have lost, but the importation would mean the immediate drop of the price by 1s. or 1s. 6d a hag.

I was referring when I spoke last to the demand made upon the New England Dairy Company. They have not paid yet, and the matter stands in abeyance. But a smaller dairy than the New England one has been placed in exactly the same position. This is a dairy just across the border in the Wodehouse division. In that case they had not made a pound of butter for about a year, but a quota was placed upon them, and they had to pay, and did so. If the Minister will allow me, I would like to read what the chairman of the New England Dairy Company had to say in regard to this matter. It was at a meeting of the company, held about two months ago. He said (addressing the meeting)—

Then he gives a list which I will not read of the payments made by the New England Dairy Company, and he goes on to state—

He wrote to the secretary of the Dairy Control Board, and this is the reply which came at the end of last month—

Sir,—I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of yours of the 23rd ultimo on the subject of your butter quota for January. As the accounts sales of the butter exported on your behalf have not yet arrived from London and in view of the deputation which wants to meet my board at its next meeting. I will hold over any claim for loss on export until the board has met. I would like to point out, however, that there is very little hope of the board standing the loss of the butter exported on your behalf.

The Minister told us that why the New England Dairy Company had not exported was because they had made no butter. According to this letter they have bought the export quota and actually sent it away, and there is no hope held out of releasing us from the obligation of having to pay for it. Is not this in direct conflict with the statement the Minister made when he said that dairy control legislation or the Dairy Control Board was an unqualified success. I have mentioned only one or two instances here. This letter from the manager of the New England Dairy Company instances what is happening all over the country, and we know of various other cases where applications have been made to start small dairies, and these have been turned down. With regard to the New England Dairy Company, all the shareholders of that company are milk suppliers, and have not been concerned with dividends. The idea was when we started 20 years ago to provide a market for the milk which was being wasted at the time the New England Dairy Company came into existence. We started in a small way, and developed, and formed several branches in different parts of the country in order to enable the farmers to dispose of their milk. Now we are gradually being forced from that position, and the farmers, as has been pointed out in this letter, have no hope by transporting their milk for long distances. I want to emphasize and to urge on the attention of the Minister the fact that unless we have a more sympathetic administration in regard to our small up-country dairies we are going to impose an unbearable hardship upon them. [Time limit.]

I want to bring a request of the very greatest importance to the attention of the Minister, it is in connection with the dairy industry. It is not only the complaint of the townsman, the consumer today, but also of the producer that there is too great a difference between the price the producer gets and the price the consumer has to pay. The Dairy Board cannot be held responsible in the least for this position. When in 1929 the Dairy Act was passed only 1,500,000 lbs. of farm butter was produced, but owing to a flaw in the Act the production of farm butter increased to 14,000,000 lbs. The Dairy Board had no control at all over that farm butter, with the result that the dairy industry had to export large quantities of butter in order to create a local market for the farm butter. The subsidy which the Dairy Board accordingly had available was not sufficient to cover the loss on butter which was exported. Our butter only fetches 8½d. on the London market, while the price here is about 13½d. The difference between the price of the consumer and the producer is about 80 per cent. We experience an inconvenient position in respect of which the Dairy Board can do nothing. It can only compel the manufacturer to export in order to maintain the local market, with the result that much more farm butter is produced than ever before. I fear that if the Minister does not give attention to this matter the Dairy Board will no longer justify its position within three years. That will happen for the simple reason that the greatest part of the production will then be removed from the control of the Dairy Board. The result will be this. I want, with the greatest emphasis, to urge the Minister to go into the matter immediately. He must realize that there are thousands and thousands of farmers who, even in these bad times, regard their cream production as their only income. As the Dairy Board exists and is exporting, they could still get 13d. for first-grade cream. For this reason I think the Minister should meet this great industry by laying down that all butter must come under the control of the Dairy Board, then the board will have an opportunity of justifying its existence. If that is not done, within three years the board will not be able to justify its existence. We are grateful for what has already been done under the Dairy Act, but if there is no change we feel that the continuance of the industry is threatened. If the board can no longer justify its existence, if it no longer can see to it, as was done last year, that the 6,000,000 lbs. of butter is exported, then our own market will be flooded, and the dairy farmer will be ruined. This is a very important matter and I would like in all seriousness to ask the Minister to meet this great industry so that the dairy industry can at least continue to exist in the near future and the Dairy Board justify its existence.

I did not think I should again have to broach the question of bringing down the costs of production in regard to agriculture, but I feel it is a most vital question and I am mentioning it now because I realize that unless I do so, nothing will be done until next session. I am going to keep on hammering away at this subject because I feel it is the root cause of all our agricultural troubles in South Africa. We have got to bring down the cost of production. We are beginning to realize that the agricultural industry is in a very bad way indeed. That is shown by the fact that year after year our agricultural community are coming to the Government for assistance and they are coming with bigger demands on each occasion. I think we realize that there are many outside contributory causes such as the depression, the world fall in prices and various other factors, but nevertheless, we must put our own house in order. How are we going to do this? It is a very difficult problem and it will take many years perhaps to find a satisfactory solution, but we are not going to find it so long as we sit still and allow things to continue as they are at present. I would like to appeal to the Minister of Agriculture to make provision for appointing at least one commission and, if possible, two, the first to enquire solely into ways and means of bringing down costs of production in agriculture, and the second to enquire into the marketing of our goods not only overseas but in South Africa. We have sadly neglected our markets in this country, and I am quite certain that if steps are taken it will be found that there is a very much larger outlet for our goods in South Africa provided they are marketed in the proper manner. With regard to costs of production, there are many ways in which these might be brought down. I do not intend to traverse the various branches of agriculture, but I might cite a few instances in the fruit trade alone, which will go to prove that what I say is correct. If we take some of the citrus grown in the Transvaal we find that the average production per tree of 10 or 12 years of age is somewhere in the neighbourhood of one and a half cases of oranges. In California, from trees of the same age, we find the production is actually five or six cases per tree. What is the reason for that? Is it because our soil is so much more deficient? I do not think so. In California they lack nitrogen, in South Africa we lack phosphates. It has been proved successfully that upon the application of these fertilizers the productivity of an orchard can be largely increased. We also lack a correct system of keeping tree records which is the only business way of getting down to it. Over a period of years one will find that the average production of an orchard is so many cases per tree. You then eliminate all those trees which fall below that average and breed up your trees as you would breed up your cattle. A successful dairyman keeps a record of his milk production, and he eliminates cows that are unproductive. Year after year we waste. We waste in our fertilizing, in the application of water, and in spraying, simply because we are not producing the quantity per tree or yield per acre that we should get. These problems will have to be considered very carefully. I realize that our Agricultural Department has done very good work in this direction, but that it has limited funds at its disposal and for that reason it has not perhaps been able to do as much as one would like. But I do believe that if this commission could be appointed and could go thoroughly into the matter, ways and means could be found for the reduction of our costs of production. With regard to our markets, we have to endeavour to improve the quality of the goods which we grow not only for South Africa, but particularly for overseas and for London specially. Although our export regulations covering fruit have been drawn up with a view to sending only good quality fruit overseas, there are so many loopholes that at present we are not maintaining the high standard which we set ourselves in the past. If necessary, we should even try to improve the standard already laid down, because we are finding it is an uneconomical proposition to send over the quantities of inferior fruit that we are sending now. I hope the Minister will seriously consider the appointment of this commission. I would also like him to consider the question of introducing the American farm bureau system, of which I have already spoken. The Minister informs me that a similar system, in effect, exists in South Africa in as much as the South African farmers’ associations and unions correspond to a large extent to the American farm bureau system. One of the first things I noticed was that the demonstration train which did a great deal of extension work was withdrawn in 1931, and since then very little extension work has been done. I think that the system which we have in this country of farmers’ associations and of agricultural schools sending out officers cannot be compared with the American system, which is far superior to my mind. I hope that the Government will consider this matter when next it makes provision in the estimates.

I would like to bring a few points to the notice of the Minister. It is done at the request of the South Western Agricultural Union. I want to bring the following resolutions before the Minister and to ask him to give his attention to them. The first resolution is the following taken at the congress of the South Western Districts Agricultural Union at Mossel Bay on the 13th of April, 1933—

The South Western Agricultural Union discussed the matter and decided to ask the Government to bring the extension officer who is now settled at Knysna nearer to a more central place like George because he is too far away. Another difficulty is in connection with the mountain fires. These cause great damage to the farmers and villagers with regard to the water supply and grazing. They, therefore, ask whether more strict supervision cannot be maintained over the mountain fires, possibly with the assistance of the police. The Minister of Agriculture is asked to give his serious attention to the matter to see if it is not possible to make provision for the prevention of mountain fires. These careless mountain fires may become a national evil.

I think the matter which was raised here a few days ago for maize to be sold through one channel cannot be better justified than by the present position in connection with the price of maize. Some time ago when maize was 3s. 6d. a bag the advance was fixed for the co-operative societies at 5s. a bag. The farmers belonging to the co-operative societies urge that the advance was not sufficient and the position would now be that the farmers will be forced to be dishonest. You now have the position that the one person who belonged to the society got 5s. a bag, while his neighbour got 8s. 6d. a bag. Everyone knew that there was going to be a shortage of maize. The prices rose and I believe they are to-day up to 11s. The farmers who belong to the societies therefore refuse to deliver their maize for such an inadequate advance, and it is chiefly owing to this refusal that the price of maize is being forced up. The speculators know that there is a shortage of maize and that there would be little second-grade maize in the country. When that become known it was natural for the price of maize to go up. This means that, while members of the societies only get 5s. a bag, it is a fact that farmers who remained outside the societies are having their prices forced up. The people outside the societies are now getting more, while those bound by the societies are only getting 5s. It was known that the central agency a few years ago entered into a contract with the mines to sell them a certain quantity of second-grade maize this season at 10s. 3d. a bag. That contract now has to be carried out, and the mines have to get delivery of the maize, but the farmers refuse to give their maize to the central agency, which will therefore not have the maize to give to the mines. The position will then be that the mines will have the right to buy maize at whatever price they can get it, and they will have an action against the central agency which will then have to pay the difference between the 10s. 3d. and the prices the mines have to pay for the maize. The members of the societies, however, also have a good case. It is expecting too much of the co-operative societies, when the whole country knows that there is a shortage of maize, for them to be satisfied at present with 5s. If the whole maize harvest were controlled through one channel and provision made for the whole farming population that they should sell their maize harvest through one body, the contract could have been carried out as it was entered into at a price which previously, when prices were generally low, was very good. If the farmers had to sell their maize through one channel the price could have been maintained, and the farmers would have received higher prices generally for their maize. The general higher prices would then have gone to all farmers. Now the farmers in the co-operative societies are keeping up the prices for the others who are outside of the societies. In all these matters the unfortunate Minister of Agriculture is in a very difficult position, he must try to please everybody, and will, in the first place, be blamed by the farmers who belong to the societies because the advance on maize is not increased, while the prices of maize have risen. If he were to import maize, the speculators will want to kill him because they bought in the maize at certain prices in the hope of disposing of them at higher prices. If maize is imported they (the speculators) as well as farmers outside the societies will lose on the maize they have bought in and held with the idea that they would have the privilege of supplying the mines with the maize which the central agency ought to have delivered to them. The members of the co-operative societies will blame him for the Land Bank’s refusal to advance more than 5s. The position which is thus developing is the strongest proof that the position of the maize farmers will not be saved before the establishment of one channel for the sale of maize. There will be a great deal of blame of the Minister, but I still think that an attempt can be made to satisfy the people, and that is by giving a higher advance especially as it is necessary to carry out the contract with the mines. If the farmers had got a higher advance on their maize it would not have been necessary now to import 400,000 bags. The danger of a loss is very small. It is of the greatest importance that co-operative societies should be put on a sound basis, because if they are left in their present position and cannot develop I have not the least doubt that it will mean their death. The members will resign, the co-operative societies will break up, and it will take a long time to build them up again. I want to ask the Minister to do everything in his power to prevent this by giving a bigger advance.

I want to associate myself with the previous speaker because I also think that if the advances to the co-operative societies are not increased it will involve them in damage in many respects. J would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the unsatisfactory state of our markets in the big towns. The expenses of the market facilities are very high, while the prices are all too frequently unsatisfactory. But as there happens to be the commission, which the Minister of the Interior has appointed to enquire into the provincial affairs, I want to ask the Minister if it is not possible for the commission also to enquire into the matter of our markets. I ask this because year after year there is the same complaint that the farmers feel that they are not being properly treated. The commission they have to pay is too high, and the price is so low and the attention which is given to the produce which is sold by them is not sufficient. The farmers complain that if, e.g., a man sends 14 or 15 bags of wheat to the market and a first bid is made, the whole lot is immediately given away for the same price, while the farmer is helpless. That surely does not do. As the expense is being incurred to allow the commission to make enquiries, I think it could possibly be given instructions to investigate the question of the market as well. Then in respect of the foreign markets, I am pleased to be able to say that the present Minister of Agriculture has hitherto always done his best to find markets for the farmers abroad, but our interests can only be looked after by a good organization and I would like to ask the Minister to give his particular attention to a market for meat. We need it very badly, but we shall only be able to compete if we have a first-class organization because the other countries we have to compete with have built up a very good organization. I would therefore like to ask the Minister what our organization in this connection is. If we have a market for our meat, a market is also created for our maize, because the people can then feed the stock which are to be exported with maize. For that purpose cold storage will be necessary and the farmers will also need to have preference on the ships with the cold storage accommodation. We shall have to deliver regularly, and for that purpose a complete cold storage system will have to be created. I would just like to know what the Minister intends to do in this direction.

I would just like to say a word of deep gratitude to the late Secretary for Agriculture, Col. Williams. Col. Williams has served the country faithfully for more than 40 years and he has more than any official given satisfaction to the Governments and the Ministers. He has shown the country a great service, but unfortunately his health of late has not been so good in consequence of an operation to his eye. I felt it would be criminal to retain his services when the work was so very heavy, and I then discussed the matter with him. He then voluntarily decided to go on pension a year too soon. I would like again to express the thanks of the Government and of myself for the outstanding work he has done. His place will be taken by Dr. Viljoen and I do not doubt he will give the same satisfaction as his predecessor. Those who have already come into touch with him are certainly convinced that we have the right man in the right place. A very important matter has been raised by the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. S. P. Bekker) and the hon. member for Zwartruggens (Mr. Verster). It is in connection with maize and however we may deal with the matter we shall be criticized. There is a shortage this year in maize and the central agency approached me because they thought that they could not fulfil their contract. Firstly, because there was not sufficient second-grade maize to deliver and, secondly, because many members of the cooperative societies were not fulfilling their obligations and were selling outside of the societies. The result is that the mines are buying maize outside the co-operative societies at the cost of the co-operative societies, and the latter are being held responsible for the difference in price paid, and the price according to the contract with the mines. There is no doubt that it was a very advantageous contract, but this year now that there is a shortage the agency would like to escape from the obligations under the contract. We must, however, remember that it is a contract, whether it is entered into by a farmer, a business man, or the State, and it must be fulfilled. I told the central agency that they must clearly understand that I could permit no importation of maize unless they could convince me that it was necessary. I cannot put the position better than by reading the letter which I have received in connection with it. The letter is a little long, but it puts the position so well that I want to read it to the House—

Dear Sir,—With reference to your letter No. C.T. 64, and your subsequent telegram No. T. 80, in regard to the request by this agency to be permitted to import maize from Rhodesia in connection with the contract for the supply of maize to the mines, I now beg to submit a formal application, as required by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture.

The position is that this agency, as is known to you, entered into a contract for the supply of maize to the mines for a period of three years, expiring on the 30th June, 1934. The maize to be supplied is grade two white flat, and the price is 10s. 3d., delivered at stations or sidings as indicated by the respective mines. All costs in connection therewith must be borne by the central agency.

As you are aware, there is a short crop of maize this season, the official estimate places it at 9,550,000 bags. The original estimate of maize of this required grade produced by farmers who are members of the societies affiliated to the central agency, was 400,000 bags, and, as the contract with the mines provides for the supply of 750,000 bags per annum, it will be seen that, even if the expectations of members’ societies delivering the whole of their production were fully realized, there would still be a considerable shortfall on the mines contract. But the position has been made much more serious, owing to the defection of co-operative maize growers which has been brought about by the low figure of the Land Bank advance and the rise in maize prices, which has recently taken place. The various societies constituting the central agency were circularized within the last few days, after the Land Bank advance had become known, with a view to ascertaining what supplies would be available from them. Without exception, they replied to the effect that they are totally unable to offer any opinion as to the quantity of maize of the required grade, which members would deliver to them, and all expect wholesale defaulting by members. As indicated in my telegram to the Minister, the most optimistic estimate of the maize which will be delivered to the agency, is 200,000 bags of grade 2, but various officials of the societies, whom the agency has consulted in the matter, incline to the opinion that this is too high, and that the quantity is more likely to be nearer 100,000 bags. The response has been most disappointing, and the agency is faced with the certainty of the non-fulfilment of its obligations to the mines. If the agency were to come into the market and buy some 400,000 bags of maize, it would have the effect of immediately forcing up the prices, as a great deal of maize must be held by speculators who have been buying forward heavily in anticipation of the shortage. Further, it would immediately put a premium on disloyalty, as the agency would undoubtedly be buying its own members’ maize.

Your attention has no doubt been directed to the reports in the press to the effect that a buying ring has been formed in Johannesburg, with a view to buying up maize and holding it against the demand of farmers who are faced with the drought and the poor condition of their stock, and who on that account will be compelled to buy, but this will be a small matter when compared with the position which the market will take when it became known that the central agency is in the market to buy supplies to meet the mines contract. That contract provides for penalties, which will undoubtedly be enforced, as the mines will have no option in the matter, in order to supply their labour with food. These clauses provide that, quite apart from the question of an action for damages, etc., the mines are entitled, in the event of failure to supply, to purchase maize of the required grade in the open market for its requirements, and to recover any excess costs thereby occasioned, from the agency.

It will be obvious that, with so small a quantity of maize in sight, the purchasing of the deficit in the open market, resulting from the failure of the agency to supply the maize, would entail the liquidation of that body, as its assets, both liquid and illiquid, bear no proportion to the amount which would be involved in the event of its default in the contract. There would be no other course possible, because unfortunately the agency, as the contractor, has a hold upon its members only in so far as the maize is delivered to them by their individual members. If members fail to deliver, or if, as is the case with one society, who has decided not to handle maize this season, the agency has no recourse upon such society, except in respect or unpaid calls upon the shares of the agency held by it, a comparatively small amount.

I think it will be clear from the above that the agency is going to be faced, without doubt, with a very great shortage, while it is also out of the question for it to attempt, with any hope of success, to buy such deficiency in the open market. Buying in the open market will, it is admitted, have to take place to a certain extent, as it is doubtful whether the maize to be obtained from Rhodesia will entirely supply the lacking quantity. This cannot be foreseen at the moment. If buying, however, does take place, it will be done cautiously, and the agency will not appear in the matter.

My board is sanguine that, if importation from Rhodesia is permitted, even if prices in the local market are high, we will be able to cover any increase in the cost of supplies locally purchased by the profit which will be made on Rhodesian maize, so that from a business point of view the proposal is a sound one.

When the board of the central agency considered the matter, and the question of importation from Rhodesia came up for discussion, it was fully realized by all members that this was a very serious step to take, and that the Government would have to weigh the matter very carefully in the balance before deciding. It was also realized that from certain quarters there would be a great deal of adverse criticism, both of the Government and of the central agency, as pointed out in your letter under reply. The board, while fully realizing this, feels that failure to carry out the obligations of the agency to the mines would be a calamity, not only for the agency, but for the country as a whole, more particularly the maize growers.

The position which would ensue if next year should produce a full crop of maize, without a central body to deal with the sale of co-operative produce, would be chaotic, and would play into the hands of the speculators, with the result that heavy losses would be sustained by producers, and the production of maize would be greatly discouraged. Such a state of affairs would undoubtedly have a repercussion on the livestock industry, particularly with the possibility of the export of chilled beef and frozen mutton from the Union. The importation of maize from Rhodesia will undoubtedly have some effect upon the market in keeping prices from rising to a very high level. The board has considered this factor also, and it feels that it is undesirable that prices should go too high, as this will have an adverse effect on the stock-raising industry. As a matter of fact, should there be any marked depression in prices, as the result of the importation from Rhodesia, this can easily be checked by the central agency entering the market openly as a buyer, should the necessity arise for taking such a step. It must also not be forgotten that a great deal of maize will be, and has been bought forward, and that consequently any increase in price which comes along, will go to the individual speculators who have bought forward, not to the producer, except of course such producers who are members of co-operative societies and have been loyal to their obligations. With such members of cooperative societies who have been disloyal, the central agency feels no sympathy. They have chosen their own way to dispose of their produce and rejected the co-operative method, which has been supported and advocated by the Government for years past, and they must be prepared to accept the consequences of their action. Similarly, the agency has no feeling of sympathy with the speculative elements in the grain trade. The agency has had a hard struggle to maintain co-operative selling, and has always been faced with many enemies, who see in the eventual success of the movement, the disappearance of the speculator. Unfortunately, it has also disaffection in its own ranks to contend with.

My board realizes the greatly regrettable nature of the action of co-operators in selling outside of societies, but it must not be forgotten that these people are pressed by necessity and acute financial need, and that probably the temptation of good prices in cash, as contrasted with a considerably smaller advance, proves too great for human nature to withstand. It is felt that if the agency is enabled to carry on through this critical period, that the success of the maize cooperative movement is assured, and that there will be a wholesale return by those who have been tempted during the present season, as well as a greatly increased enrolment of new members when the next season comes, and that it will come out of its troubles with its position greatly strengthened.

In view of what has been stated above I have been asked by my board to submit an application to import 400,000 bags of grade 2 maize from Rhodesia, for the purpose of filling the deficiency in the maize to be supplied to the mines. The board is prepared to give an undertaking that the maize so imported will not be used for any other purpose. The option which has been obtained from Rhodesia gives the board the right to cancel 100,000 bags out of the total quantity of 400,000 before the 15th October, so that if a greater supply can be obtained in the Union than is at present anticipated, this contingency will be met.

In your telegram dated 24th May, reference was made to the fact that export was still proceeding. In my wire of the 3rd inst. to the hon. Minister, it was pointed out that the maize now being exported under the Mealie Control Act, is from old season’s stocks, which cannot be used for the mines contract excepting during the months of July and August, and the agency, it may be added, has already reserved a sufficient supply of old season’s stocks to meet the requirements of those months. The position may be briefly summarized as follows: (a) Quantity required to meet the mines contract from September to June, 1934, 600,000 bags; (b) possible maximum obtainable from members of societies, 200,000 bags; (c) to be obtained by importation from Rhodesia, 400,000 bags.

Any shortfall in either (b) or (c) to be made up by local purchase later in the year.

In conclusion, I am to say that the board feels that the whole future of co-operation is bound up in its ability to carry out the mines contract successfully. There is no doubt whatever that it will be unable to supply from Union sources the whole of the quantity required by the mines, and even if it is able to withstand the financial stress of such failure, it is clear that failure will greatly diminish its chances of obtaining the renewal of the contract, which will in itself be disastrous.

The board, however, leaves the matter with confidence in the hands of the Minister, feeling that he fully appreciates the critical position of the maize producers and feels sure of his undoubted desire to serve and further the interests of the farming community of the Union.

As the Rhodesian option expires on the 14th instant and as the Rhodesian Maize Board has other promising channels of disposing of its surplus, you will appreciate that the matter is one of very great urgency.

Yours faithfully,

(Sgd.) G. N. Williams,

General Manager.

The reply of the department was as follows—

Hon. members will see that I cannot but permit the importation being made from Southern Rhodesia. Had I refused the responsibility would have been put on me. If I agreed to it there would be a certain amount of criticism, but I had in the interests of the farmers to follow the best course, and had in the present circumstances to consent to that maize being imported. If I had not done so as some persons wished it was possible that we would not have been able to get the maize any longer from Rhodesia and what would the position then have been of the central agency, which had to deliver the maize to the mines? If the people had to go and buy the maize outside of the co-operative societies, who then would have had to pay that money for the damages? The farmers? No, they would have come to the Government to ask it to write off the money and I would then have been blamed that I did not intervene at this stage and allow maize to come in. I feel that this is a responsible step, but I think I must take it. The hon. member for Witbank (Mr. S. P. Bekker) said he hoped the time would come that I would consider allowing the maize to be sold through one channel. I have already announced that a commission will be appointed which will investigate the whole system of co-operative societies. Hon. members who would like to make certain recommendations must make representations to that commission, but before the commission has reported I can do nothing. The hon. member said we should give a bigger advance on maize. That was asked for in the past as well, but as we have to pay £560,000 this year which we guaranteed he cannot expect the Government to intervene at this stage and pay larger advances.

Business interrupted by the Deputy-Chairman at 10.55 p.m.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in committee to-morrow.