laid upon the Table—

Papers relating to—

1. (16) Proposed grant of Lot 157, Oliphants Hoek, for school purposes.
2. (17) Proposed grant of cemetery site at Langebaan, Malmesbury.
3. (18) Proposed withdrawal from list of demarcated forest reserves of portions of Uitvlugt Forest Reserve, Cape.
4. (19) Proposed withdrawal from list of demarcated forest reserves of portions of Kologha Forest Reserve, Stutterheim, and sale thereof to W. Hart.
5. (20) Proposed sale out of hand of Lots 5 and 7 Block “M” Kowie West, Port Alfred.
6. (21) Proposed sale of certain land adjoining the Lourensford Estate, Stellenbosch.

Papers referred to Select Committee on Crown Lands.

laid upon the Table—

Report referred to Select Committee on Public Accounts.

I move as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

stated that the report (Annexure No. 231—’14) was on the Table.

Report referred to Select Committee on the amendment of the South Africa Act.

I move—

This motion is for reference to a select committee, under the rules of the House, of a private Bill to amend an Act of the Cape Parliament of 1906. The Act of 1906 forms the constitution of an institution in Cape Town known as the South African Association, but that Act of 1906 was only the last in a long series of Acts of the Cape Parliament incorporating and amending the constitution from time to time of this association. The South African Association was established in 1835, so that it is now nearly 100 years old. It was established with a capital of £7,875 divided into 21 shares, and it was established for the purpose of dealing with estates and trust funds. It is one of the many trust institutions which exist in South Africa. The next amending Act was passed in 1855, when the capital was increased to £19,761. That Act was repealed in 1868, when an amending Act was passed. In 1875, that Act again was repealed and a new Act passed under which the capital was increased to £29,400. In 1881 again a new Act was passed when the capital remained as it was, but the shares were subdivided into smaller amounts. In 1906 again the previous Act was repealed and the Act which constitutes this association to-day was passed. Hon. members will, therefore, see that this association was constituted by statute and its constitution has been amended from time to time by Parliament. The present position of the association shows that it has certainly supplied a want on the part of the community, and at the present time it holds investments in respect of estates and trusts amounting to two million pounds odd. It holds funds which are represented by investments from its own funds. It is a flourishing institution. It possesses the confidence of the community, and it comes to this House for an amending Act to enable it to sub-divide its shares into smaller amounts. At the present time these shares are divided into amounts of £175, and the market value of these shares is £850.

I wish to point out that it is very unusual for an hon. member to discuss a Bill when he is moving for it to be referred to a Select Committee. I think on the second reading a full discussion might take place.

I am very pleased to hear that. I thought it was usual to explain the Bill. I now formally move.

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move, as an unopposed motion, and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move, as an unopposed motion, and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move, as an unopposed motion, and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move, as an unopposed motion, and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move, as an unopposed motion, and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

Am I to understand that, if the Government think fit, money for the purposes asked will be paid without the sanction of Parliament?

I may state for the information of the hon. member that these petitions will be considered in the ordinary manner and that the Government does not commit itself. They will all be considered on their merits.

Agreed to.

I move, as an unopposed motion, and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

objected.

I move—

This motion, as it appears on the Votes and Proceedings to-day, is in a somewhat different form to that which I originally handed in, which was as follows—

As it appears in to-day’s Order Paper, the motion merely resolves to request the Government “to consider the advisability of investigating and reporting on this matter.”

I wish to point out that the notice as tabled would have been out of order and had to be altered in accordance with the rules of the House.

May I enquire in what respect?

The motion as originally drafted was imperative, and involved expenditure.

There can be no doubt that so far as the European population of this country is concerned the paramount question is the native question. That is why the country is breathlessly awaiting the Prime Minister’s native policy—his segregation policy. The next question in importance I consider is education; but apart from these two questions, I can conceive of no other question of greater importance than the subject matter of this motion. I will endeavour briefly to bring home to the people of this country the supreme importance of good highways, and shall make some suggestions as to how that objective may best be obtained. At the outset, I wish to make an acknowledgement, namely, that the invaluable facts, information and material that I shall lay before the House have been placed at my disposal by Mr. J. W. Walshaw, joint honorary secretary of that most useful and public-spirited body, the Transvaal Roads League—a non-political organization representing some fifty bodies of various kinds and tens of thousands of individual members. A pamphlet has been compiled by this body in English and Dutch, and I hope that before long copies will be in the hands of members. Roads are necessarily of great antiquity. One of the earliest references to roads is by the Greek historian, Herodotus, who refers to a road built 4000 B.C. by King Cheops for the transport of material for the erection of the Great Pyramid. Other references are to be found showing that even in those early days there were believers in the slogan: “We want good roads,” which is also the slogan of the Transvaal Roads League. The Romans commemorated the achievement of their great emperors by building roads in their honour, such were the Appian Ways the Quintian and the Flaminian highways. The care of roads was entrusted to the most enlightened senators of the Empire. The title of “Curator Viarum” was one of the highest in the State. Plutarch tells us that Caius Graechus, one of the greatest of Roman road surveyors, travelled over the roads under his control “with a cavalcade of officers, engineers and assistants presenting the same imposing appearance on the highway as that of a Roman emperor. A recent examination of the Roman highway near Bath shows that these roads were made on the same lines as the modern concrete road. Small wonder that these great roadmakers are still looked upon with veneration. But the building of good roads was not confined to the Romans. We have definite evidence that the Incas of Peru were responsible in their time for a wonderful network of highway systems. It is believed that the wonderful road system of the Italian Alps, perfected by Napoleon, owe their origin to the vast hordes which swept over what is to-day Europe. Alaric and his Goths, Hannibal and his Cartheginians, Attila and his Huns are dust and memories, but the road remains. Marco Polo was one of the first believers in good roads since he makes continual reference in his “Travels” to this question. It is realized by very few that the church has played a great part in road history. In Great Britain in mediaeval times the care of the highways and bridges was always entrusted to the leading churchmen, indeed, a definite Order, the “Brothers of the Bridges” existed in England and it was open only to the most distinguished and eminent monks of the time. To this Order England is indebted for many of her finest examples of bridges which rank among the finest examples of craftsmanship and stateliness, and that after five centuries of use. In 1271 endeavours were made to secure legislation for the proper upkeep of roads in Europe. There were periodical outbursts of popular indignation at the neglect of the roads and in 1555, during the reign of Queen Mary, an Act was passed which provided for the making of roads by compulsory labour. There is an interesting work in the library, “The Road,” written by that versatile writer Hilaire Belloc, which is well worth reading. He gives a very interesting reproduction of an old title page of a book which was “printed for the public good in the year 1675.” The contents being covered by the following quotation—

This is a very curious document, and I am sure, to any student of literature, interesting. Then followed the turn-pike system, with its toll gates. These were abolished, and later on the road era followed, when the state took more interest in the public highways. Thomas Telford received Government authority to reorganize the 194 miles of road between London and Holyhead, and Macadam also came to the fore at this time. America also realized the need of good roads, and President John Quincey Adams was one of the first who made the Government responsible for the building of good roads. He reached the same conclusion as Washington, that roads served as the arterial system of the nation and should be built by the state. In America, as in England, road building by the Government soon practically ceased. The declension of the road era was at hand and was due to the introduction of railways which altered the whole perspective. Public opinion seized on the new form of transport, England concentrated on railways and proceeded to develop a huge system of railway construction. Even canals fell into disuse. On the Continent, however, the reaction of the railway was not felt to so great, an extent. But history again repeated itself. This was by the introduction of motor transport and the introduction of the suspension wheel, which resulted in the popularity of cycling. The more popular cycling became, the more clamourous grew the cry for better road conditions. Man’s inventive powers were employed once again, and the invention of the internal combustion engine made motor car practicable. This meant the introduction of the new road era. To appreciate the reasons underlying this complete change it is necessary to consider the phenomenal advance of motor transport. It is only a few years ago that a mechanically driven vehicle set out with a man in front with a red flag as a signal of danger. This only seems to emphasize the difference between the car of the ’nineties and the car of to-day. Figures generally speaking are supposed to be dry as dust, but these are exceptionally interesting. In 1899 America produced 3.700 passenger cars and no motor trucks. In 1923 this annual production had risen to 3,694,237 cars and 392,760 trucks. The total registration has risen from 300 motor vehicles in 1895 to well over 15 million in 1923. This means that the ratio of motor vehicles to the total population is one to every seven persons. It is only right to point out that America has advanced more rapidly in this connection than any other nation, but while America was running other nations were walking pretty fast. I now wish to refer to the effect of roads upon social life. Ruskin said: “All social progress resolves itself into the making of new roads.” This sentence contains a great truth. If one considers for a moment the family cut off from civilization because transport is not possible: in a very short space of time their finer feelings will be blunted and they will start on the downward path instead of continuing to progress with civilization. Travellers tell us that under such circumstances people degenerate and develop peculiarities peculiar to the district. In the Lotschen Valley in Switzerland the people speak a language of their own and are not even understood by their own countrymen. They preserve all their ancient customs through their lack of opportunity to adopt progressive methods. Consider the position of those who are living in our country districts in the Union. They are isolated, are sometimes far from medical aid and we know in some cases, not infrequently, all the difference between a good and a bad road means the saving of a life or otherwise. I think one of the greatest arguments in favour of a good road system is that it does away with racial differences. If the people in the backveld knew the townspeople better and vice versa, each would recognize something good in the other. Good roads promote mutual understanding and a broader basis of citizenship. The Federated Malay States may profitably be quoted as an instance of the development of a country by means of a forward road policy. Forty years ago the Federated Malay States had no roads. But they decided to build them in advance of the demand. Mr. Anderson, the exdirector of public works, states—

Members will remember that two sessions ago when the Financial Relations Bill came up there was a good deal of opposition on the part of members opposite because they said it would ruin rural education, as some 1,400 farm schools had less than 20 pupils per school. In other countries they have had a similar problem. In America there was a movement to improve this position. After thorough investigation the Board of Education of the United States expressed the view that small district schools should be replaced by larger and centralized ones which would prove more efficient. The success of the change there, however, hinged on efficient transportation. Similarly, in this country we should realize what good roads mean, and we should undoubtedly strain our energy in the direction of improved transportation facilities. Another advantage of good roads is in respect of what is called the tourist business. Where a, country has scenic grandeur and natural beauties, there tourists will flock from all parts of the world. This is an aspect of the question which has been much appreciated by other countries. In Japan there is a special State department to see that the roads leading to the country’s beauty spots are kept in good order. The Japanese refer to this source of income as their invisible gold supply. In America the Yosemite National Park in California is visited annually by hundreds of thousands of tourists. Canada also benefits enormously by an influx of tourists travelling by motor cars. In South Africa we have many places which would make ideal national parks, as the Union ranks second to none in its scenes of natural beauty and grandeur. Unhappily our roads are not of such a character to induce any large number of tourists to undertake the journey to these favoured spots. Let it not be forgotten that the tourist of to-day is often the settler of to-morrow. South Africa holds out many inducements to people to visit its shores, but those inducements—strong as they are at present—are not sufficient in view of the backward state of our roads. Few tourists are desirous of turning a holiday into an adventure. There is ample evidence, unfortunately of the pressing need there is for the building of good roads in the Union. Last January, Lord and Lady Milner, who were undertaking a motor tour through the Transkei, had to give up the journey at Idutywa and take train to Komgha, where—according to the “Star” of January, 1921—“they hoped to strike civilized roads.” Then a British tourist who brought out his Rolls Royce motor car, endeavoured to drive from Durban to the Rand, but owing to the bad state of the road had to abandon the trip at Howick. Recently car after car were brought to a standstill on the Potchefstroom road, owing to the deplorable state of that much used thoroughfare. In fact, several motorists were compelled to sleep in their cars until daybreak. The light esteem in which our roads are held is shown by the following incident. Recently a speaker at the Johannesburg Broadcasting Station stated: The Prince of Wales will motor about 2,000 miles over South African roads. God help him !” I would like to say a few words in regard to the more practical side of the question, that is with reference to highway economics. The price of transportation is a serious item in the cost of produce. A special commission appointed by the American House of Representatives showed that the cost of transportation was practically 33⅓ per cent. of the price obtained for the produce. Improved roads in America enabled the farmers to extend their markets very considerably. 134,000,000 tons of farm produce were hauled over American highways in 1921. In the dairy business motor trucks dealt with the majority of the products within a range of 50 miles. The commission referred to reported that “Since poor highways not only increased the cost of transportation, but also injuriously affected the comfort of the farmer and his family by preventing them communicating with their neighbours, all highways should be improved and adequately maintained.” The Canadian Government has also gone to great trouble to examine into the state of its highways, realizing that efficient transportation is the key to national prosperity. America found that the saving effected by substituting macadamized roads for dirt roads equalled 37½ per cent. of the cost of transportation. A saving of 4 per cent. per ton-mile would be effected by raising the standard of the dirt road to what is termed an improved dirt road. If we apply these figures to South Africa, and if we estimate the cost of transportation is l½d. per mile per sack of grain, we arrive at 1s. 3d. per ton per short ton-mile. As there are approximately 1,600,000 tons of grain and corn produced in the Union and hauled at least ten miles, the importance of good roads for the farming community is brought home in a convincing manner. By providing good roads at least £400,000 a year could be saved in the transportation of grain and corn alone. The effect of bad roads upon mining in outside and isolated parts of the country needs no elaboration. Difficulty in procuring necessaries and stocks, distance from medical aid, and others which immediately suggest themselves. The position is summed up by Sir George Albu, who is a great authority on mining matters, and who says—

I wish to say a few words in regard to the Rand Main Reef road. This is a road which, as hon. members may be aware, extends from Randfontein in the west to Springs in the east, about 60 miles. Actual traffic statistics prove that if this road be put into good condition—

On a point of order, I would like to know whether the hon. member is entitled to read his speech?

What I have to say is probably a good deal more interesting and to the point than anything the hon. member may have to say. The hon. member has been constantly interrupting me. If he does not like it, he can walk out. In regard to the figures, I certainly intend referring to the notes which I have here. As I was about to say, the statistics prove that if this Main Reef road were put into good condition the running costs and depreciation would be reduced by l½d. per mile all round, a very conservative figure, and there would be an annual saving of £46,800 on this road alone. If a really high-grade road were constructed from Johannesburg to Springs the annual expenditure would be about £18,000, including amortization, and a saving of £46,800 in transport charges would be effected. Apropos of this Main Reef road, its condition a little while ago was deplorable. There is no doubt that whoever should have kept that road in order ought not to have allowed it at any time to fall into the impassable condition that it was in not long ago. It showed the hopelessness of the present system. You cannot allow the up keep of an important road like that, which would show results which I have just indicated if the roads were put into proper order, to be neglected. What is the road position in regard to other countries? I have a long list here showing what that position is, as given by the Transvaal Roads League. It is too big to give in detail, but their report states, inter alia—

I am not going into detail as to what has been done in other countries, but, broadly speaking it may be accepted as a fact that in civilized countries the road system has made enormous advances. There is a good road system in those countries. There are some difficulties in England owing to the fact that at the outset roads were not laid out in a comprehensive and proper manner. The French are better off in that respect. Their main trunk roads have been laid out regularly, and transportation by vehicle is easier there. The condition in all civilized countries as regards roads is satisfactory. Africa at our very doors there is improvement going on. We find countries like Angola and Portuguese East Africa with very good roads, and in Kenya and Nyasaland the people are doing what is necessary. But we seem to be the solitary exception in South Africa. I am not going to blame anybody; I want to see this reproach removed from our country. We know that a journey to-day from Natal to the Peninsula is looked upon rather in the light of an adventure. In the wet season, we know, travelling is quite out of the question in many parts. I am afraid that provincial expenditure in regard to roads and education is altogether out of proportion to the relative importance of these two matters to the provinces concerned. If you take the figures from the Provincial Finance Commission, we find that in 1921-’22 the Cape Province spent on education £2,450.629, and on roads, bridges and local works £381,440. Natal spent on education £638,724, and on roads and local works £185,559. The Transvaal spent on education £2,677,318, and on roads, bridges and local works £224,765. The Orange Free State spent on education £910,465, and on roads, bridges and local works £94,552. One does not wish to decry education, because one knows, as I said at the outset, that to our national life it is essential, but the expenditure undoubtedly is altogether disproportionate. I think that if some of the money that is now spent on education, and which, in my humble opinion, is uselessly spent, were diverted to the institution of a proper system of highways throughout the country, it would be of immeasurably greater benefit to the inhabitants of the Union. It is all very well to criticize, but what is to be done? That is the great question. It seems to me that we should have a carefully-considered scheme which should be adopted. This question of roads should be placed beyond all possibility of political consideration and the problem must be viewed from a broad standpoint. I do not think our present system meets that case. Provincial control of our national main roads has not proved, and will not prove, a success. The Transvaal Roads League’s conclusion in regard to dealing with the roads of the Union—and it has analysed the legal and practical position of the four provinces—its inevitable conclusion is that roads should be divided into three classes: (1) national roads, (2) provincial roads, and (3) local roads. The national roads would be those connecting the principal seaports and the principal towns of the Union, and should be planned and constructed by the Union. They should be maintained by the provincial administration to the satisfaction of the Union Government, and funds for their maintenance should be provided by the Union Government and the provincial administration jointly. As regards provincial roads, these should be such roads other than the national roads as the provincial administration proclaims to be such. They should be constructed and maintained by the provincial administration. The third class would be all roads not covered by the two classes mentioned. The construction and maintenance of roads of the third class should be left entirely to the local inhabitants, with such advice and assistance as the provincial administration is prepared to give them. In the Cape we know there exists the divisional council system. It would not be wise to interfere with this. The analysis of the Transvaal Roads League continues—

This, it will be noted, would provide for the fourth class of road according to modern overseas practice. I could continue speaking on this absorbing and interesting question, but I think I have said enough to justify my bringing this motion before the House. After I had resolved to introduce this resolution, I noticed in the “Gazette” of January that the Minister had appointed a Mechanical Transport Commission and also a Road’s Committee. I beg to give him my sincere congratulations on this, and I am pleased to see he is alive to this question, but I would submit that these questions are so interwoven that one wonders why there should be two commissions. It seems to me that two commissions would lead to unnecessary overlapping. What I wish to see is that when we start on this road policy that we start fair in this sense, that we shall have advantage of the experience which is given us by other countries and that we shall make use of that experience so as to avoid mistakes which may prove very costly. We should lay out a road system which will be practically a model as far as convenience and advantage to the people of the Union are concerned. I would like to see a broad policy. The resolution I have proposed asks that the Government shall act in conjunction with the provincial authorities. I naturally ask for that because under the Act of Union the care and maintenance of the roads is delegated to the provinces. I beg to submit to the Minister that in spite of what he has done, if he is armed with a Parliamentary resolution such as this, his position will be strengthened. I hope the Minister will feel assured that this is no party question. This motion has no party aspect. A good road system is an asset to every citizen of the Union, be he humble or be he rich. I hope the Minister will appoint this commission and will have as members of it men of knowledge and experience. I hope the Government will soon be in a position to report to us. Money spent on a matter of this sort is money very well spent indeed. May the Minister soon be in a position to place before Parliament a well thought out scheme. I will conclude with a quotation from Lord Macaulay—

I beg to second this motion, and in doing so I would like to express my personal obligation to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus), who have given us a wealth of information, well expressed, which will be of great benefit to us. I am sure this feeling is shared by all intelligent members of this House. I hope the motion will be accepted by the Government because it involves a question of vital importance to this country. Perhaps the hon. mover used the word “vital” advisedly, because all life consists of movement of some sort. The very clothes we wear originate in the movement of certain constituents of the soil through grass to the sheep, forming wool and so on, transferred again from the places of production to the places of manufacture and thence to those who wear the clothes. We may say roads, whether we call them railroads or highways, are the arteries of civilization, and it follows that the greater the freedom with which our arteries can work the better for the normal health of the community. All this opens up channels of thought, psychological and material, which I do not want to go into now, I would like to get down to practical things, and I was glad to see the hon. member was quite ready with practical suggestions in concluding this motion. Now, what is the function of transportation? It may be defined as the conveying of commodities from places where they are plentiful to places where they are scarce, and of course we may include the transport of individuals and the conveying of information. Anything which facilitates all this is to the benefit of the community. The mover has told us that it has been calculated in America that about one-third of the cost of foodstuffs goes in transportation. Other authorities have put it higher. Anyhow, it is in the interests of all, whether consumer or producer, to see that the facilities for transport are good and well regulated. Many things have their value entirely by reason of their transportation. Coal in a mine, for instance, is of no value where it lies; it only obtains value by being removed. Many other commodities are in a similar position. We must not forget it is of the utmost importance to all concerned that the transportation of these commodities should be as cheap as possible. It may be of interest to know that a locomotive can haul a ton 100 miles at the cost of one penny. That is due to the fact that the locomotive up to the present is the best and cheapest means of haulage. The least satisfactory form of transportation is that of man power. It is only when you get mechanical power that you get the results I have mentioned and can haul a considerable weight over a considerable distance at a minimum cost. It is essential that we should make our means of communication as easy as possible, as effective as possible, and as certain as possible. In our policy of road-making we should bear in mind the desirability of making a road between two important places as short as possible. The Romans adopted that view. Their roads were nearly as straight as they could be made. Above all the Romans realized that they could never hold or impose their civilization on the countries they occupied unless they put down permanent roads and kept their communications continually open. To that end they made roads which exist to this day. It may interest hon. members to know that the old Roman road usually consisted of a foundation of two or three courses of flat stones to begin with which were set in mortar. On that was put a layer of rough concrete followed by finer concrete, and superimposed on the lot were stones carefully placed in position. Those who succeeded the Romans did not make their roads on such an enduring scale, and good road-making fell into disuse for a number of years. It has been found an unsatisfactory policy to leave the making and upkeep of roads to small local bodies. Similarly the system of maintaining roads by tolls has not produced the best results. Road communication is a matter of such great importance that it must really have the supervision of the state, which must decide on matters of general policy, and exercise control, if these communications are to be quite efficient. Another point I would emphasize is the vast importance of roads to farmers. It may seem a truism, but it may be worth while to explain. Most of the things that farmers produce are perishable and lose much of their value unless brought quickly to their destination; and in a country of long distances, such as this, it is essential that means should be found to have quick transit for perishables. We cannot bring railways to everybody’s door, but it is by no means impossible to connect up the railways with the farms by means of roads adapted for the conveyance of these commodities. We need not go far, as the Romans did, as regards solidity of construction, because modern science has shown us that we can produce quite effective roads to carry the heaviest loads with much less expenditure of time and money. The great leaders in this respect were Tilford and Macadam. The latter’s name is still a household word, and the principles of his work remain to this day in spite of many modifications. Macadam laid down that it does not matter what your foundation is, provided it is firm, and can be kept dry by drainage, and if no water comes in from the top. That is not so difficult to achieve to-day, though it may have been in the old days. Macadam laid down, and it is not disputed, that ten inches of macadam is sufficient to carry the heaviest load, provided that the foundation is firm and it is kept waterproof. I have in my mind the City of Perth in Western Australia, which is built on sand, and I believe that, so long as the sand is dry, you cannot have a better foundation. Similarly, if we build our roads on a solid foundation, and they are kept dry, we need not go in for such solid foundations, and they can be cheaply constructed. If they are well made in the first instance, and the material is found at not too great a distance from the place where it is used, they need not be too expensive, particularly if we reduce their width to fifteen feet. But they should be made thoroughly in the first place, kept in repair and used in such a way that they do not get out of repair. Any inequality in the road surface leads to the formation of holes, and when these are filled with water, the road is soon put cut of repair. I believe the Government will accept this motion; indeed, I see no reason why they should not. If the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) will allow me to supplement his quotation, I should also like to quote from Ruskin who said that “transportation is civilization.”

I wish to support the motion of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) for the following reasons. I want to begin in a different way to the two hon. members who have already taken part in the debate I want to show the great interest that it will have for the producer of products that have to be conveyed by road. I cannot give such beautiful quotations from Ruskin and Macaulay, but I want to show how the matter strikes the farmer and points out the present position. Our provincial system—and I do not want to detract from or to reprobate the system—is that the provincial authorities cannot do both things at the same time. If they are also responsible for the main roads, then they cannot properly make and maintain the smaller or local roads— I like to call them “approach roads.” There fore it is necessary to find another method of making the main road so that the local bodies will be better able to maintain these approach roads for the farmers and the countryside. Ten or twelve years ago there was not the necessity that there is now. Cost of transport were not so high then. The farmer could then load his produce on the buck waggon and go along the heavy road. To-day it is too great a capital expenditure and he cannot keep so many trek oxen to transport the produce over such roads to the station. This is especially the case with perishable produce. It has become an impossible condition of things to take such produce over bad roads to the station. Take for instance, fruit like oranges. There are people who live near the stations, but they cannot export oranges because the roads to the stations are so frightfully bad. The main roads must be relegated to another system to give the local authorities every opportunity of maintaining the smaller or approach roads. The member for Hospital observed correctly that the traveller of to-day is in some cases the immigrant of to-morrow. It is to-day suite an undertaking to go, e.g., from Natal or from Johannesburg to Delagoa Bay in consequence of the poor road and there are many people, especially travellers, who do not like travelling by train. It may be that the travellers who visit our country are rich people who wish to invest money in the land and good roads will undoubtedly be a great attraction. I know of actual cases where rich people came to the country, but when they saw over what roads their produce would have to be carried they said that they could not invest, and that it was impossible to farm in such circumstances. In places where there are rivers between the farms and the station. I do not know if it will be possible to induce the railway, inasmuch as the roads implement the railways, to build light bridges over such rivers. It is often said that the branch lines do not pay in many instances, but they make the main lines pay, because they carry produce to the main lines. This is also true of the roads. If the roads are good so that produce can be taken to the branch lines, the branch lines in their turn will be made to pay well. If we, for instance, take the Selati area, nothing can be produced there by the people in consequence of the absence of means of transport. No sensible person will produce there, because the crops cannot be taken away that is why I approached the matter from another side. I plead for the taking over of the main roads, because I see that the consequence will be that the smaller roads will become better.

An examination of to-day’s Order Paper discloses the fact that there is a motion tabled to which there are 43 amendments, calling on the Government to construct no less than 43 branch railways in the Union. I am told that these proposed railways aggregate something like three thousand miles. Now it is obviously impossible for the Government to undertake anything to that extent. But although every district cannot have a railway, every district is entitled to reasonable communications with its markets, and these facilities many of them do not enjoy to-day; moreover, if the development of South Africa is to go ahead, the outlying districts will have to be attended to, and those in the back areas will have to be placed in such a position as will enable them to bring their produce to market in sound marketable condition. It seems to me that the system we have followed in regard to road construction since the days of Union is fundamentally unsound. The whole responsibility is thrown on the provincial councils. That I do not take exception to, but the finances at their disposal are extremely limited, and their borrowing capacity is tied down, because they are bound to repay the money expended on road construction within 10 years. Those who give this matter serious consideration realize that the construction of first-class permanent roads is a capital investment for the good of posterity, equally with those who are using the roads to-day. Therefore, so long as you are going to throw upon all the present day inhabitants of this country the liability for raising the funds and repaying the borrowed capital so long will you have to put tip with indifferent roads because there is not the money available to construct roads which will stand the wear and tear they will shortly be called upon to bear. I am not satisfied from the investigation I have made personally, and the work I have seen done, that there are not engineers in this country capable of making as good roads as in any other country. Even around this Peninsula you will find roads as good as in any part of the world, but owing to the fact that there is this difficulty in regard to finance the construction of these roads is tied down to certain few favoured areas. If the financial relations between provincial councils and the Union Government were so altered or modified, as it is essential in the interests of the country they must be so altered and modified, that the provincial council could be empowered to raise money on a 40 or even 50 years basis, that money could then be spent gradually as circumstances demanded for the construction of permanent roads. The whole of the money would not necessarily be spent in the first two or three years. Probably it would not be expended for 10 to 15 years, but every yard and every mile of road so constructed would be one which would stand the stress of time and modern conditions. You would come back to this, that instead of throwing on the present inhabitants the liability of constructing and paying for those roads, you would put on the present inhabitants the liability for maintenance only and interest on borrowed capital, and that money could reasonably be found without resorting to any further taxation. At Union we were among the lightest taxed of countries, but to-day we are among the heaviest taxed. In most of our provinces we are taxed almost to the limit of endurance. But we can still have the roads which the country demands without increasing the taxation on the present taxpayer. And that brings me to the point with which I started. Owing to this lack of roads there is a demand, for three or four thousand miles of railways, which railways are not going to be built; but the people who are demanding these railways are entitled in their absence to mechanical transport, and that is the function of the Union Government, but the supply of roads is the function of the provincial councils. It is to the interests of the people that the Union Government and the provincial councils should come to some arrangement, for these roads for mechanical transport are an urgent necessity and should be constructed so that the people can get to their market as their rights demand.

The question of roads is certainly a very burning problem, especially in the Free State. I feel we have there the worst roads of all the provinces. We have to reckon in the Free State with the increase of production, and in my district, for instance, which produces large quantities of mealies, the farmers have great difficulty in getting their mealies to the railways. It is not an easy thing to get 15,000 or 20,000 bugs of mealies on rail. We all feel that if the farmers are helped in that respect we would be encouraging an increased production, as we ought to do. There is more than one farmer who has to contend with the greatest difficulties, and when he has a large maize harvest he does not know how to get it to the station. The provincial administrations—be they never so willing to help— are in the difficult position that they have no money to deal with the question. I therefore ask if the Union Government, together with the provincial administration, could not keep the main roads in proper repair. However necessary railways may be, and however pleased I should be to see more railways built, I have always contended that the maintenance of our roads is of even greater importance than the building of railways. I talk about this matter because I feel that in so far as my district, Heilbron, is concerned, great grievances exist. The fanners constantly complain that they cannot get their produce to the station because the roads leading to the station are not kept in order. This is wrong. The roads should be used as conduit roads for the railways. It is thus also of importance to the railways, and therefore I think the railways should help the provincial administration to build good roads. I say again that this is a burning question and that the people in the Free State have up to the present been neglected in comparison with the other provinces. Go over the Vaal river and then you will see that the Transvaal roads are in much better condition.

No.

Yes, there is a great difference in the roads in the Free State and the Transvaal, and if one goes across the Orange River he finds that the Cape roads are better than ours.

Yes, but they have to pay for it.

We also pay for our roads, but there is not enough money. I go so far as to say that the northern part of the Free State produces proportionately more than the Transvaal, and why should the Free State be thus neglected?

I think that there is not one farmer in the House who has any objection to the motion. I was for some time a member of the Provincial Council in the Free State and I think that I have had a little experience of the building of roads. I only want to say here that I think that the provincial councils are just as competent to make roads as the Union Government. I agree with the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) that it has been proved that if the people have money good roads are made. If the provincial administration have money the building of roads will be made easy, but the provincial administration have not the necessary means. Consequently it would be very good if the Union Government consult with the provincial administrations how to get money. I know how we, when I was a member of the Provincial Council, even decided to raise a loan. If we could get money for a long term then we were willing to borrow money and to repay it in the course of time by a wheel tax. It was unfortunate that we could not get it. I agree with the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan) that the Free State has very bad roads in comparison with the other provinces. I will tell the hon. members why. Our soil is deeper than in any other part.

No.

Oh yes. We have heard to-day that the foundation is the most important matter in building roads. For 40 years I have been travelling from here to the Free State over the same little road that I still use through the Gouph, and the old road is to-day just as it has been for 40 years. It is because it has been made on a rock foundation. We had previously the same thing in the Free State. There were roads more than 100 yards broad. In former times a road was constructed, and when it got bad then a road was made alongside it, but that time is passed. Now that ground has gone up to £10 per morgen that would be too costly. But I do not think the Union Government can look after the construction of roads better than the provincial councils. The chief point is that the Provincial Council has no money, therefore it will be best for the Government to consult with the provincial administration about the way they can best obtain money to make roads. It is necessary for the farmers. The roads are now very narrow. There are no longer any crossing places, and therefore the roads must be broad.

I am sorry that I cannot entirely agree with the previous speakers, who have argued that the construction of roads should be entrusted to the Union Government. The Union Government already has its hands more than full, and if we were to burden the Treasury with the building of roads, then I do not know where our expenditure will finish. I cannot see why the other provinces do not follow the good old system of the Cape Province. The Cape Province has for the last 50 or 60 years had its divisional councils, and these levy a rate on the farmer’s land, and for the last 60 years the farmers have themselves made all their roads without expense to the Treasury. This is a system that works very well. It may be true that the nature of the soil in other provinces is not suited for the building of roads as with us, but we in the Eastern Province also had difficulties in building roads, and it would not be right for the Government now to assume the duty of building roads for the whole country, seeing the farmers of the Cape Province made their own roads. Other provinces are opposed to the creation of divisional councils because they are bodies who lay new taxes, but if it is a fact that they are frightened of the tax, then they must be content a bit with their roads. If they want good roads, then they must be prepared to spend a little money.

I would like very heartily to support the motion. When Union was first started provincial councils undertook the maintenance of roads. Since then, however, motor traffic has increased enormously, with the result that the upkeep of roads is a burden which it is quite impossible for the provincial councils to continue to carry. It should be remembered that the country derives an enormous revenue from customs duties which are paid on motor vehicles. That is a revenue which will grow to a very much greater extent if proper roads are built. I would ask the Government to accept the motion in the spirit in which it has been proposed, so that a discussion may take place on the question between the Government and the provincial councils, and I am sure such a discussion will be for the benefit of the country in the end.

There is no objection to this motion, and I think the mover was unnecessarily diffuse. In 1924 a committee was appointed and the report which was published deals with a general economic policy for the Union. They had gone into this matter, and the Government appreciated all the advantages connected with it. In January I appointed a committee on which there were representatives of the provinces, the mines and the railways, and the matter is being discussed from all points of view. They are still busy investigating the matter, and when the report is received, it will be referred to the provincial council. I appreciate the importance of co-operation between the provinces and the Government in connection with this matter. I only hope that that committee will not go so far into ancient times to Plutarch, Herodotus or to the middle ages after Atilla the Hun, but that they will give useful hints. There is no difficulty, and I need not enlarge on the matter. I think that the discussion can now end.

There is no subject of greater importance to the producers of this country than the arriving at the best means of constructing roads. I would suggest that we should take certain sections of road, and instead of using money simply to fill up the cavities which occur in them, we should devise some means whereby, year by year, selected sections should be placed in a proper state of repair. I am sorry the Minister of Railways is not here, as the matter affects the railways to a great extent, I remember a few years ago, when the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) introduced a Bill for the expenditure of four millions on railway construction, I hazarded the opinion that when railway Bills were brought forward they should be accompanied by other Bills to expend a quarter of the amount in putting roads in good order. It is no use building railways unless you have means of bringing produce cheaply to the railway. The divisional councils in the Cape have given us better roads than obtain in the other provinces. The Cape divisional councils collect about £180,000 per year from the landowners, and so far as our mountain passes and roads are concerned that expenditure is supplemented by grants from the Provincial Council but in the other provinces the whole of the expenditure in connection with roads is borne by the provincial authorities. It is not fair in a country where we have Union that we should have no means of developing roads in one province, and a different means in the other three provinces. I am pleased to see that the Minister is prepared to give the motion most favourable consideration, and that there will be a scientific enquiry into the whole subject. Speaking as a farmer, and for farmers, I may say that the Cape farmers are not willing to pay a certain amount of money for the purpose of road development, because every farmer— especially one who lives a long distance from the railway—has the value of his property very materially increased if he has good means of communication. A couple of years ago I paid a couple of visits to the O.F.S., and in going to the agricultural show at Bothaville, I was struck by the number of transport waggons on the road. At one spot I passed 20 to 25 waggons, each drawn by 16 or 18 oxen. It struck me how could development possibly take place when, at the most important period of the year, when these animals should be used for early ploughing, they had to be utilized for transport purposes; if the roads had been properly constructed instead of each waggon having to be drawn by 18 oxen, 6 would have been sufficient. Road transport is, perhaps, of greater importance to the Union than to any other country, because owing to our great distances and the paucity of our railways, road transport is the only means by which the majority of farmers can get their produce to the markets. I have known many cases in which produce like potatoes are allowed to rot on the farm, or the farmers did not produce as much as they could, simply because owing to the exceedingly high cost of transport the return to the grower was insufficient. I hope, when the Minister takes the motion into consideration, he will appoint a body which will include a responsible representative of the Railway Department to go into the whole question, to see whether some general scheme can be devised for the whole of the Union, and that there will be some financial assistance from the state. Not only should main roads be considered, but also bye-roads, so that the outlying districts may be developed and so enormously increase our production. Increased production means that the purchasing power of the people will be enhanced, and indirectly the revenue of the state will profit by our having a flourishing population on the land. I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) on the admirable speech which he has made on this important question. I think we are all indebted to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus), and I would congratulate the Minister of Mines and Industries on the sympathetic manner in which he has received this resolution. I hope we shall see more than sympathy, and that he will go further into the question and get all the information that is possible to collect and that, in a short period of time, it will be recognized that the system on which the roads of this country have been built needs improvement, so that the produce of the farmers may be brought to the markets of the world under more advantageous conditions.

The motion was agreed to.

I regret the painful necessity of having once more to raise this question. This is the eighteenth appeal that this ex-public servant has made to Parliament. I have brought the matter forward eight times, and I am afraid I shall have to bring it forward until justice is done to Mr. Corderoy. It is unfortunate that the time of Parliament should be taken up in this way, but this is the only possible tribunal to which we can come to remedy this injustice. The courts are closed to him in this matter, owing to a large number of technical barriers which I need not go into. Mr. Corderoy has been told time after time by the judges that the proper tribunal to appeal to is Parliament, and he has done his best to get members of Parliament interested in his case. The Cape Parliament was appealed to, the Union Parliament has been appealed to in the past, and the new Parliament which was elected last year has also been appealed to in this case. Nothing would have pleased me more than that it should not have been necessary to bring forward Mr. Corderoy’s case again. In 1920, on a non-party vote, the motion was lost by eight votes. That is the nearest I have got to haying this motion passed. I hope I shall get a little nearer this afternoon, if I do not succeed altogether. It seems to me that what is asked for by Mr. Corderoy is but an act of simple justice. He maintains that he was never legally retired from the service, and that that point has never been gone into by the courts at all, and, because he was not legally represented on the first occasion when the matter came before the courts, he finds himself barred from raising the matter at all. The Select Committee which sat in 1921 brought forward a recommendation that he should receive a pension which would amount to about £100 a year. That report of the Select Committee has never been acted upon. It seems to me that the present Government should take the matter up where it was left off by the late Government, because, where an injustice has been done by one Government or another, it should be set right by those in control of the Government machinery for the time being. There is a slight difference between this motion and the one moved last year. Last year it was in the form that there should be a special case stated for the opinion of the court. The Government accepted that motion and went into the matter during the recess, and came to the conclusion, I am sorry to say, that they could do nothing for Mr. Corderoy. I have added to the motion, hon. members will see, a second sub-section which does not bind the Government, if they accept this motion, to adopt the suggestion of a special case to the court. My motion says “or (2) of meeting the circumstances of the Corderoy case in some other adequate manner,” in other words leaving it open to the Government to find any other solution for this matter. It is unfortunate that the case should be left where it is, because undoubtedly the point that this ex-public servant wants deciding has not been decided and there seems to be no machinery, unless the Government will come to his aid, by which the matter can be decided. It is not a personal question at all; it is not a matter affecting Mr. Corderoy merely as an individual. There is a vital principle involved affecting men who are in the public service and who were appointed in the same way as Mr. Corderoy was appointed. It is of importance both to Mr. Corderoy and to the public service that this matter should be finally decided. I do not think there has ever been a more cheerful or happier fighter than Mr. Corderoy. He has fought this battle for 19 years, without any bitterness, without any heat, and without any malice, and I question if any member of this House had suffered for l9 year as he has suffered he would have been able to keep up that fight with the cheerfulness and good spirit which Mr. Corderoy has shown during all that period. I do think that one ought to have a little sportsmanlike spirit in the case of a man waging a lone battle in such a perfectly cheerful manner as he has done. I ask the Government, by accepting this motion, to leave the matter open and deal with it again during the recess and not to close the door to him, and I ask the Government to try and find some way by which a final and decisive answer can be given to this question which has never been decided, i.e., when he was retired, in his absence away in the country in 1906 was Mr. Corderoy or was he not legally retired from the service? That is the question which Mr. Corderoy has been seeking to obtain an answer to for 19 years and he has not received it yet. In these circumstances I would move the motion standing in my name, feeling sure that it will not be dealt with in a party spirit or on party lines. It has not been dealt with so far on party lines when divisions have been taken, and I hope every member will consider the case on its merits. I take it that every hon. member will say that what is asked for is a perfectly reasonable thing. The delay is not Mr. Corderoy’s fault; it is not his fault that he has been refused so many times. The matter has been brought up year after year I know, but that is not his fault. I beg to move the motion standing in my name—

I second the motion. I do not pretend to know anything about the merits or demerits of this case, but I second the motion because I feel that this man must, at least in his own mind, be certain he has been unjustly treated, otherwise he would not have fought as he has for so many years. Unfortunately hon. members have come to look upon this motion as something in the nature of a joke, but it is not a joke for Mr. Corderoy. I hope hon. members will agree to go into the question on its merits.

This matter was referred to the Government last session for consideration. The Government has considered the matter, and I regret to say finds it impossible to do anything. It is quite true Mr. Corderoy has had his case brought up on a large number of prior occasions, but that does not prevent it from having become a very stale claim to-day. We find the injustice he complains about is connected with something which happened in 1905 or thereabouts. It is too much to ask that an administration of to-day should try to remedy an injustice after that lapse of time. I am not forgetting the merits of the case. The merits of the case are these. Mr. Corderoy brought his action in the Supreme Court of the Cape and the court came to the conclusion that it could do nothing to help him. The only point on which he can say there is a technical point against himself is this, that any retirement through reorganization would have to be concurred in by both Houses of Parliament in terms of the law. As a matter of fact, I do not think the two Houses did concur in that retirement, but for the purposes of that case, Mr. Corderoy placed on record that both Houses had concurred. If we are to reopen on that point, we are re-opening on a technical point in favour of Mr. Corderoy. It is quite obvious that if at that time any point had been made of the concurrence of both Houses not being obtained, the technicality could have been put right. It is too late to put it right at this stage, for on the merits, in the courts Mr. Corderoy lost his case. Other public servants in the same position could have brought their action, and the fact that no other public servants have done so shows they were satisfied it was impossible for them to succeed in the courts of the country. The matter was dealt with by a Select Committee, which recommended to the last Government that £100 a year should be paid to Mr. Corderoy, but that was not concurred in by the late Government, because it arrived at the conclusion that it was not justified in paying out public money to a person not legally entitled to it. It seems to me, that if one goes through that Select Committee’s report, the recommendation is not based on any legality or justice of the claim, but rather on feelings of pity for Mr. Corderoy. I do not think any Government is justified in paying out money on those grounds. After all, it is not a difficult case from the legal aspect. I think where the Government has come to the conclusion that legally and morally there is no justification whatever for paying out public money to Mr. Corderoy, the Government cannot, in such a matter, be actuated by feelings of pity or pay this amount because this gentleman has come eighteen times to Parliament. I think this money is neither legally nor morally due to Mr. Corderoy and, after considering the case very carefully, I regret to say that we have had to come to the conclusion that we can do nothing. This is the fixed and definite conclusion of the Government and will not be altered whatever representations may be made.

It is not we who are taking advantage of any technicalities. It is not Mr. Corderoy who has raised the technicalities. On the contrary, it was while he was bringing the matter forward in the courts that the Government dropped into technicalities. He wants the justice of his case to be determined. He is not in the same position as any other member of the public service because he was specially appointed under section 20 of the old Cape Act. He had special qualifications in connection with audits and accountancy and commercial knowledge and he does not come under the same category as other public servants. It was not out of pity that the Select Committee made the recommendation. The reason we made the recommendation is stated in the report which says that, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was appointed under section 20 of Act 32 of 1895, and the fact that had he been retired under the interpretation of the law on which the Government had acted since just before Union, his case would have been dealt with under section 34 of the Act as “abolition of office,” and he would have been entitled to a pension, and if that was so he would have had about £100 a year. That was why we recommended it. That is why the Select Committee made its recommendations; not out of pity, but on the real merits of the case, as the committee saw them. I would urge hon. members to support me in this motion, because all I am asking is that this matter should be fully inquired into. I am not asking for a vote of money—I am not allowed to do so; I am asking only that the House should express its opinion that the Government should deal with this case in an adequate manner.

Motion was put, and Mr. Alexander called for a division.

Whereupon the House divided:

Ayes—21.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Brown, D. M.

Brown, G.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Christie, J.

Conradie, J. H.

Fordham, A. C.

Hay, G. A.

Mullineux, J.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Snow, W. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Waterston, R. B.

Tellers: Alexander, M.; Rood, W. H.

Noes—44.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Close, R. W.

Conroy, E. A.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

Deane, W. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Wet, S. D.

Duncan, P.

Fick, M. L.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Heatlie, C. B.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

Muller, C. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Oost, H.

Pirow, O.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Richards, G. R.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Sampson, H. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Struben, R. H.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Watt, T.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Vermooten, O. S.

Motion accordingly negatived.

The following motion stands in my name—

I think it is an important motion. But I have brought it to the notice of the Minister of Finance and I think that he has taken note of all the points of view. I appreciate the difficulty connected with the proposal and therefore I should like to withdraw it.

Motion dropped.

I move—

I would like to bring the matter mentioned in the motion to the notice of the House. The persons therein named ask that their peculiar circumstances should be taken into consideration. There is a large number of persons who have bought Government farms when times were better, then hard times and bad years came. The markets became poor and locusts and other things came. A large number of owners unhappily find themselves in the position that they cannot meet their obligations. From time to time arguments have been addressed to the House to give relief to such persons. In this instance it is a couple of particular owners, and I wish to bring this to the notice of the House and to impress upon the House that the owners at the foot of the Hangbergen deserve special consideration because they are fighters in the forefront of civilization, and if some steps are not taken in respect of these land owners and they, as a consequence, are driven from the land, then we shall not only be permitting the ruin of those persons, but we shall also weaken the battle of civilization which they are fighting there. We shall have to fight the consequences thereof—more people going to the towns or the diggings. I would thus urge the House that we should meet these people by extending the repayment or making it easier or otherwise.

seconded.

I have no objection to the motion on the paper or its acceptance, but I only wish to tell the hon. member that it is something that concerns the whole Union, and that it will not mean a small expenditure. Land boards have already gone into this question and have recommended to the Government to reduce the purchase price. This has happened under the previous Government and also under the present. While having no objections to the motion, I can give no assurance that the request will be complied with. With regard to the second portion this is already provided for by law.

The motion was agreed to.

I move—

By this proposal the Government is asked to transfer a small piece of ground in Postmasburg to the Village Management Board for the purpose of its use as a recreation ground. It is a small piece of ground situated in the heart of the village and otherwise useless. I understand application was previously made to the late Government. I do not know why it was not granted, and I formally move the motion.

seconded.

I have no objection to the motion. The department can grant the ground and it was customary to grant such requests when the ground fell within the jurisdiction of a municipality or village management board if it was at all possible. I do not know what the special circumstances are in this case, but I will accept the motion and investigate the matter.

The motion was agreed to.

I move—

This motion embraces a petition wherein a special request is made to the Government with reference to the Fencing Law of 1922 and the objectors have contended that in the first place the proclamation was not in order. How far this contention is sound it is difficult for me to say. In any case a second meeting was called to consider the matter. Thereafter petitions were circulated in the ward, and therein the majority expressed themselves in favour of the proclamation and the objectors were in the minority. But I understand that it was only a majority of one vote and that the result was 31 against 30. Now the objectors feel, i.e., with reference to Strydenburg, which is a small village with a small number of inhabitants who for the most part are erf holders, that the proclamation lays intolerable burdens on some of the inhabitants of Strydenburg. A small portion of the erf holders are needy people and the objectors are under the impression that the costs of fencing the village lands should be borne by the erf holders. How far this is true I do not know. That is the representation of the objectors. If the small number of erf holders have to contribute to the cost of the fencing great difficulties will arise for the people of Strydenburg. A second ground on which objection is made is that under the Drought Emergency Loan Act a number of landowners made application for assistance to re-instate themselves, and if they are obliged to make contributions under the proclamation of the Fencing Act, then certain persons who have applied to the Land Bank for money under the Emergency Loan Act, will further be obliged to do one of two things: They will again have to apply for a loan, or they will be driven into the market. There is no other solution. I want to call the attention of the Government to the difficulties I have mentioned. I want it clearly understood that a part of the population is in favour of the law, but I wish to call the attention of the Government to the position of a certain part of the population in these special circumstances.

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

If there is a matter over which I personally feel strongly and to which I attach importance it is this motion. A petition has been sent to the House by 122 inhabitants of Herbert, Hay and possibly also persons living on the south side of the Orange River in the district of Hopetown. The request is with a view to the establishment of an experimental farm and agricultural school for those regions. I think the motion as printed does not reproduce the intention of the petition. In that large neighbourhood of 20,000 square miles approximately 50,000 people reside and there is no experimental farm. A large number of progressive farmers, and especially cattle breeders, live there. On behalf of these people I want to make an appeal to the Government to encourage them and to establish an experimental farm there to develop cattle breeding in the interest of the country. I do not think that there can be any doubt that an experimental farm is necessary. Where the farmers originally used to farm chiefly with cattle they are now applying themselves to small stock as well, and the necessity to go to work on thoroughbred lines is generally felt and also understood by the House. To give the opportunity to the progressive farmers to get information hereon it will be appreciated that an experimental farm is necessary, that the Government should encourage them to build up their flock in a proper way. The second matter, the establishment of a proper school of agriculture at Atherton, is just as important. At Atherton there is a private estate of some hundreds of morgen which can be irrigated by an existing furrow which takes off at the same place as the furrow that goes to Bucklands. Adjoining Atherton there is Crown land which can easily be irrigated by the same furrow, so there is a favourable opportunity to inaugurate a school of agriculture here and still more to establish a settlement on a small scale because we have to do here with ground which is within reach of water. Apart from the suitability of the ground there is an urgent necessity for such a school. If there is a matter which is of importance to the country then it is the state of unemployment, and we can only provide work if we keep the farming population in the country. This we cannot do unless we give them a chance to make their living there. I will repeat that 50,000 people live in that region and there is hardly any opportunity for them to hear lectures on agricultural affairs. The nearest school of agriculture is at Middelburg. The young farmers can go there sometimes, but the youths do not get the opportunity and they obtain no knowledge of agriculture except what is carried on from father to son. I would also like to draw the attention of the House to the large number of diggers. There are 4,000 in the neighbourhood, 2,500 on one of the four places alone, and much can be done in establishing an agricultural school at Atherton. We feel especially that the diggers’ children have no chance of development of any kind beyond the compulsory education. There is no opportunity of their becoming anything but a digger’s child. Conditions reign that we would rather not see. People go there that should not, and we should like to see a solution found. This is especially applicable to the children of the diggers whom we must help. A feeling exists that we can do some good in this direction to our people, especially to those on the diggings. I am not thinking alone of those on the south of the Orange River but also of those on the other bank from the junction of the Vaal along to the Transvaal. There are actually diggings from Fourteen Streams to the mouth. I recently had the opportunity to visit these little villages, and the children have no opportunity to prepare themselves for the battle of life, namely, to go further than compulsory education. The circumstances under which they live are regrettable. On one digging three hundred of them are instructed by six teachers in one room. We feel that a child should receive his education when his mind is still plastic, and what influence will not such circumstances have upon the temperament of the child. If this is the case, what opportunity does the digger’s child get to maintain his position? I hope the Government will accept and give attention to the petition. It has been signed by the best people, farmers, ministers of religion and attorneys. They all feel that we have here an opportunity of doing something and for the Government to do something. I will not refer to the large revenue that the Government gets from the digger. I will only mention that according to the Minister it is £2,000,000 per annum. Of course this does not all come from my constituency, but still the Government get a large revenue from that part, and it is the duty of the Government to see that the people shall have an opportunity to develop the ability which is inherent in them.

seconded.

I move—

I do not think there is any need for me to go into details of the riots, for they are too well-known. I think every right-minded South African was horrified at the acts which were committed at that time on law-abiding citizens. I would like to raise the case of a man who had resided in Natal for 45 years. He was a member of the Durban Town Council and had two sons fighting for the Union in South-West Africa. He lost £45,000. There was another cruel case in Durban, the sufferers being a firm with a Dutch name—Muller and Company. They had in their stores a large quantity of wool belonging to farmers in the Transvaal and Natal; that wool, which was valued at £29,000, was destroyed. I could cite many cases of aged people who to-day are living on charity through these riotous acts. I regret that a petition which was drawn up some years ago—I think it was in 1922—a petition with 2.000 names on it, is not at present available. This petition was not circulated amongst the public, but amongst the responsible people of South Africa, men such as chairmen of Chambers of Commerce and other business people occupying high positions. This petition was handed to Mr. Merriman about the time when his illness began, and we have searched high and low for it, but have been unable to find it. Its prayer was that the Government should take into consideration the payment of these losses. The Select Committee which sat upon incendiarism showed to a detailed extent the amount of damage that was done. Amongst other things the attention of the committee was drawn to an Act passed by the Imperial Parliament which laid the responsibility for any riotous acts upon districts in England. We have no such law here and therefore, it is incumbent upon one to come to Parliament to obtain redress. In every part where damage was done, we find that the greatest damage was done to British and Allies’ property. In Johannesburg the gross amount of damage was £338,000, of which enemy property was represented by £87.000. British or Allies’ property £74.000, and British and Allies’ property £176.000. Then, again, if we take the case of Durban, we find that enemy property to the extent of £18,000 was destroyed, joint enemy and British property £23,000, and British and Allies’ property £159,000. The same applies to Pietermaritzburg and Bloemfontein. What does the world think of a country like South Africa where private property can be destroyed in such a riotous manner as this? Is it not detrimental to our credit? I say that until we discharge this debt, this just debt, it is a slur upon South Africa. These unfortunate people who have suffered since 1915 have continued to pray for relief, and I hope that this House to-day, at this late hour, will grant them this relief, which is merely an act of justice. I move the motion standing in my name.

I second.

I am greatly surprised at the motion of the hon. member. I do not think that there is one member on this side of the House who does not feel and understand the injustice that is done to the friends, but what surprises me is that no protest has been made during all these years. All these years the hon. member has sat still. If it was an injustice, why did hon. members on the other side not come to the previous Government? Now a new Government has come into power and they want put right what the previous Government neglected and what will cost a lot of money. I do not know what position the Government will take up with reference to this matter, but I hope that this side of the House will not approve of the action of the hon. member, who never had the courage to bring the injustice to the notice of his own Government. I hope that this side of the House will be unanimously against the motion. We acknowledge the injustice, but it cannot be put right after so many years by the new Government. The other Government ought to have done it.

While I support the motion, I cannot help being sorry for the position in which the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) finds himself. He is in the position that, notwithstanding his anti-German speeches during the war, he to-day has to come to plead for the Germans, or at least a portion of them. The motion does not deal only with property of British subjects, but the largest portion is property of so-called enemy subjects, and one cannot get away from the idea that the 300 or 400 German voters in Umvoti have something to do with the unfortunate position in which the hon. member finds himself, and therefore while I support the motion, I would like to make it clear to the hon. member that the fact that he finds himself in this position will probably have very little result in his constituency in so far as the German votes are concerned, because they remember very well what he said about them. Further, we find that the motion has been so drafted that it can give little satisfaction in his constituency because the motion talks of making financial provisions to compensate all citizens who have suffered damage as a direct consequence of the anti-German riots. This is clearly only intended for the people who suffered damage and were at that time British subjects. “Burgers” includes all persons who were citizens (burgers) at the time that the damage was suffered, and the Germans who have been naturalized since that time will, I think, be very indignant at the way the hon. member has drafted his motion. Perhaps the point escaped him. Perhaps the hon. member does not appreciate what “citizens” in English and “burgers” in Dutch mean, but as the motion stands here, he excludes everyone who was not a British subject in May, 1915, and if that is the intention of the hon. member I fear that he will get but little support from this side of the House. I support the motion, but I want to add at once that I would support it with far more pleasure if the intention were to bring home the responsibilities to the persons who were responsible for the unhappy conditions that arose, if the motion of the hon. member were to appoint a committee of inquiry intended against the rioters and those who urged on the rioters. And I say, with the full knowledge of what it means, that the anti-German riots were caused by the intentionally weak attitude of the Government of the day. That the weak attitude of the Government was intentional was because it was necessary for political reasons. There v/as an election on hand. It was nevertheless at that time not a matter only of seeing the war through, but for the Government to take care that it should come back after the election, due to take place that year, with a large majority. Because I refuse to believe that any Government could be so weak as the Government of that time was in connection with the anti-German riots and I refuse to accept that. The then Minister of Justice could not have been so weak and incourageous if it was not with the approval of the Government. Gen Botha, who himself took the field, left people behind to carry on the Government, and these people left a peaceable section of the population in the lurch and their invertebrate attitude was the cause of that condition. For weeks and months in advance an agitation had been put on foot which could only lead to one conclusion: Violence against the German population. The Government was aware of all this, but no step was taken to prevent the instigating newspapers and speeches by which the people were excited, and the position became worse and worse. The Government knew that the condition had got more and more critical. We know that it was no secret that evidence was given by dozens of witnesses that in one or two cases—one may as well say this—the Government, by its police or other forces which it had at its disposal, looked on supinely at what was happening, and there were actually cases where, with a large measure of justice, it is believed that the police even took part. The scenes which we saw in Johannesburg and other places give ground for the justification of this allegation that the Government was tacitly collaborating. We cannot accept that the Government did it only out of weakness, we know that the people had to be stirred up for an election to get a large majority and this they actually got. I agree with the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. van Rensburg) that, if it has always been the opinion of the hon. member introducing the motion that an injustice was done, then a committee of enquiry should long since have been appointed under the previous Government. Then the Government would not have appointed the sort of commission that it appointed under great pressure, and then the Government would have accepted the point of view that the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) urges to-day. This was not done, and it will be interesting to see, if the motion comes to a division, what the attitude will be of the hon. members at that time; not only members of the South African party, but also in the Cabinet, and who then had plenty of time to institute an enquiry. In this motion I would like to have seen that the question of the blame for such happenings had also been raised. It is no use for the hon. member to say that in England Riot Act exists, whereby a portion of a district, or an entire district, or the locality or country division is responsible and answerable for damage through riot. I hope that we also hereafter will get such an Act, because it has happened all too frequently in the past that rioters go scot free. I heartily agree with what he says that it is a stain on the good name of South Africa. But who caused this? And are right hon. gentlemen, who were then in the Cabinet, also going to rise and assure us of their sympathy with the motion? Will they do this now? Now that the whole burden of the payments will be shuffled on to the shoulders of this Government? If the motion is accepted they will at a later date again speak of extravagance. It is easy for the hon. member to introduce such a motion, but before they support it, let us give them a little enlightenment as to who is to blame for the damage that was caused. I associate myself with the motion so that we can take away a blot from the good name of South Africa and can reinstate our credit. But how it is to happen that this money can be paid out without the proper enquiry I cannot understand. I hope the South African party will acknowledge that it was due to their invertebrate attitude that everything took place, and that the credit of South Africa will be reinstated in the future by private property being safer. If we can attain this it will be better for the land and the future, and then the motion will be worth something.

I am not sure from the wording of this motion whether it is not a subterfuge, while purporting to give relief to those who no doubt deserve it. I do not know of any anti-German riots in 1914.

In 1915.

I do not know whether the introducer of the motion knows when these riots occurred. I am going to support this motion, with an amendment, which I do not think, is a drastic one. It is an interesting change, occasioned by party politics, that the introducer of the motion was one of those who approved the action of those who inflicted the damage. If party politics bring about such tolerance in party politicians, there must be something good in them. I move—

When that is inserted we shall do more towards levelling up the injustices inflicted on minorities in the past, and to make one clean job of the whole thing, instead of acting little by little. It is common knowledge that there exist to-day on the Witwatersrand many cases where extreme hardship has been incurred and great loss suffered, and so far there has not been any channel through which relief could be brought to these people. The fact that this motion comes from a member of the Opposition would lead one to believe that the House will be unanimous on this question.

I do not envy the Government the task that lies ahead of them if they are going to be called upon to undo all the injustices which have been done during the last 15 years or so. To my mind, if the Government were to attempt to rectify all the injustices that have been done to every section of the community under the late Government, I am afraid the next five years will be fully occupied without the House doing anything in the way of new legislation. But in supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen), I take up this attitude—that if the Government are going to take into consideration the question of compensation to people who have suffered innocently owing to the activities of the agitators in high places, who have not been condemned by the hon. gentleman in the same language that he used in condemning the agitators who took part in the 1922 strike or other strikes in this country, they might go still further. The hon. member has expressed himself very freely in condemnation of members of the working classes who agitated on behalf of their fellowmen, and the hon. member based his criticism entirely on his ignorance of the position and not on the information which was at his disposal. But if the hon. gentleman is going to bring forward the suggestion that the State and the citizens must pay for the damage done, owing to the agitation of agitators in high places and the newspapers, which were very largely responsible for what happened during that particular period, and the anti-German feeling—if the hon. gentleman can reconcile his support of that particular motion I feel sure he will go a little further and forgive those responsible for the 1922 affair. Why not go a little further? Why should the Government not take into consideration the position of all those men who suffered owing to the Government’s action in the 1914 strike, when the Government sent round trolleys with policemen who took men into charge who were detained illegally for some weeks? Some of those men never got their jobs back. Why not have a Select Committee to enquire into those cases also? Perhaps I would not raise this point, because I am interested financially, but why should not those of us who were deported get £40,000 or £50,000 out of the Government? Let us all have a little bit. It is, however, no matter for joking when we consider that during the 1913 strike there were numbers of people who suffered injustices. Many women lost their husbands through the action of the Government, and there are orphans, not provided for by the State, who became orphans in connection with that strike. And there are numbers of people in this country who could put up a very good case for compensation, who suffered owing to the action of the Government during that particular period. Coming to 1914, we find the old story again. It is no use our always looking at the past. Some of the hon. members over there say we are always fond of dragging up the past; but we can only judge of any particular Government or body of men by their past actions, and we can only judge of what they will probably do in the future by what they have done in the past, and in future, if the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is ever again entrusted with the guidance of affairs in this country—and I hope it will be many years before that happens—I hope he will put out of his mind the cobwebs of suspicion that have actuated many of his actions and caused him to do a very grave injustice to certain people in South Africa. I think it may hurt some of the hon. members to bring up this question, but I bring these matters forward particularly to let the hon. member who has introduced this motion realize that as far as these things are concerned there are other phases of life in this country as well as other people than the people he now pretends to serve, that have not been thought of.

Why don’t you bring a motion in?

It is my honest opinion that if I asked the Government to undo the injustices of the last 15 years we would never get any legislation through.

Here is a beginning; you follow my example.

Well, there has been an amendment introduced by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen); he has followed your example. I think it has been said already that the hon. member and those whose ideas are similar to his were largely responsible for this damage being done, and at the time it was done I do not remember the Government of the day adopting a very strong attitude and showing us the mailed fist and being actuated by a keen desire to preserve law and order. There was no question of that. I in Johannesburg, watched the crowd at work, and they simply went from one place to another, without any regard for law at all, broke into the shops, put the stuff into the middle of the streets and set fire to it, and not a policeman interfered. There was no question then of calling out the troops to shoot our jingoistic friends. We watched the crowd destroying the German Club, throwing the furniture out of the windows and burning it, but there was no question of law and order or calling out troops or bringing aeroplanes and bombing the people and carrying out the law regardless of the people implicated. This set a bad example to the people. My hon. friend is probably one of the persons, with his friends, who was responsible for rousing the feelings which caused the public to take this particular action, and we never heard anything about punishing the instigators of these riots, who themselves kept away in a place of safety. We heard a great deal about it after 1922, but not about the gentlemen who instigated this particular business, sitting in their editorial chairs or other places of safety while others bore the brunt of their deeds. I hope from the few words I have said that hon. members on that side of the House will appreciate that there are other sides of the questions than the one put forth by the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) when they bring their class prejudice to bear in condemning the workers for doing similar things in the stress of excitement and when they feel they are acting not on their own behalf but on behalf of their wives and children. I second the amendment.