When I rose to take part in this debate last night, I did so fully conscious of my own temerity, because one knows what a highly technical subject this is. If this debate were entirely confined to the technical side there would be no excuse for a mere layman like myself to intervene. But, after all, this is not a matter which is confined only to the technical man, the expert, and the people who are directly interested in diamond mines. I speak as a man in the street, and it is the men in the street, the men who are laymen in these matters, who in the end will have to foot the bill and who in the end will have to face the consequences of the introduction of legislation of this kind. This Bill, with its revolutionary principles is only the forerunner of a great deal of the same kind of thing which, bit by bit, will come upon us, to the great joy of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) and his friends, but to the overwhelming surprise and consternation of the rest of the members of this House when they realise what the result of that policy is going to be. I support the amendment of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin). I do so on the basis that we have not got the information before us upon which to decide the very important principles embodied in this Bill. A Select Committee should, first of all, enquire into the principle of this Bill; we want to get the facts before we decide the principle, instead of deciding the principle before we get the facts. I hold that so far we have not got the facts. The Minister of Mines has given us a very interesting summary of the position as it appears to him, but a great deal of it was declamation. It seems to me that the arguments which have been brought forward by hon. members on the Government benches in support of this Bill were two, (1) that there was nothing revolutionary in the Bill because you have the precedent of the Electricity Commission, and (2) that there is nothing new in the Bill, because a Select Committee which was appointed by the South African Party Government and on which the South African Party had a majority brought up a report which substantially justifies the introduction of this Bill. When I look at that report of the Select Committee on Precious Stones and Minerals, I find that, in the first place, the evidence which was taken had nothing to do, as far as I can see, with the question of diamond control or diamond dealing. The report of that Select Committee said “Circumstances may even arise,” which, as far as they were concerned, indicated that they were unanimously of opinion that such circumstances might arise, but that the position would be a very exceptional one. They certainly did not pretend to lay down that circumstances were bound to arise which would necessitate Government control of the output. The Committee reported that “Circumstances may even arise which make ft necessary for the Government to come to Parliament in order to obtain powers to control the output of precious stones by all producers within the Union and South-West Africa.” If the Government in introducing this Bill have relied so strongly upon the report of that Select Committee, why have they made an exemption in favour of alluvial diamonds? The Select Committee’s report did not. The second recommendation of the Select Committee was that there should be control of the disposal of precious stones by the producers, that is the producers of the whole of the precious stones within the Union. Again no restrictions in regard to alluvial diggings, no question of absolute control, because, if the recommendation bears a plain meaning, it amounts to this, that it is the control and disposal, not by the Government, but by the producers. It is quite incomprehensible to me how the Prime Minister could read those words as if the words “by the producers” were not in the document at all. Those words are the whole essence of the recommendation. After hearing the Prime Minister say last night that no argument had been brought forward against the Bill, one wondered if the Prime Minister could possibly have been in the House when those highly reasoned and analytical speeches against the Bill were delivered. If he were, I would like to say in his own words: “My goeie Hemel. Waar bly ons?” (Good Heavens! Where are we?) The next point on which reliance was placed was the Electricity Bill. That has nothing to do with the case. This Bill we say is Socialism, and the Prime Minister says: “If this is Socialism, I for one welcome Socialism.” When he said that one was reminded of a previous utterance of his. He said on a previous occasion: “Bolshevism? What is Bolshevism? There is a great deal to be said for it.”

Yes, what is Bolshevism? Give us your explanation.

What is Bolshevism? I should like the Prime Minister to attempt to define that. We all know what Bolshevism is.

Well, then, tell us what it is.

Yes, tell us.

The Prime Minister gave his modified blessing to Socialism last night as he once gave his modified blessing to Bolshevism. In that, at any rate, he has been consistent. Why do we, on this side of the House, say that this is the kind of Socialism we strongly object to? I hold the view and will vote against the Bill because of the view I take that it embodies the principle of the nationalization of the diamond mines, and after the gold mines, and after that Heaven knows how far we shall go. The farmers may see that we may go on to the land after that. I say I hold those criticisms of the Bill are justified, and therefore I shall vote against the principle of the Bill. I hold that the principle of nationalization is embodied in it and, not only that, but also the principle of confiscation; and when you have this grave interference with private rights which the State has allowed a man to acquire, you must show the gravest justification in the interests of the State for it. Where is there a shred of argument in its favour? We have heard nothing justifying such a cardinal departure from the principles of our legislation. If you take your railways, posts and telegraphs and electricity services, as to which demonstrably it can be proved that it is in the interests of the State to control them, then I subscribe to the doctrine of State control to that extent. As the necessity or value of control in any make is proved to me, I subscribe to the doctrine of State control to that extent, but I say we have no right to exercise the powers of State control or confiscation until the case is proved to the hilt. We have the doctrine of expropriation in our law already, I know, but only for public services, for railways, waterworks and such things as are proved to be of great public utility. The difficulty is we have a number of theorists and academical persons in this House who wish to extend the principle of State control to all classes of cases irrespective of whether they are legitimate services for State control or not. And then, on what basis is expropriation carried on in our law? One of the principles is that compensation is paid to those whose property is taken away, and usually the compensation is a little on the high side. No compensation is provided for in this Bill for those persons whose rights are to be taken away. Our national honour is at stake in this Bill. Those who laugh may not know what national honour is. The point I wish to make is this. That where you have had a series of laws carried on for a number of years, such as our mining laws, under those laws you encourage poor men to go out as prospectors. For what? For a reward. The reward was what they could get. Sometimes they made a success of it and sometimes they did not. Then companies have taken over their rights—interested in those companies are poor as well as rich people—and the people who make up those companies have had their rights guaranteed by the law. If you pass this Bill and take away their legal and guaranteed rights, people are entitled to say: You are guilty of a gross breach of national faith; this is a blot on your national honour. From that point I should have thought hon. members opposite would have approached the matter a little more sympathetically. Why should we break faith with people who have risked large sums of money—some profitably, some unprofitably? Certain people do not consider those companies which lose money, but when a company is successful then they cry “Spoil the Egyptians.” Is that the policy of the Government? Is this defensible in a court of honour, remembering that it affects those who in other parts of the world have lent money and given credit to these concerns? We have the principle of co-operation in our law, but this Bill strikes at that principle. For years the Government and the farmers have been trying to get control of the means of production for the benefit of the producer by means of co-operation or control by the producers themselves, and I should have thought that the Government would have acted on that principle. What justification have they in coming in arbitrarily and depriving the producers of the right of dealing with the product of their own industry? I know and respect the rule of the House under which reference to other proposed legislation is debarred. I can only say that one labours under this great disadvantage because of that rule, that you cannot really show the true effect of a particular piece of legislation introduced by the present Government until you put the different parts of the jig-saw puzzle together, and study the Bill in conjunction with other Government proposals. I do not make comparisons, but I ask the House to bear in mind that they cannot appreciate the significance of this Bill unless they take it as one of the component parts of the Government’s policy. One of the things I object to in this measure is the autocratic power given to the Minister, and one has recently had reason to be apprehensive of the Minister’s proposals in that direction.

Not to the Minister, to the Government.

Well, let us say, to the Government. It does not make any difference to me whether I am trodden on by a single individual or by a group, calling itself a corporation. One of the most deadly of the autocratic powers given in this Bill was pointed out by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), namely, the power of the Minister or the Cabinet to select any one producer to be dealt with on autocratic lines. The Minister smiles, but he knows I am right.

I am right.

And he is going to justify it?

Certainly.

The hon. Minister knows that is one of the most serious principles in the Bill and one of the most serious inroads on the liberty of the subject. I should like to deal with a few remarks made by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) who, whispering soft nothings, said a great deal, but told us nothing. He said the maximum that the Government would have to provide would be from three to six million pounds, that the board would be able to recoup itself from the profits and that any further profits would enable it to carry on without coming to the treasury, and that he foresaw the time when the board would be able to assist the treasury. These financial ideas are alarming, because these profits are confiscated profits, taken from the producers. One wonders what the views of the Minister of Finance are in regard to this matter. The Minister of Labour smiles. We have been accustomed this session to a particular type of smile from the Minister of Labour which we find most charming, because we know it means that the point has gone home. During the last election the cry that rang up and down the country was that the Government were piling up the national debt, but what has the present Government done since it took office, but pile up the national debt. One of my grave objections to this Bill is that it goes in for unlimited liability in piling up the national debt. We have not had the pleasure of listening to the hon. Minister of Finance on this Bill, and some of us, who have been impressed by the sincerity of his views, would like to hear what he has to say on a measure that is likely to affect our credit most vitally. The Prime Minister referred us to Clause 9, which says that the Minister of Finance may out of monies provided by Parliament, on such conditions and at such rate of interest as he may deem fit, advance such sums as he may deem necessary. He said these advances would be made out of money voted by Parliament.

Under Parliamentary control.

I thank the Minister for that blessed word “Mesopotamia ”! Parliamentary Control! What is the value of that control when you have landed yourself with three to six million pounds of diamonds? I am not a financier, but I can foresee that the Minister, in order to safeguard these stocks, may be forced to buy more diamonds. The result is that the Minister may be forced to come to Parliament, and Parliament may be forced to help the Minister to nurse the baby, and to save money already put out on a dangerous risk. You are incurring the possibility of a liability on a very heavy scale on an article of luxury of the most uncertain value. The optimistic member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik), expressing his views as to what was going to happen, has told us that the board out of profits will recoup the finances and find money for the treasury. I do not think that hon. member is helping the discussion so far as the Minister is concerned. We also had the member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) giving us his view, and I do not think that those either will be very acceptable to the Minister. In view of the little information given us, our strong belief is that this Bill has been engineered by the left wing of the party opposite. I have before me here a very excellent memorandum, which upholds the principle of transferring the necessary means of production from private to public ownership. I proceed to quote the following from that memorandum—

After arguing that the people would—

And on all this I notice a dead silence on that part of the House opposite me. The memorandum goes on—

In other word, the policy is here laid down of transferring capital, production and distribution to the State so far as having the control by the State, but not so far as giving the producers a voice in the distribution and control. Again—

Read on.

I am not going to miss anything so good as is contained in this. The memorandum goes on—

I am told these are only extracts. I am quite content, on the authority I am quoting from, to take these extracts as indicating the programme of the Labour party in England, Australia, South Africa, or anywhere else. “Common ownership.” Dead silence again. “Of the means of production and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry and service. Next comes the South African Labour party—

Read all of it.

I am quoting extracts, I have no time to do more. If I am promised the indulgence of the House for an extra half hour. I will read it all. Next comes the Constitution of All Russian Congress of Soviet—

Do the farmers realize that under this definition they are exploiters also? “And the division of society into classes, to summarily suppress all exploiters and to establish a Socialist organization of society.” The summary of all that is contained in the same memorandum, and is as follows—

Why don’t you read the Australian one?

The hon. member knows that I have not time. That is unworthy of him. You cannot get out of the point I am making, that the Labour ideal is the common ownership and, control of land and capital, as this memorandum specifically lays down. I have had the most entertaining five minutes studying the cheerful expressions on the faces of the Labour members down there, and the very different expressions on the faces of the Nationalist members opposite me. The writer of that memorandum is Thomas Boydell, M.L.A.

A very good memorandum.

This Bill is the logical consequence of the declared policy of the Labour party on Socialistic lines, as indicated by the writer in that memorandum. It is the first instalment of it, and that being the common declared policy of the Socialist party, what has the Minister of Mines and Industries in common with the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs except a mutual agreement by which they are kept in their places as a Government? We had some challenges yesterday about the Labour party. I want to ask the Minister of Defence whether in the constitution of his party is embodied these words: “No member of the party shall enter into any political alliance or promise immunity of opposition.

What is the date of this?

1924.

Where did you get it from?

How these illustrious comrades do give themselves away! Why is it necessary to have the date? How often do they change their views? The last alteration I know was at the conference at Durban, while the Pact was in gestation, before it was born.

I want to know whether the Minister of Defence holds the same view.

Exactly.

If he holds the same views as before I ask him how he reconciles it with political honesty to be sitting where he is?

The hon. member’s time has expired.

We have heard a good deal of talk from the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), who has endeavoured to drive a wedge in between the two wings of the Pact. The hon. member is very stupid in this. His speech has been on rather a low level. The debate was carried on at a high level on the other side, until it came to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), and when it came to the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) it rolled into the gutter. We have heard the speech, and the gallery has heard the speech, but how will it appear tomorrow when it is written up by that brilliant Mr. Wilson, who sits in the gallery above the clock? “Mr. Close made a speech of irresistible logic and telling force.”

Thank you.

“ The hon. member’s withering fire decimated the ranks of the Government supporters, leaving the Nationalist members to realize the sinister omens which the Bill contains.” That is what the public will see tomorrow, but we know what the House has heard to-day, and when we read these things in the “Cape Times” about these speeches, it only goes to show how far a humorist journalist who has a ready pen will use it when the Jolly Roger is in danger. Nothing else.

What will “Die Burger ”

say?

I cannot say. We know how the English press of the Cape are splashing this great fight. The citadel is in danger, and the people of the country are not taking the same line as the members on the other side. They are taking another line altogether. My friend on the right referred to this as a socialistic measure, and from the yelp which followed it appeared that the crowd at the other side followed suit. “While the dog barks, the wagon still goes on.” There is no doubt about that. From a Socialistic point of view this Bill leaves me absolutely cold. If this is Socialism, it is not the Socialism of the S.A. Labour party— not for a moment. It may be social legislation and good legislation, but it certainly is not socialistic legislation. I can quite candidly say that it never emanated from our wing. It is far too Conservative; there is too much in it of what I may call anaemic Liberalism to suit the S.A. Labour party, when it comes to dealing with the mines and mine-owners and mine-owners’ profits. If we had to deal with this question, we would take over the mines, work them for the benefit of the State, take over the profits and hand them over to the people. An alliance has been made and we are quite prepared to support this Bill, because it goes in the right direction. We have had the most dismal predictions from the front Opposition benches with regard to this Bill. We have had the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), who is a queer mixture—pride, prejudice and pomposity. He is playing the roll of the “heavy father” in this House, and telling the Dutch-speaking people that they must beware of a measure of this kind, because for years, nay, even for centuries, the Dutch-speaking men of South Africa have always been anxious to hold both movable and immovable property. He forgot to tell us that at least one-half of the Dutch-speaking people of this country have no movable or immovable property. The right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) says: If this is Socialism and is only the first step, “Mark me,” he said, “this will lead to confusion, and paralysis will follow.” That sounds like an echo of the elections. We know what was the end of these blundering tactics— Lucifer fallen from his proud state. Even the Conservative newspapers in England are jeering and sneering at the line which has been taken by the South African party. Let me read an extract from an organ which stands for High Church, for Toryism, in its worst or its best form. I quote from the “Spectator,” February 14—

That is how England is looking upon these futile attacks on the Pact. The first point raised against this Bill was that it is Socialistic. That point I have already dealt with. Then it has been said that it cannot be carried out, because the Government has neither the men nor the money. As regards that point, I admit that the diamond trade is a most difficult and dangerous trade, and that there are probably only two men who understand how it should be run, but these two men—the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Sir David Harris) and the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer)—also buy brains. We know that not many years ago they employed in their business Mr. Brink, who is the greatest expert the world has ever produced on diamonds, a man whom South Africa is proud of, a born South African. Where is he working to-day? He is working for the South African Government. If you can get Mr. Brink, surely you can get other people, too, to run this business. In my remarks on these men in the diamond trade, I am not referring to men like the hon. member for Beaconsfield, because I know that he has set his roots in the South African soil. I am speaking of men overseas, who are now being protected by hon. members opposite. Money from these mines has gone overseas, and all we have left here is the big holes. Another point which has been raised against this Bill is that it is penal legislation against De Beers. I am not speaking for the Labour party—I have no right to do so—but speaking for myself, I say that De Beers are the best employers of Labour in South Africa. They were the first people to give the eight hours day to the working classes in South Africa. Why should we attack De Beers? The men who belong to the Labour party work for De Beers, and get their living out of De Beers. It is to protect those men who are working for De Beers that we are supporting this Bill to-day, so that they shall not be thrown into the street, as they have been in the past. The right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said that no Government in South Africa has as yet controlled industries in South Africa—outside war measures, I take it—and that this is quite a new principle in the present Bill. His own Government not many years ago—on October 21st, 1922 —by a Bill passed through this House controlled the farmers’ products in South Africa, so much so that these particular farmers were not allowed to do with their products as they thought fit. The South African party Government controlled the products of the farmers in South Africa through an agreement between the administration of South-West Africa and the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Company, Limited, in connection with the erection and construction of cold storage and refrigerating works at Walvis Bay dated October 21st, 1922. Clause 6 says: “For the purposes mentioned, the Administration hereby gives and grants the company and the company accepts ”—it would be fools if it didn’t—“the sole and exclusive right (a) to export overseas to markets outside the Union of South Africa dead meat from the said territory.” What does that mean? The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) is a farmer in South-West Africa; he has breeding cattle for export; these cattle are his own property. He has built up a large herd and he wants to send them to the Smith-field market, but he cannot do so because the State says: “You shall not sell these cattle in London, Amsterdam or Italy; we are going to take away from you your cattle and hand them over to the Imperial Cold Storage Company.” The late Government took the cattle and handed them over to Sir David Graaff. Jobs for pals! Let us go a little bit further. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) introduced a Bill into this House refusing to allow the ostrich breeder the right to the eggs laid by his own ostriches. Bolshevism! This; Government has never taken away eggs from a bird yet. Picture to yourself the unfortunate ostrich laying an egg and the hon. member for Fort Beaufort says: “No you don’t, you can have that egg as long as you keep it in South Africa, but if you send it out of South Africa two years hard labour.” Bolshevism indeed! The hon. member for Fort Beaufort went further and said that farmers must not export angora ewes from this country. That is Bolshevism; but you take people’s private property away. Then we had the Food Control Commission of 1923, and only a few days ago the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) brought in a Bill to Bolshevize the wild birds and said you cannot export wild birds. That is Bolshevism. If I catch a bird on my farm I may not send it to a friend in England. That Bill interferes with the property of the people. For many years this country has recognized in its legislation the right of Government to exercise control of this description. I am sorry the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) is not here. In 1902, when he was a member of a Crown Colony Government, he introduced a Bill in which he said that if a mine were found on a man’s farm the owner would have to give up 60 per cent, of the rights in the mine to the State. He took away what God had given us— it was Bolshevism. The gentleman who sat on the other side, and Sir Percy Fitzpatrick among them, rose up in their wrath and said the old Dutch people would not give up their rights in this fashion. The very same speeches which had been made here in the last day or two were made in the Transvaal against that Act. In those days the hon. member for Yeoville was the Trotsky of Lord Milner’s kindergarten. The Minister of Mines in this Bill says that small mines will not be controlled. That is exactly what the hon. member for Yeoville did in his Act. He said this Bolshevistic measure will not apply to the small mine. The hon. member for Yeoville was the first man to introduce that policy of the state getting a portion of the mineral wealth of the country. Well, I am very glad he did it. We have been told about the confiscation clauses of the Bill, but they must be put in. Say to-morrow the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) and the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) compose their differences, where would the state come in? Say, however, they quarrel, and the Anglo-American Corporation gets annoyed with Solly Joel, and suppose the J. P. Morgan Syndicate says: “We will throw the diamonds on to the world’s markets.” Should not this Government have the right to step in and say: “No, you don’t, for if you swamp the market, fourteen thousand South African diamond diggers will be ruined.” That is all that this Bill means, and it is aimed at securing the social welfare of the people. I am glad this debate has taken place because it has shown the South African party in its true colours. For the first time for many years the real leaders of the South African party have led the debate. The debate was led by three “links of Empire.” The hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) came first, then came the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer), and he was followed by the Chartered Company—another “link of Empire.” Those are the men who are the shadows behind the South African party throne. Then we had the spectacle of the South African party in full cry, supporting De Beers and big capital. It does not matter what the newspapers say, that is what the people will see and say. We are fighting, on this side of the House, for the rights of the people. My hon. friend on the other side praised this Bill with faint damns. He is in favour of the Bill. He practically told us so. Naturally, he does not want to hit his own friends, no one wants to shoot the man in the same trench as himself. But he is like all these capitalistic people, he takes great exception to any laws which are made for the good of the people. I go so far as to say this, that if these two gentlemen—who belong to a race for which I have the greatest respect— if they had been in the wilderness many years ago, following that great old statesman, Moses, when he issued the Ten Commandments, they would have told him that it was most embarrassing legislation. That is the point of view which our friends on the other side bring to bear on anything which is new. The speech made by the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris), if I may presume to say so, was to my mind an excellent speech from his point of view. We do not take any exception to his making a speech of that kind, but what we do take exception to is the speech of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and the unhappy hog-wash he and some of his friends wallowed in. I support this Bill because, we believe in the old slogan, “South Africa first. ”

I quite agree with the hon. Prime Minister when he said that after the arguments or so-called arguments that have been used by the Opposition one feels more convinced of the necessity of such a law than ever before. I completely share this view. I will at once give a few instances of what has gone before. I want to refer the House to the report of the Select Committee of January, 1924. I want to mention it especially for the benefit of our Dutch-speaking members. The report says, i.a.—

In principle that is absolutely the same as what is laid down in this Bill. There is perhaps a difference of degree, but I quote it here because in my speech I quoted what the hon. Minister of Mines, my predecessor, said at the Diamond Conference in April, 1924, when he warned the persons concerned that he had staved off in Select Committee, had tried to stave off, legislation to exercise control. But he warned them that such legislation might indeed become necessary. Then I refer to a section in the Electricity Act with reference to the principle of expropriation with the principle of encroachment by the State upon the private rights of the citizen. In article 42 of the Electricity Act of 1922 I find further in a separate chapter, in chapter 4, which deals with water rights and expropriation of ground, that the following provision has been made—

Expropriation of ground—the section, it is true, proceeds to lay down that the Governor-General must take steps to hold an inquiry, but the final decision nevertheless rests with the Government. In this Bill the decision also rests with the Governor-General, thus the principle is absolutely the same. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) has properly cited the provisions of the Diamond Cutting Act of 1919, which is far more closely connected with this problem. And what did the previous Government do in section 3? Provision is clearly made to compel producers of diamonds to sell diamonds to certain persons, e.g., to cutters, and it is clearly laid down in the Act that the Minister—and not the Government —that the individual Minister is to decide in some cases about the price itself. I should like to remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that when he and I sat on the same side of the House in the Transvaal in 1907 how he at that time introduced a great principle which clearly encroached upon the rights of people, e.g., in his co-operative legislation, where the principle of joint and separate responsibility—to make every member of a cooperative farmers’ association responsible for the entire debt of the association—was laid down; and I well remember how our farmers hestitated to accept the principle of taking the responsibility upon themselves. If one were to regard the arguments of hon. members opposite as valid then they want to make it appear as if an encroachment should never be made upon the rights of one or another’s section, and if one is to attach any value to the trend of the arguments, then no Minister should be permitted to introduce legislation upon a subject with which he is not personally entrusted and fully acquainted. Why then have we our advisers and officials and experts? The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has set himself up as a moralist and treated the matter from the standpoint of ethics. I admit that he can claim to be the arch-Machiavelli of South Africa, that he can stand as arch-violater of the law of nations, but when he attempts to get on to the highest rung of the ethical ladder then it becomes amusing. The role of moralist very ill befits him. The hon. Leader of the Opposition is a man who has never had much knowledge of human nature, in this respect he differs from his late colleague, Gen. Botha. A man with his past should be the last to talk about morals. I now just revert to the other observations of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I wish to mention to the House that on the 29th February, 1924, the following telegram was sent by the Administrator of South-West Africa, Mr. Hofmeyr, to Mr. Hirchhorn in Kimberley (Mr. Hirschhorn is the representative of the London Diamond Syndicate and a member of that syndicate)—

At whose instance was this telegram sent? At the instance of the Government, of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. The hon. Leader will also remember what the position and what the opinion of the Administrator was at that time. After experience in South-West Africa extending over some years, as far as the action of the Diamond Syndicate was concerned his conclusion was that the position was such that the producers in South Africa were confronted every six months with an ultimatum from the syndicate. The syndicate simply held a pistol at their heads. Now, the hon. Leader of the Opposition surely does not regard Mr. Hofmeyr as a revengeful man who is inspired with a spirit of vengeance against the syndicate or the leader of the diamond industry. I have this morning received a letter from Mr. Hofmeyr reading as follows—

Is Mr. Hofmeyr a Nationalist?

What has that to do with it?

I know that that has nothing to do with the question, but it has been suggested that this Bill has been introduced from a spirit of vengeance and requital. Now I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition if he did not appoint Mr. Hofmeyr and if he did not have great trust in his ability and honour? But I want further to go shortly into the matter of the necessity of control in South Africa. This I think is the only fault that the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) finds with the Bill. His speech was interesting and instructive. It was actually the only speech from the other side containing any argument that approached the matter seriously. The memorandum which I have here under the hand of Mr. Hofmeyr contains, i.a., the following decision—

The chief powers transmitted to the Administrator by consequence of the German Ordinance are the following—

1. (1) That all producers of diamonds are required to hand over their entire output to him for the purpose of control or realization.
2. (2) That the realization of the diamond output shall be effected in such manner as in his opinion is the most favourable to the producers.
3. (3) That he is empowered so far as he considers it requisite for the purpose of maintaining a healthy diamond trade, to fix in respect of each producer a yearly maximum of diamonds for the purpose of realization.
4. (4) To limit the total production of the country to a maximum figure, and to allocate to the individual producers their respective shares in this total.

And the fault which the hon. member for Kimberley has made was in saying that in South-West there is a control apart from the Administration. It is true that in practice, in the practical application of the law, the Administrator Mr. Hofmeyr, as an honest man, knew the parties interested in the matter, and gave them every opportunity to state their point of view. I make an appeal to the member for Kimberly (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) to the chairmen of De Beers and the Premier and other mines, to say whether I, as Minister of Mines, have not always given them a reasonable opportunity to come to me and lay their view of things before me. It was simply the practice of the Administrator of South-West to do the same with regard to similar matters, but that has nothing to do with the contents of this Bill. The only difference that exists between this Bill and the position in South-West Africa is that in the proclamation of 1921, Mr. Hofmeyr gave notice that if the producers agreed amongst themselves to fix the quota without a difference of opinion existing he would regard the agreement as binding and approve of it. He would regard the approval as a formality. But he says in a memorandum to me that such an unanimous agreement has never yet been reached. This is the only difference that exists, and I again make an appeal to the hon. member for Kimberley. I think in his heart he is glad that the Government has such a hold on things in South-West, and thus, if it answered well in South-West, why then not also in the Union? If there ever was a Bill where it is the case as the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) Mr. Barlow) has said, that the Minister has not been approached by members of the Labour party, then it is the case with this Bill. This is precisely the position. We had constantly to do with difficulties that arose out of the fact that the syndicate had held a pistol at the head of the producers and before the former Government fell, they had to extend the contract nolens volens. We came to the conclusion that it was an intolerable position, no Government can permit it, and if I must state my impression after having heard the arguments of the Opposition, it is this that it is still clearer to me that the hon. member for Standerton did not dare to, and could not, introduce legislation to solve the question. Accordingly, after the position had been considered by the Government, I said to the interested parties—and I took good care that the syndicate came to the knowledge thereof—thus far and no further. If you cannot come to an agreement then the Government will take such steps as they think fit. What was the consequence of this step, and what position did the syndicate then commence to take up? This syndicate plays quite another part, and the reason is obvious. I will with pleasure do my best to answer the argument referred to here. The best speech of the Opposition was that of the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) and he alone argued the matter. I do not, however, wish to appear rude and, therefore, I will do my best to answer in as fair a way as I can, all the points taken on the other side of the House. I ask the hon. member for Kimberley if he is convinced in his heart that the step the Government is here taking is a wrong one. Is he convinced that the Government should not have compelled the syndicate? I think in his heart he is glad about it. His speech, as a matter of fact, supported my speech. I do not speak here of inferences and opinions, but in so far as facts are concerned without doubt his speech supported mine. He has not contradicted, nor tried to contradict, one of the facts I have mentioned. Thus, he has conceded to the Government the explanation that I have given. Thereafter we had the representation of things by him that while the experience of the past has taught that in the immediate future the “Big Four” had only done £4,000,000 worth of business in diamonds he is convinced that this will now be £8,000,000, and he expects the diamond trade to flourish again. Just compare this statement with that of the hon. member for Beacons-field (Col. Sir David Harris), a man who knows the position. When I compare his speech with that of the hon. member for Kimberley, then the thought occurs to me that he has caught hold of anything to defend the position. I will presently deal with the speech of the hon. member for Beaconsfield. On the one side we have the expectation of the flourishing of the diamond industry, on the other side we have the dark for bodings of the members for Beaconsfield and Standerton. I share the view of the hon. member for Kimberley. He is not frightened by the Bill, not in the least, but we still have a conflict between the three members of the Opposition. The member for Kimberley says that there is such a measure of control that the control which is proposed in the Bill is unnecessary. The member for Standerton says that there is no control while the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) says that there should be control. I leave it to them to reconcile these three points of view. The hon. member for Kimberley says that there is such a measure of control by a private agreement that it is unnecessary to introduce this legislation. How can he say that? Did he not come to see me, did we not discuss the matter, and did I not tell him what the main points of the Bill were for him to make comments? Did he make any comment? Did I not say the same thing to the chairmen of De Beers and the Premier Mine? I go further and refer to the telegram of Mr. Hofmeyr to Mr. Hirschhorn, which I read. Do the members say in the light of that telegram that no control is necessary, to have a hold on the syndicate to compel it to take away the pistol from the head of the producers? I ask them to say this seriously. I do not believe it. The member for Kimberley knows what the negotiations were and he has said that he does not speak as the defender of the syndicate. He says that he also appreciates the difficult circumstances from which the Bill takes its origin. His speech was thus actually in support of the Bill. This is the striking difference between the speech of the member for Kimberley and the member for Beaconsfield. There is a radial difference between the points of view from which they approach the matter and also between their ideas of the operation of the Bill. Now I come to the impartiality of the director of De Beers, who at that time was, and still is, a member of the syndicate. I repeat literally what I said, I do not take back one iota, and the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) knows me personally, and I am sure that he does not share the view of the leader of the Opposition that I am inspired by revengefulness. Revengefulness against whom, De Beers, hon. members for Kimberley and Beaconsfield, or whom? I acted in accordance with the best information and expert advice that I had. Who, e.g., appointed Mr. Brink? The hon. Leader of the Opposition. Does he believe in the honour and trustworthiness of Mr. Brink? Yes, certainly, and I share the opinion of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) that we should be proud of a Dutch-speaking Afrikander, who is known throughout the world as an expert in diamonds. I do not know what his politics are, but I never understood that he was a contemptible Nationalist. Now I ask the Leader of the Opposition if it is honourable to come here and play to the gallery and the public outside to give the impression that this legislation is introduced in a spirit of revengefulness. Really, my first intention was to treat that expression with the contempt it deserved, and not to refer to it. but does he think that Mr. Brink and the Administrator of South-West are inspired with a spirit of retribution? No, I have never made a personal attack on the honour or dishonour of any individual director of De Beers or the syndicate. I think that as Leader of the Opposition the right hon. member for Standerton ought not to use such an expression. I can understand that the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (My. Coulter) does not appreciate this, but he also belongs to those in the Opposition who are lawyers, and he ought to know that the law does not permit a responsible director to hold a double position, that he is a seller, and at the same time acts as purchaser. If a case comes before the court, then the court permits no such thing, and the view of the court will be that such a contract is void. A person cannot serve two masters; that is the experience of the world since its commencement; that is what I mean. But I quote the opinion of the administrator of South-West. What does he say? He talks of the exploitation of the position by the syndicate. Will the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) contradict that the syndicate makes millions of profits? He said himself that the output of diamonds is about £150,000,000. How much went through the hands of the syndicate? And I should like to know the normal profit of the syndicate to which the hon. member referred in general terms without specifying the details. I challenge him to give us the assurance that the syndicate has not made millions of profit out of the sale of diamonds of producers of South Africa. Then he goes on and gives us what I regard as a very naive expression, an innocent explanation for a man of his experience and technical knowledge. He says, #x201C;But you must know that every company has an independent committee and that every member of that committee is a man who has no interest in the syndicate.” Just imagine! But who appoints the committee, who controls the committee? No, that sort of argument is not sound. If ever a case should come into court, then the court will regard the matter differently. The principle the court adopts is not based on a technical view, and the court will declare that no one can serve two masters at the same time. Now I want to add something. Will the hon. member deny that the Jagersfontein company sells its diamonds to the syndicate? Who is the owner of this Jagersfontein Company? The hon. member for Beaconsfield knows well enough that it belongs almost exclusively to a particular person. But I go a little further and want to point out what the commercial morality or immorality, the measure of the inviolability, of which we have heard, is. The syndicate, as I have already said, buys the diamonds from the Jagersfontein company. Will the hon. member contradict this? But who is the valuator of these diamonds? Who would you think? … The syndicate itself. Does the hon. member for Beaconsfield deny this? A nice specimen of commercial morality! Now I come to another error of the hon. member for Beaconsfield. He asks what control the Government requires, and says that control already exists. The Government control the position in South-West. Does the hon. member suggest that things should be done differently in South-West? By proclamation of the Administrator? They will not come with this proposal. And is what is good for South-West not good enough for us, especially where South-West is regarded as an integral portion of the Union? The hon. member must further remember that we have 60 per cent. interest in the Premier Mine, and I understand that the great grievance is that our predecessors always neglected to properly control that 60 per cent. of the Premier. We have to-day the position that the diggers of Bynespoort, if they want to dig on unproclaimed ground, the Premier Mine sits there like a dog in the manger and will not allow these people to dig, and the Government is powerless, although we have 60 per cent. interest in the property, and the poor people must not work an inch of ground without the consent of the company. Is this right? Accordingly, when the hon. member stated to the House that the Government to-day actually controls the 60 per cent. in the Premier Company he exhibited the ignorance he had attributed to me. The next point that the hon. member for Beaconsfield mentioned was that of big stones. He said that the Union alone produced these big stones and need not be afraid of the whole world. What does the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) say? What is the position as far as Angola is concerned? Notwithstanding the long experience of the hon. member for Beaconsfield, I say that in so far as large stones are concerned we need not fear the competition of Angola it is infinitesimal, and I ask the hon. member for Kimberley if he does not share this view. Further the hon. member for Beacosnfield contends that diamond shares have fallen in value three-quarters of a million. He forgot to add during which dates the drop took place. He told us nothing about his calculation, but I want to state the fact and it is my decisive test that since the 2nd March, when I introduced the second reading of the Bill into the House, and made my speech the “deferred shares” of De Beers rose from £11 3s. 9d. to £11 11s. 3d. to-day. That happened after I had introduced the second reading and explained the Bill. Then I go further regarding the “Consoldia.” On the 27th February the chairman of De Beers, who is also chairman of the Premier Mine, Mr. Ross Frames, said in a meeting that it was expected that legislation would be introduced to promote diamond cutting and that, as a consequence thereof, further burdens would be laid on the diamond industry, The price if “Consoldia” shares was then 17s., and what has been the price since that date? When I introduced the second reading and made my speech on the 2nd March, they stood at £1, and to-day they are still approximately “at par.” To-day they are still approximately at par 19s. 6d. or so. I allege, therefore, that the diamond market has risen generally in so far as the shares are concerned since I introduced the measure at the second reading. I come now to another point. It is the danger which, has been mentioned by the hon. member for Beaconsfield. He has told us that in former days there were 4,000 whites in the De Beers employ, and to-day there are only 1,800. He therefore tries to make out that such legislation will further demoralize the mines. He frightens the worker and also says that capital will be frightened away. But what is the simple explanation thereof? There is in the first place the competition of South-West, which has made a difference. Further, we also find that the yield of the diggings has increased because in the circumstances that prevailed there many of our poor people could make a living, but it is especially attributal to a new way of direct treatment which has been introduced. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Beaconsfield if he knows that the hon. member for Kimberley, at the beginning of the year, made the offer to take the diamonds of the De Beers and the Premier Mines? Is it not a fact that he made an offer to buy the quota of 51 per cent. and 18 per cent.? Of course, it is a fact, The syndicate, which in December made its offer saying what it would do, obtained this information and was thus in the position to top that offer. Did the hon. member for Beaconsfield give the hon. member for Kimberley a further chance of making a higher bid? He answers no. No, he did not do it. At that time when these negotiations were going on I wrote a letter, or sent a telegram, to the chairman of De Beers (perhaps the hon. member for Beaconsfield knows about it). I naturally knew of the offer and as Minister of Mines I took up the position that the interest of the state— the state has an interest in the matter and, in the case of the Premier Mine, to an extent of 60 per cent.—should be protected and that an attempt should be made to obtain the best conditions from the syndicate. The hon. member for Beaconsfield showed a great disposition to meet the syndicate and he has held up the syndicate to the House as an example of the spirit of concession and magnanimity. He has declared here that the syndicate in 1921 kept back diamonds to the value of £7,000,000 for the sake of the producers. What magnanimity is there in this? What benefit is it? The simple explanation is that they could not dispose of the diamonds even if they wished. There was no market for them and they could not help showing anything else but magnanimity. Did the hon. member also tell us that the syndicate came begging hat in hand and prayed the producers release us from the great responsibilities under the contract and the contract was then, by mutual agreement, ended before its proper time of termination. Such important facts the hon. member for Beaconsfield forgot. He spoke with contempt of the increase of 2½ per cent. which was obtained as a consequence of the action of the Government. He must know that the advantage of this is much more than this 2½ per cent. The member for Kimberley, who has gone more deeply into the matter, told us that the syndicate, since the introduction of the Bill, has raised the price of diamonds. Is this true or not? It is the test that we must use, e.g., the practical consequences of the Bill and these are favourable. Then the member for Beaconsfield comes and asks: How on earth the Government can fix the minimum prices of diamonds. How did the syndicate do it? From January, 1925, the prices have been fixed and if these producers could fix these prices mutually, why is there then something so fallible in the Government that it also cannot fix the prices? Then I would like to ask of the protagonists of the diamond mines what an interested person in the syndicate is. What has the hon. member for Beaconsfield done in calling into being a selling; agency to compete in the diamond market with the syndicate? He has not used a brass farthing for the purpose. I can with pleasure pass what has been said here that we have been moved by political considerations to exclude the diamonds of the diggers. Why did the syndicate in the past in its private contract confine itself only to the four great producers? It is one of the grievances to-day that the diggers are an important factor in influencing the position. Why then have they hitherto been left out of account? If they did not do it in their private contracts which had the same object as this Bill, why must the Government include the alluvial diggers. The diggers do not constitute a unified body. There is splitting up; there is no collectivism, but individualism. Everyone is on his own and the life is from hand to mouth. But if a large corporation is called into being to control a digging then it will perhaps be necessary to take into consideration whether the digging should not also be included. But even then the matter would not, yet be clear and there still exists a big difference. The four large producers sell their diamonds to the syndicate, which is situated in London and spends its profits there, but the diggers are spread over the country and the profits and capital invested by them is invested and spent in this country. Now the hon. member for Kimberley says that he concedes the whole principle, but he adds that it would be a good thing if we incorporate in the Bill a section that if the producers do not agree then we shall only apply the Bill. Well I am not going to repeat what I have already said. He has made an impractical proposal. Who is going to judge whether the producers have come to an agreement? No, it will never do. So far as the constitution of the Board of Control in South-West is concerned, I should like to point out to the hon. member for Kimberley that the members of that board were not buyers of diamonds. That is the great difference between South-West and the Union. The producers in South-West were formerly not interested persons as buyers. I do not suggest that the diamond market is falling to pieces and the hon. member for Kimberley does not think so either. I would like to ask the hon. member for Kimberley if he took part, naturally through a representative, in the conference which was held in Cape Town in December and January, the object of which was to come to a mutual agreement with the producers. Naturally he took part as an interested party. Does he know that that conference was quite at the breaking point, and does he know that it threatened to break up entirely? If that had happened it would have been a heavy blow to the diamond industry. And can he now in view of all the facts, and in view of what the syndicate did in 1924, say in all uprightness and honour that there is no necessity to exercise control because it already exists? Now I come to the arguments of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin). He said that we would never get a competent board to deal with such a complicated matter. What a reflection on the talent of South Africa! He was himself a prominent man in Johannesburg, and did he not employ the best advisers who could be obtained for money. I never could understand why private companies can use clever men and technical experts, while the Government can never obtain such people. It is surely childish to use such arguments, and still this is done by speakers like the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin), Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter), Standerton (Gen. Smuts), Rondebosch (Mr. Close), who began by declaring that they had no knowledge of the diamond industry arid trade and no inside information in the matter about which the Bill deals. I will put the question to the hon. member for Rondebosch— he is an advocate—if it does not frequently happen that an advocate is called upon to take a brief in connection with a subject about which he has no knowledge, often a complicated matter with technical difficulties, and yet the people are only too pleased to get his services. And because he has time to study the subject, to get the advice of specialists and of his client, it often happens that the advocate in a short time has a much clearer insight into the matter than one who has spent his whole life at it. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) moves for a Select Committee, and the proposal is to have the contents of the Bill enquired into by that committee. I am sorry that I cannot accept the motion for the simple reason that the principle in the Bill is a simple principle, not difficult to understand, so that it is not necessary to refer it to a Select Committee, and if we must take the word of the Opposition then they have torn the thing so to pieces that nothing is left of it. Well then we can fight it out in Committee of the House. The argument Has also been used that we will not be able to get the proper people for disposing of diamonds. That is a story without any value. When in 1921-’22 the great drop in the market came the syndicate was as helpless as a baby. Now I come to the argument of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter), but I will not delay long. I only wish to say that his speech has been described by several members as a brilliant speech and especially the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) rejoiced at the speech. He said he had never seen an important measure so torn to pieces as this Bill. but his reason for the argument was very pitiable. And the brilliant speech of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) was to my mind a series of hair-splittings. What is the first point? The other points are similar. He says that I myself notified that the interest of the State in the Premier Mine was 60 per cent. and that the interest of the State in South-West stood on precisely the same footing. Yet the fact remains that the State has this great interest in it. For this reason I do not wish at the moment to agree with the statement of the hon. member for Yeoville that that speech, that brilliant speech, with others, has torn the Bill to tatters. He asks further what the prospects are of the diamond trade. I referred him for a reply to the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer). He gave his opinion thereon, but I refer him further to this fact: the hon. member for Kimberley came to my office—we need not keep it secret—and he was accompanied by Mr. Walter Hudson, one of his colleagues and co-directors, and I took them into my confidence and told the hon. member that he was not to publish it to the world, but that these were the principles along which I proposed to introduce legislation. I kept nothing back from him. What did he do? He got such a fright at the proposed legislation that he said that he had a contract for one year for the diamonds in South-West, but that he now would like to have the contract for five years. Now I come to the hon. member of Port Elizabeth. I am sorry that he is not in his place. He spoke of the double part. I have made the legal position clear how the court deals with the matter if someone acts at the same time as seller and purchaser. But I would further remind the hon. member of his own experience of a double capacity in the case of Osry v. Hirsch, Loubscher & Co. No, the position is this, that I think that the hon. member for Kimberley with his hand on his heart must say that he acknowledges that for the last few years the De Beers, Premier, Jagersfontein, South-West had to struggle to get reasonable terms from the syndicate. Now it is observed that this side of the House, especially the Nationalists, have not spoken about the matter. The hon. members opposite have called it the conspiracy of silence. There is an old proverb—and the legal members will appreciate it—“ the matter speaks for itself” (res ipso loquitor). I want to apply it here. There is no necessity for us on this side to talk about the matter. We and the country have long seen the necessity for this measure. It has even been acknowledged by my predecessor, and it is the opinion of the administrator of South-West and Mr. Arend Brink. The argument that I allow myself to be dictated to by the Labour party is as childish and unsound as it possibly can be. I can give hon. members the assurance—and they can take my word or not—that on no occasion did a Labour member suggest to me the introduction of this sort of legislation. The circumstances, the necessity, drove me to do it. We have heard from the Leader of the Opposition “The voice of De Beers was a mighty voice in those days.” He says it with regret. He would gladly see that De Beers’ voice was still a mighty one. This is the man who on the 31st January, 1907, was on the same platform with Mr. Creswell, who was also one of the speakers, at Burgersdorp, Johannesburg, and he then declared—

Will the hon. member, the Leader of the Opposition, deny it? And my answer to the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), who has referred to the fact that we Nationalists assist our friends of the Labour party, is that the position taken up is the same position that the hon. Leader of the Opposition took up. He said what I have just quoted and what we say now. Our position is not altered, but where does the hon. member for Standerton (Gen Smuts) stand now? I must hurry on. I am sorry to keep the House so long in my reply, but I am anxious to reply to all the points raised as fully as possible and prove that I have an answer to them. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has said that the Bill gives far too much power to the Minister. I think that there is a great difference between a Minister in his department and the action of the Government as a Government, because if it is action by the Governor-General, then it is necessarily presumed that the matter has been discussed at a Cabinet meeting. It makes a great difference from the action of the Minister independent of the Cabinet. In most of the sections of this Bill the Governor-General is spoken of. It is only in unimportant subordinate matters that the Minister is spoken of. Only in such instances will the Minister act independently and personally. But I want to call attention to section 6 in the Bill, which fixes the power of the board. Six (a) deals with a purely voluntary condition of things and regulates an entirely voluntary agreement between buyer and seller. Under (c) you have the same position, and the only intermediate section wherein there is any obligation is (b). There the board is entitled—I do not wish to minimize the obligation—to demand from any producer that he will hand over these diamonds and the board will sell the diamonds on his behalf. But naturally the board will give a proper account of the exercise of its power to the producers. It is impossible to include all producers. The best proof is that the transactions under the private agreements in the past were limited to the large interested parties. The “Big Four” never tried to include everybody. The syndicate never tried to include everybody in the contract. We have had the experience in the past that there is a group of large producers, and our intention is to be able to select and point out the largest producers. Much has been said here of confiscation or forfeiture of private property. It is a misrepresentation of the chief object of the Bill. Confiscation means that the State does something as against the owner and comes into possession of his property, and the only obligation in this Bill is this, that the State, willy nilly the producer, can take action to sell his output for him, and this is one of the first rules of the common law, that the State shall not sell to itself. All the talk in this connection is therefore without foundation. I would just say something in conclusion. If I look at the attitude of hon. members opposite then it seems to me it is the same attitude as we noticed in the recent election. If one comes to Malmesbury, Edenburg or an outside corner of the countryside, and one of the farmers, a member of the South African party, gets up to ask a question, then one sees the position at once when he has put a few questions. He knows nothing about the questions or, at any rate, of their background, and they are usually in a printed list. One would think that these questions would deal with farmers’ interests, that they would be about fertilizer, corn or the dumping duty. But it is always on behalf of one or another large company, and we then have the sad spectacle that the farmer who puts the question does not understand it himself and is more concerned about the big corporations than about his own interests. I close with the words that I have already used. I am more convinced than ever before of the necessity and fairness of this measure.

Question put: That all the words after “That ”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion, whereupon Sir Drummond Chaplin called for a division.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—71.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Muller, C. H.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. (Tom)

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pirow, O.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J,

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Wessels, J. H. B.

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

Noes—48.

Anderson. H. E. K

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Brown, D. M.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R.H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Watt, T.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; Robinson, C. P.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Sir Drummond Chaplin dropped.

Original motion then put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee on Monday.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

I move—

In moving the adoption of this first report of the S.C. on Railways and Harbours, I may be permitted to say a few words of explanation. A special report had been prepared by the Controller and Auditor-General under section 51 of the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1911, as amended, in regard to the expenditure for the construction of a railway from Klaver to. Kokenaap, which was initiated as a matter of relief to relieve the distress in Namaqualand. This report of the Controller and Auditor-General referred to the South Africa Act, section 125 of the constitution and Act 22 of 1916, in which it is stated that no railway for the conveyance of public traffic shall be constructed without the sanction of Parliament, which sanction in practice is given by a special Act of Parliament, the expenditure being provided in the usual appropriation Act for the year. This line, which is an extension of the Malmesbury-Graafwater line, is 40 miles long, and estimated to cost £173,720; and destined to convey public traffic, and this line has been commenced without the sanction of the Parliament to the construction, and without the expenditure being provided for by Parliament in an Appropriation Act. The Exchequer and Audit Act of 1911, section 48, as amended, allowed the Governor-General by special warrant to authorize certain expenditure, extraordinary expenditure, within certain limits, in addition to what Parliament has provided for unforeseen services which cannot be postponed without serious injury to the public interest. In the exercise of this power, on December 19th, 1924, the Governor-General signed a special warrant for £20,000 for the construction of the Klaver-Kokenaap railway. The minute on which this expenditure was based says this additional expenditure is due to the need for proceeding immediately with the construction of a railway from Klaver-Kokenaap as a relief measure, to relieve the distress and the drought in Namaqualand, and cannot be postponed without serious injury until provision is made by Parliament. This minute did not mention the fact that an opinion had been got by the Auditor-General of the law advisers of the Union, and these law advisers advised that the special warrant which had been got from the Governor-General was not such a special warrant as is contemplated by the Exchequer and Audit, Act and, therefore, the Controller and Auditor-General reported the matter to Parliament, and Parliament referred it to the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours for report. I wish to lay the special report on the Table. In the report the following facts, after evidence had been taken, have been substantiated. The Government had decided to commence in November, 1924, without first seeking the approval of Parliament, in order to relieve the distress in Namaqualand. The Minister advised the Railway Board of the Government’s decision to construct this line, and the decision to finance the work out of railway funds. The Railway Board was of opinion that the Government, as the executive authority of the country, could proceed with such work provided the Governor-General’s warrant was obtained and the authority of Parliament was sought as soon as Parliament assembled. The question has arisen in the minds of the committee whether it was competent for this committee to go into the matter, and this is the special report. The committee had found that the law absolutely laid down that no railway construction could be commenced which was destined for the conveyance of passengers and goods without the consent of Parliament, and also that any special warrant from the Governor-General did not cover such a case as the building of a railway. It is clear that the Governor-General, in the case of distress, or any matter which is brought before him by special report, could authorize the expenditure of any amount of money without the sanction of Parliament, provided that such expenditure was not against an Act of Parliament, and in this matter by the Act of Union it was specifically laid down that no railway was to be begun or built without the sanction of Parliament, notwithstanding the Audit Act of 1911. In 1916 a new law was passed which neither altered nor abrogated what was done in the Union Act. We, therefore, felt this matter must be referred to Parliament and that Parliament must be acquainted, and that the matter must be indemnified by the Government. According to evidence which was laid before us, it was perfectly clear that as far as the Railway Board were concerned, they were not called upon to report specially to the Government whether this line was payable, or not. All the Railway Board had to do was, when the Government’s instructions were given to them and they were asked to finance it out of railway funds, the board addressed a minute to the general manager and authorized the spending of railway funds towards the relief asked for. The whole matter is a question of Government policy, and it is for the Government to bring forward reasons why the construction of this railway was proceeded with as against the Act of Parliament.

seconded.

I think from the hon. member’s statement and the report of the. Select Committee that nothing could be more strongly condemnatory of the action of the Government in this matter. There is, however, only one course open to us—that we must legalize the position as we find it and grant the necessary indemnity. We feel that the Government was called upon to alleviate distress and, with every good intention, did what it considered was the correct thing. I suppose no one will cavil at the Government’s efforts to afford relief under these circumstances, but what we are concerned with is that there has been a total disregard of the law of this country and that the statutes which lay down the law with unmistakable clarity and which prevent any railway being built without the sanction of Parliament have been absolutely disregarded. I wish to draw special attention to the last section of the report which, it must be remembered, is not the report of the whole of the Select Committee but of the Government majority on that Committee—

This warrant was obtained without all the facts being placed before his Excellency. In his original report the general manager of railways explained the different Acts of Parliament to the Government, and he went further. After explaining the position under the Audit Act of 1911 he referred to an amendment of that Act in 1916 which emphasized the necessity of obtaining the sanction of Parliament before any line can be built. The general manager right through warned the Government against its action. The evidence is perfectly clear that the Government’s attention was drawn to the necessity of obtaining Parliamentary sanction before any action was taken. After action had been taken the Government’s attention was again drawn to the matter by the Auditor-General, who repeated the resolution of the Railway Board. The minute of the Ministers to the Governor-General did not mention the essential fact that our constitution provides that new railways for the conveyance of public traffic shall not be constructed without the sanction of Parliament. Under the circumstances the Auditor-General submitted the matter to the Department of Justice which replied “In our opinion the special warrant obtained in this matter is not such a special warrant as is contemplated by, or as falls within, section 48 of Act 21 of 1911 as amended by section 13 of Act 31 of 1916.” Section 48 enables a special warrant to be obtained to meet expenditure to be incurred on such unforeseen services as cannot be postponed without serious injury to the public interest until adequate provision therefor can be made by Parliament. The Minute of the Secretary for Justice concludes—

Our objection to this report is, firstly, that it does not go far enough, and, secondly, our objection to the Government’s action is that, in spite of three distinct Acts pointing out that no Government shall have the right to build any railway without the sanction of Parliament, they have gone and constructed this line and they come to us now for an indemnity. I feel that the time has arrived when Parliament must say very definitely whether it is prepared to have its laws laid aside for the convenience of Governments. I am bound to say, in justice to the, Minister, that, although some of the evidence submitted tried to establish the fact that the Lydenburg line was constructed under similar circumstances, he has not up to the present laid that claim, because he knows the full truth of the matter. He knows that the earth works of that line were commenced from moneys which were in the possession of the Treasury, earmarked for relief works. What I do lay stress upon is that the law specifically lays down that we shall not use railway funds in any other way than as Parliament directs. In the Lydenburg case railway money was not used, but relief money was used. It is perfectly clear that if you proceed to spend £20,000 on commencement of the construction of a railway you are going to carry that construction through, if you are wise, and you do not wish to waste the £20.000. It cannot be claimed that in the present case there was anything else than the commencement of the building of a railway line which was going to be used for traffic. It seems to me that there is great reason for tightening up the law, or, at any rate, for this House to say that in future we are not going to have the law violated. Apparently there is a growing habit of treating lightly the definite provisions laid down by Act after Act. We find from the evidence that the witnesses treated this matter as something which was of very small moment. Notwithstanding three Acts of Parliament, the general manager, after having fully and most carefully warned the Government that their suggested action was a violation of the law, comes and tells us that the Government were quite entitled to go on with this line if they were so inclined. He says in his evidence—

And he goes on and says—

When his attention was drawn to his own minute warning the Government, he said: “I would have preferred that course, although I do not consider it very material, except from the strictly legal point of view.” We prefer to take the general manager’s written statement to anything he may wish to say now in defence of the Government. We do not blame him for his desire so to defend the Government, but there clearly is an illegality, we claim, which we should put a stop to at once. What surprises me more than anything else was that when we were asked to sanction this construction we were told that 200 persons received relief, all whites. Not a single coloured person received relief on this illegal construction. We embarked on the construction of a line which is going to cost £170,000 at least and without the sanction of Parliament, and we did it all for 200 white workers. I cannot see the necessity of their embarking upon a scheme which we all know is absolutely illegal and all to save 200 workers only. There were other things that they could have done. What one feels is even more startling than the position taken up by the general manager is that taken up by the Railway Board. What they conceived to be their duty is something that astounds me. I put the question to the Railway Board: “Is that all the consideration you gave to the construction of this line?” The reply was: “At that time, yes.” They tell us in their evidence that they considered that when the Government informed them that there was a necessity to build this line they had no right further to question it. They had merely to pass a minute authorizing the administration to proceed with the building of the line. The further question was put to them: “Were you consulted by the Minister in any way with regard to the policy of building this line?” The answer was: “No.” Further, “The resolution you refer to would only come up when the matter is submitted to Parliament, when the Government would ask the board to submit a report. If supposing the Railway Board then found that it could not recommend a line, it would say so.” Again, the question, “The Government could have proceeded with the construction of this line had they so desired without your resolution?” The reply was “No.” I find it difficult to know exactly what they mean. They go on to say: “We were faced with the fact that the Government had decided that a certain thing should be done, and then we had to authorize the general manager under the provisions of Act 17 of 1916 to spend the money.” I want to say this, that if that is what the Railway Board conceive to be their whole duty, then I think we can save £10,000 a year and buy a rubber stamp. I understood that the Railway Board was formed with the object of stopping the building of any of those political lines which had been built in the past. I thought the board was formed to go into any such matters carefully before a line was commenced. It is clearly laid down in the South Africa Act that the control and management of the railways shall be exercised through the board. Section 30 of that Act says that “Every proposal for the construction of harbour works or lines of railway, before being submitted to Parliament, shall be considered by the board which shall report thereon and shall advise whether the proposed works or line of railway should or should not be, constructed.” The Select Committee on Public Accounts in 1912 passed a resolution and said the whole question of the duties of the board and the highly-paid staff attached to it was one which should be defined by legislation. In their report of 1913, they again strongly urged that, on every ground, it was necessary that the functions and authority of the Railway Board, and their position as contemplated by the Act of Union, should be fixed and prescribed by an Act of Parliament. In consequence of these two strong resolutions, the Railway Board Act of 1916 was passed. That makes provision as to the administration, working, control and management of the railways, it interprets the South Africa Act and defines the functions of the board. The 1916 Act also provides that every provision that relates to the board shall be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of that Act. In this case, the board’s advice was not sought, the board admittedly did not consider the position in any way. They made no inquiries; they did not submit to the Government or to anyone else any of the requirements of the Act. They simply agreed that the railway construction should be proceeded with. I submit we should not allow that to pass without a challenge. There is a growing tendency to ignore what Parliament says. That tendency is going to grow still more unless we now check it. If we are not careful we shall have many of these lines, some of which will undoubtedly be purely political lines, and to mark our disapproval, I move as an amendment—

In seconding the amendment I wish to draw attention to a further provision—section 130—of the South Africa Act, which I think it is as well should be generally known. This section provides that no railway shall be constructed without a report of the Railway Board. It goes on to say—

It is perfectly clear, therefore, that if any loss arises from this line the general taxpayer will have to pay.

I think I am perfectly fair in saying that the sting of the argument of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) lay in the tail of his address, and I cannot help feeling that the motive that impelled the hon. the Minister to introduce his amendment is an uncharitable one. I hope I do not say this in a spirit of unnecessary criticism, and I hope I shall be able very clearly to substantiate my statement on that point. The hon. member has quite clearly stated that he had no objection to the action of the Minister in building this railway, unless I misunderstood him. He agreed that it was necessary in view of the distress prevailing in Namaqualand that this railway should be built, but he has some considerable objection to the procedure adopted by the Minister who did not, in the first instance, obtain the sanction of this House as he should have done according to the South Africa Act. I could not help wondering what passed through the mind of the late Minister of Railways (Mr. Jagger) whilst the last speaker laid his amendment on the Table.

A little patience.

In 1922 the late Minister of Railways passed his Railway Construction Bill, Clause IV, of which reads as follows—

On turning to the schedule of the Act, we see that the Dunswart was estimated to cost £115,000, the Kamfersdam line £130,000, and the Lydenburg line £398,000—all works commenced illegally, as the hon. member stated on that occasion, to alleviate distress. I took the trouble to look up what the hon. member stated in the debate on that occasion. He is reported as follows—

We did not oppose that.

I have read the debate, and no such uncharitable amendment was proposed by this side of the House on that occasion as that moved by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour). When the late Minister of Railways took this money, not out of the railway funds, but from the general funds, it was a subterfuge. There is no lawyer who would not agree on that statement of the legal side of the question, and the hon. member who moved the amendment said he disagreed with the last Government as to the legality of their procedure in building the Lydenburg line. The fact that the late Minister took moneys from the general fund to construct his three lines, instead of from the railway fund, made only this difference that the method employed by the present Government is open and above-board.

And the Governor-General’s warrant?

The hon. member has made a great point of that. The committee on this matter had a legal opinion before them by which this House is bound, and by which the hon. member is bound just as much as myself. Neither of us should attempt to go behind that opinion. It was to this effect: That in the circumstances of this case the Governor-General’s warrant could not have been a legal one, even had the Minister placed all the facts before the Governor-General and stated exactly the position of the law. But the committee urge that in future where a warrant is asked for it would be advisable to place the facts before the Governor-General and also the law; that, I take it, the Minister agrees to. The point I have risen to make is to try to bring home to this House the motive that underlies the hon. members amendment. As I have said, it is an uncharitable one, and I think it is a deliberate attempt to mislead the country.

The hon. member must not ascribe motives to another hon. member.

I accept your ruling Mr. Speaker and unreservedly withdraw. Let me put it this way: That the amendment is calculated to mislead the country and unjustly to discredit the Minister in the eyes of the country, in spite of the fact that the hon. member knows that on three occasions the late Government did exactly the same thing and for the same good reasons as in this case. Does he deny that it was necessary to build this line for the purpose of meeting the case of a national emergency?

What proof have you got of the necessity?

I have looked at the reports in the newspapers, and I think the hon. member should have known of the state of affairs as a public man. I have reports of “The Star,” dated November 22nd and 26th.

“ The Star.”

Yes, your paper. In large headlines in the one paper we have “Staring eyes and hunger. What is being done in the Cape North-West districts?” In the other we read the “Shadow of famine. Children gnaw dead sheep. Burning drought in the North-West.” The special correspondent of “The Star” reported that the distress had not been exaggerated; that once wealthy farmers had been reduced to hunger; that coloured children had been gnawing dead sheep; the people were starving, and so on. Then in “The Star of the 26th it was stated that the Government were considering the position and that it had been announced that the Government had decided to begin immediately the construction of the railway from Klaver to Kokenaap. The case was amply shown to have been one of national emergency, and I cannot understand the uncharitable motives which actuated the hon. member in proposing his amendment, knowing, as he must have known, the facts and the motives which actuated the Minister in doing as he did—much stronger facts than those on which the previous Minister of Railways acted in 1922. The legal position is perfectly clear. Railway construction cannot be undertaken by the Minister of Railways unless he has previously obtained the consent of Parliament, and in this case this was not obtained owing to the impossibility of waiting for Parliament, and accordingly the Minister of Railways now comes and asks for an indemnity. It is not a desirable action that this sort of thing should be done often, but undoubtedly, circumstances may be such as to compel this Minister to act as did the previous Minister of Railways, and In such a case this House will unhesitatingly support the Minister once he has shown his bona fides. I have already dealt with the question of the warrant. Now I want to deal with the position the hon. member took up in regard to the Railway Board and its attitude in this matter. I cannot help feeling that this attack of the hon. member on the Railway Board must have sounded strangely in the ears of those on this side of the House, realizing, as we do, that the hoard was—a matter of a few months ago—the dearly beloved friend of the Opposition.

Why?

You appointed them and they carried out your behests.

No.

Were they not your friends?

Not at all. They did their duty as railway commissioners. There was nothing about party. Why should they be my friends?

I wish to avoid going any deeper into personalities, but—

That is just what you’re doing.

Is the hon. member in order in casting imputations on a public body?

What imputation, has the hon. member made?

That the board were special friends of the Opposition because they were appointed by them and carried out their directions.

Surely I am not casting aspersions by saying the Railway Board were friends of the Opposition! Anyway the board is differently constituted now, and I need not continue this point, except to say that it must have sounded queerly to this side of the House to have heard this attack on the Railway Board. But the attitude of the Railway Board hardly concerns us, as it has been amply demonstrated in the evidence that the Minister assumed the whole responsibility for this railway and merely instructed the board to find the money. A particular minute placed before the committee said very clearly that the board had been instructed by the Minister to find the money for the continuation of this line, the first £20,000. The board therefore knew this to be the final decision of the Government and they therefore instructed the general manager to find the money. That is the whole attitude the board took up. In the evidence before the committee they clearly stated their opinion that they were acting within their powers and according to their conception of their duties by fulfilling the instructions of the Government on this occasion. The Railway Board may, or may not, be right in their conception of their duties; but on this point I would like to say that members of the Opposition sitting on the Railway Committee have at no time called for legal opinion on this point, as to what exactly would be the duties of the Railway Board in a case of this nature. What the opinion of the members of the committee may be has nothing to do with the case. If a legal opinion had been asked for by the committee and that had disagreed with the opinion of the board as to their duties and powers, I would have nothing more to say. I did not sit on the committee as a lawyer, nor was I prepared to give legal opinion. The opinions given on the legal point by members of this House are therefore of no account and carry the matter no further. I feel the hon. member has not been justified in tabling the amendment; his attack on the board and the Minister has been an uncharitable one, and I shall cast my vote against it.

I did not intend intervening in this debate because the matter has been very fully considered by the Select Committee and I thought the House should be left to decide on the merits of the case. I do not propose following the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) in his argument. I want to say definitely that so far as the construction of this line without Parliamentary authority is concerned the Government takes full authority. The number of men employed is: Europeans 213, and coloured labourers 71. I do not dispute that the Government in this case committed an illegal act. The position has been quite correctly explained by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water). The Government were committing an illegal act because the Act of Union clearly lays it down that no railway can be constructed without Parliamentary approval. If the Government had desired to make use of money from the unemployment vote I may say that it was not available. I ask the House to decide between the action of this Government, who took the straight course, and the action of the late Government, who constructed railway lines under similar circumstances by an evasion—I do not say wilful evasion—of the law.

Business was Suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8 p.m.

When the House adjourned I was dealing with the position which had arisen in those areas owing to the prolonged drought. The distress which existed at the time and, unfortunately, still exists at Vanrhynsdorp and Namaqualand, need not now be described. It is common cause that the conditions were such that the Government were justified in taking some steps to relieve the distress. The Government took the course of reporting what they had done to Parliament at the very earliest opportunity. In the Governor-General’s speech reference was made to this action. They took the course which, I submit, was the straight course, and that was to face the position. Unfortunately, they were bound to commit an illegal act. The Auditor-General was perfectly right in reporting this matter to Parliament. No member of the Government and no member on this side of the House would quarrel with the Auditor-General while doing his duty. I think it is necessary that I should clear up the position in regard to the construction of railway lines. It seemed to me that the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) and the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) were very much at sea as regards the legal position. If the hon. members would only have read the opinion of the Law Advisers they would have found that the position is made perfectly clear. The Law Advisers in their opinion, which is an annexure to the report of the Select Committee, state—

There seems to be a mistake there. The words “to pass” appear to have been omitted after the word “choose. ”

Yes, certainly; it should read “were to choose to pass a Bill.” It is clear that Parliament, as the supreme authority, has a right to pass a railway construction Bill without a report from the Railway Board if Parliament so desires and so chooses. Of course, we recognize that the consequence of such an action by Parliament in terms of section 130 of the South Africa Act would be that whatever loss occurred on the line would fall on the general taxpayer and could not be found out of railway funds. But the position is perfectly clear, as pointed out by the Law Advisers, that if the Government were to bring in a Bill without a report by the Railway Board they would be perfectly entitled to do so. It must be borne in mind that the Administration has a right, when the public interest demands it, and when they are satisfied that expenditure cannot be postponed, to spend money—unauthorized expenditure—out of Loan or Revenue Funds. Let me take a case. You may have some extraordinary position arising at the Harbour in Cape Town, No provision had been made in the Revenue or Loan Estimates. Do hon. members suggest that the Administration should not take steps to do what is necessary and spend the necessary money? No, hon. member would suggest that. The Government and the Administration had a perfect right to spend the necessary money under Governor-General’s Warrant and report to Parliament. The Act of Union and the Act of 1916 however clearly prohibits the construction of a railway line. That is the only difference and the Government fully realized that that was the position and that what they were doing was an illegal act under the circumstances. Nothing has been done by the Railway Board in this connection which will debar the Railway Board from bringing a report absolutely free and untrammelled on this proposed line which is now being constructed.

They must do.

My hon. friend says they must. No resolution has been taken by the Railway Board by which they will be prevented from bringing in a free and untrammelled report in regard to this line. The minutes clearly prove that the Government’s decision in regard to the construction of this line was communicated to the Railway Board. The Railway Board were not asked to report on this line. All that the Railway Board did under the circumstances was to say that, the Government having decided to construct this line on their own responsibility, and having been informed that there was no money available in the Unemployment Relief Vote whereby the work could be financed, the money should be found from railway funds. The position to-day is that, when the Government brings in a Railway Construction Bill covering this particular line, as they are bound to do this session, the board will be perfectly free to report to this House as to whether they think that the loss, if any, should be found out of general revenue or should be found from the funds of the Railway Administration: I must say that I very much deplore and deprecate the attack made on the Railway Board by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). He has not only attacked the board, but he has gone further and attacked the officials of my department. I want to say that the members of the board are responsible men, and if they did lay themselves open to criticism, I should be the last to object to that criticism, but when an hon. member takes advantage of his position in this House to make an unjust attack and say that they are no more than a rubber-stamp, I say it is not fair and it is not justified. As regards the officials of my department, in saying that they disregard the orders of this House, the hon. member has gone too far. The hon. member must recognize that the general manager put the position clearly and answered questions fully and frankly, and submitted to the Minister and the Government what the legal position was. The hon. member should not attack the board and the officials of my department. He should attack members of the Government. We are responsible and we take the responsibility. It is not fair to attack the board or the officials.

You are twisting my words.

Not at all. You must have forgotten. You implied they were a rubber-stamp.

No, I said if that was how things were going to be done we might as well have a rubber-stamp.

Exactly; that is reflecting on their work, and I think when the hon. member considers the matter, he will realize he has gone too far. The Government fully realize the rights of Parliament—there are none so jealous of the rights of Parliament as the present Government; and we will protect the rights of Parliament. I must say that this sudden conversion to the purity of the Act of Union does strike one as rather strange after all that the late Government has done with regard to the construction of railway lines. But I want to point out that no alternative has been suggested and I ask hon. members to tell the Government what they would have done under the circumstances. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has not suggested any alternative.

I can say, as you said, when you were on this side of the House, I am not the Government.

Well; you are criticizing our actions and I ask you what in the circumstances you would have done. If you have no alternative, then you have no right to criticize the Government.

That is a very poor argument.

It is not a poor argument at all. You have no reply to it. The Government were in duty bound, I say, to take the steps they did take. It meant that about 1,500 people on a conservative estimate have had relief owing to this action on the part of the Government. In conclusion, I want to say, I think the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) is totally unnecessary. It is for the House to say whether the Government was right in incurring the expenditure, which was not of a wasteful nature. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) knows that this line will open up a good area, and when the line is complete, it will bring in a good revenue. Under those circumstances I leave the issue with confidence in the hands of this House.

A good deal of what the Minister has said has nothing to do with the case at all. He says the Government has the right to spend money. No one disputes that, but there are certain directions in which the Government cannot spend money legally without the sanction of this House. Then there is another point. I do not, of course, associate myself by any manner of means with the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) in his condemnation of the board. I was very sorry indeed to hear it. I did not think he was right. I always found the board extremely useful when I was in office. I would not do away with that board, which performs an extremely necessary function. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) must remember that the ultimate power rests with the Minister. The board sometimes differed from me, and when they did, they had their right to put their case in the annual report to this House and I, of course, was prepared to defend what action I had taken. If hon. members will look back, they will see that that has been done several times in the past. No, the ultimate power does rest with the Minister. Then there was another point taken up by the chairman of the committee, that this was a matter of Government policy. It is nothing of the kind. It is a matter of breaking the law. Then my hon. friend said that the members of the board were friends of the Opposition. Such a statement is entirely incorrect. The board knows nothing of politics. As far as my experience goes, they are only concerned with their work and the interests of the country. There are no party politics in the matter at all. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water) imputed motives to the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). He said this criticism was uncharitable. But my hon. friend on this side was only doing his duty. He called attention to a flagrant breach of the law by the Government. Surely that is the duty of every man who believes there has been a breach of the law. It is only proper that the matter should be raised in this House and the House should exercise its right to discuss it.

Why did they not criticize you?

I will come to that later on. I must confess that I have rarely read a more severe report. Look at this paragraph 7, it says—

That almost amounts to a vote of censure on the Government. Here is a Government, according to the Minister, which has a profound respect for Parliament. We were told when I was in office that we had no respect for Parliament. Well, this Government has not been in office twelve months before they have to come to Parliament for an indemnity on account of a breach of the constitution. This breach of the law is defended by a piece of special pleading. They say they did it openly. They go further. The Minister takes credit to himself by saying he did it openly, by breaking the law, but when I was in office we kept within the law.

I said you evaded the law.

What was the position? The Government were faced in Namaqualand with a good deal of unemployment and they commenced the construction of a railway. That was to be financed out of railway moneys. They got a warrant from the Governor-General to get the first £20,000 and did not state when the warrant was before the Governor-General the whole facts of the case. They did this knowingly. The Auditor-General, as in duty bound, calls attention to and strongly condemns this action; the Select Committee of this House follows the same course. Those are the facts of the case. As I say, it is defended by a piece of special pleading. Further, coming to the main point, they plead that the late Government did the same and were guilty with themselves. Well, if we did the same, why did not the Auditor-General report on our action?

He did.

Why did you not raise it in this House?

We did. You had an indemnity clause in your Act.

It was never mentioned in this House. Surely my hon. friend will not dispute the impartiality and the fairness of the Auditor-General in calling attention to a breach of the law, whoever committed it? The real position, of course, is that we were faced with the same state of things on more than one occasion, but we always Went the right way about it to provide for these people. We decided that the earth works should be made and we simply drew the funds from the Treasury.

Who got the earthworks?

Ultimately the railways got them.

And ultimately paid for them?

And ultimately refunded the Treasury. It is the policy of the other side now, notwithstanding their profession of loyalty to Parliamentary authority, to belittle the difference.

That is special pleading all right.

There is no special pleading about it. The whole difference is this: that the act of the hon. Minister of Railways stands condemned, whereas nothing was said by the Auditor-General in regard to our action, which was perfectly legal. The Select Committee has also condemned this action.

Who was the chairman?

The majority of the Select Committee were the Government’s own supporters. I think I have a right to leave to the judgment of this House the action of the Government in this matter, and if they like to compare it with our action they are at liberty to do so. Our action was not condemned, and we got over the difficulty. Of course you have the right to spend money on unemployment, and my hon. friend opposite took £400,000 for that purpose, but you have not the right to take railway money for railway works without the sanction of this House.

It is quite refreshing to hear the ex-Minister of Railways setting up the claim that earthworks are not part of a railway. When this matter was brought to our notice the members of my party went into the facts as stated in the minute to the Governor-General, and we took no exception to its wording, which clearly stated that this was a matter of urgency and in the public interest. There was no subterfuge. I think the Opposition ought to compliment the Government, instead of blaming them, seeing that on two or three occasions they took similar action in view of prevailing distress. I do not know whether any hon. member will begrudge the money. I maintain that any Government is justified in breaking any law in order to relieve distress. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) made great play of the fact that this railway had only employed 200 men up to the present, although the Minister has corrected that figure and put it at 300. This action of the Government does not, however, concern the whole £200,000 required for the construction of the line, but simply £20,000 with which to begin construction, and if that £20.000 has helped to relieve the distress of 300 Europeans and coloured men, I think the Government should be complimented. In the Cape Peninsula we have very little to show for all the money spent in relief works. Men have simply worn out their soul-cases without anything to show for it. I wish the late Government had gone in for a comprehensive policy of construction of necessary railways, legally or illegally in order to provide employment. The Minister has dealt with the rather unfair attack of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) on the Railway Board, and it does seem to me rather remarkable that a member of the South African party, who, a year ago, was a staunch supporter of the Railway Board, now condemns the board as a rubber-stamp. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) has moved an amendment, really amounting to a speech, containing platitudes about the laws of the country, etc., etc. We did not hear that sort of doctrine when he sat on the other side of the House and dealt with the martial-law disturbances. Then he was a staunch defender of Martial Law, which is no law. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) claims that the Select Committee has condemned the Government’s action. I say it has not condemned the Government’s action, though it would have done had it adopted the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour). The majority of the committee admitted that it was technically a breach of the law, but that it was justified under the circumstances. Paragraph (6) of the report read as follows—

The Minister has frankly admitted a breach of the law and has taken the sole responsibility for the action. That is only what other Governments have done, under similar circumstances, and I hope that members will agree it was necessary to take the steps that the Government did and that it should be indemnified for its action. Hon. members will see that the general manager of railways, in reply to question No. 1, said he simply looked upon this matter as one of Government policy, and in reply to a further question—

And either the general manager knows something about his job or he does not. The precedent has been mentioned of the Lydenburg line, in regard to which it was pointed out to the general manager that the Auditor-General maintained that the building of that line was illegal in the same way as the construction of this line. The general manager’s reply (Question 140) was—

After all, we know the position. In a time like this any Government is faced with similar circumstances and has no alternative unless the Act is amended—as I think perhaps it should be—and the Government is allowed some latitude. I know that the original idea was to prevent the construction of political lines, but I do not think it was intended to prevent the Government from spending a small sum of money for the relief of distress. This is an anomaly—that the Government may spend money on relief in any other way except in the construction of railways. The action of the Railway Board has been called into question,, and it is interesting to notice that when we questioned them, one member of the board rather gave the impression that they had not considered the circumstances because they were guided by the fact that the Government had decided to construct the railway. We began to ask questions. I asked, “When you passed your resolution on the 5th December, 1924, you had the minute of the general manager in your possession?” and the answer was, “Yes.” I then asked, “And you had the minute submitted to the Governor-General?—Yes.” That was the minute which gave the information to the Governor-General. A further question was: “And notwithstanding all that, you say you felt bound to pass the resolution? Supposing the Government had decided to build if the peculiar conditions existing in that area had not existed, that is to say, if normal conditions prevailed there, would you still have passed this resolution?” The answer was: “That is not a matter for the Railway Board; that is a Government responsibility.” Then in question 266 I asked, “What would actually have happened if you had not agreed to pass this resolution?” And the reply to that was: “That would have placed the Government in the position that it would have found it difficult to relieve the distress in that area.” But this railway was one of a series of railways that would ultimately be constructed. The board was therefore justified in agreeing that this money should be spent in its commencing construction. It was a matter of relief of distress, and anything the Government could do to relieve the distress in that locality was justified and money well spent—much better than in other ways—as, for instance, when distress was actually caused by paying such miserable wages on relief works. The Government should be congratulated on their action and not condemned for it. I know that the criticism of the Government’s action is all part of the game of politics, and if the late Government had done this action we should have made capital out of it. But there is another aspect of the question. I do not think it is advisable for the Opposition to make political capital out of this matter seeing that so much distress existed in the district and that the railway begun was a railway that was required. I think all honourable members should agree that the Government’s action should be endorsed.

This debate was opened by five lawyers, so naturally it will take a little trouble to clear up the mess they have left things in. I do not propose attacking the Government or the Railway Board or the general manager or anyone else. I think there is something more important involved, and if I conclude with an innocent amendment I hope it will not be misread as in the nature of an attack such as I have indicated. There has been a lot of splitting of hairs and so forth. Briefly the position is this: The Government found a certain amount of distress. We had no clear evidence on the point in committee. We had as to its extent only the estimate of the general manager, which perhaps we accepted. That there was distress we know, but the amount of distress was not stated in the evidence, but the Government determined on the information known to them to relieve this distress, and it is to the methods that we invite the attention of the House to-day. They did three wrong things in connection with this which ought not to be repeated. I am not asking this House to pass a vote of censure, but we do think it should be emphasized that should a similar case arise in the future it should not be dealt with in the particular way the Government dealt with this case. They took three very regrettable courses. First of all they did a thing which is expressly prohibited by Parliament through the Act of Union and the Railway Act of 1916. They started the construction of a railway for carrying traffic without the sanction of Parliament. We all know we look on these sections of the Act of Union as very important, as tending to provide in the new constitution against defects experienced before Union in the constituent provinces, and that is the use of public funds by the Government of the day for constructing railways not so much in the interests of the country generally as of a particular district or political party. We are entitled to call the attention of the House and the country very forcibly to the existence of these Acts, and if they are violated we are entitled to protest emphatically against that. I am not concerned as to whether this was the only means of relieving the distress, though I can hardly think so. Having, however, regrettably decided on this course, surely the Government if they found it necessary to break the letter of the law in this, should have carried out the spirit of the law and fortified their position by obtaining a definite report from the Railway Board on this particular line in the ordinary terms on which such a report would have been presented had the line been submitted to Parliament in the ordinary course. The Railway Board did not so report. They were not asked to do so, and I think they should have been asked under the particular circumstances to give their report. If the report had been favourable it would have strengthened the Government’s position. If it was unfavourable they could have been no worse off than they are now. Another reprehensible course which was taken was the submitting of a warrant for the signature of the Governor-General which was improperly worded. The Select Committee unanimously, the Minister being himself present when the clause was put, reported: “That it is good law when an authority is required … all the essential facts should be placed before him.” And it is admitted that the essential facts were not put before the Governor-General. The Minister admits this is so, and in fact he was a consenting party to this clause and virtually censuring the action of the Government. I do not say we should condemn the Government, but we are drawing the Government’s attention to the errors they committed. A lot of speeches, including that of the hon. the Minister, remind me of the doctor who failed to diagnose a case. He said: “I do not know what it is, but I have something in this bottle that will turn it into fits, and I am dead nuts on fits.” I call attention to his admission of the obvious weakness of his case— so much that his only resource was to make it a party matter. He turns round, and with a confident look to his supporters, says: “I will leave this to the judgment of the House.” And as to the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) he also diverged from the point at issue. He pulled out the pathetic stop. We are not playing pathetic music just now; we are dealing with solemn Acts of Parliament laid down for our guidance. However pathetic the circumstances they are irrelevant to the circumstances we are discussing. A lot of mention has been made of the Lydenburg—Oliphantspoortje line. I am informed that the matter was brought to the attention of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours and no resolution was taken by them on the matter. The matter as presented to them by the Controller and Auditor-General was not considered by that committee of sufficient importance to justify any reference to it. But even if the Lydenburg line had been constructed under the same circumstances and similar illegal action had been taken, surely it should have taught the Government not to do such a thing again. If it was wrong then they had the beacon light built on and showing the rock on which the other Government had come to grief, and they should have avoided a similar error. The whole point consists really in the Auditor-General’s report. The Controller and Auditor-General, as hon. members know, is the servant of this House and not of the Government or the Railway Board. In the course of his duty he found it necessary to submit some of the circumstances connected with the construction of this line to the law advisers, and he said— which supplements what I remarked—“ The crystallized practice since Union demands a report by the Railway Board,” which was not done, “and a Constitution Act passed by Parliament,” which was not done. But the whole point is contained in the three last lines of the Controller and Auditor-General’s report—

The law advisers, who I do not think could be accused of dealing with the matter in other than a strictly legal way, say: “As the controller and auditor-general points out, if special warrants are issued for special expenditure on railway construction when there is an express prohibition on the construction of any railway for public traffic without Parliamentary sanction, then these statutory safeguards can be stultified,” and that is the point of my remarks so far as I am able to bring them to a point. We are discussing now not so much the illegal action of the Government and the way they did it, but we are attempting to lay down now whether Acts of Parliament have any weight with us or if so, how much, and to what extent they could be safely disregarded by the Government of the day. I do not think we are prepared to admit that they could be safely disregarded and this debate will draw public attention to the danger, not of this Government particularly, but of any Government violating solemn Acts of Parliament passed by the highest authority in the land. I do not think we are right—I hope not—to take up the position of a country that flouts its own laws because such a country is in very grave danger. I hope I will not be considered as attacking the Railway Board in any way. I refer now to another aspect and that is that I, for one, and several of the committee, found it quite impossible to agree to the Railway Board’s interpretation of their duties. I think almost every member of the House is glad that there is a Railway Board, and looks with satisfaction on the splendid work of the board. We want to continue the board. Under section 3 of Act No. 17 of 1916, the functions of the board and its relations with the Minister are laid down. Section 3 states that the Minister shall consult the board upon, and it shall be the duty of the board to deal with the expenditure of any sum exceeding £5,000 in respect of any one work. In my opinion the words “deal with” convey that a discretion has to be exercised, but a decision may be given one way or another, and that you are not rigidly confined to one course. Unfortunately for the board and the country, the board interprets “deal with” as indicating that it had no option whatever but to accede to the demands put before it. For instance, if a Minister says that the Government has resolved to construct the line, which may eventually cost two millions, and that the executive wants £200,000 for the initial expenditure, the board has no alternative but to sanction it. If that is the legal interpretation of the words “deal with” it is most unfortunate. If, on the other hand, the Railway Board has taken a wrong view of its duties, I think it should be so informed on the authority of this House. It is solely with that object, and in no way condemning the board which carried out its duties to the best of its ability, that I propose to move an amendment. I look upon the Railway Board as a bulwark between us and greater evils. The amendment is the same as that I moved in the Select Committee, and some of the words are taken from the evidence of one of the commissioners, who said that the board could not challenge the Government’s decision. I move as a further amendment—

seconded.

I am astonished that the hon. member for East London (Central) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) gets up in the House to-night to protest indignantly against the action of the present Government as he had every opportunity of preventing this sort of thing from being done by the previous Government. He then had the opportunity because he then took part in the debate over the building of railways which the former Minister of Railways had built illegally. He, however, said not a word against it. It is therefore almost gratuitous of the hon. member to come and object now. As to the amendment I think that it is something which is altogether superfluous. If it is accepted it has no value because the Railway Board is compelled to obey the laws which provide for its establishment operations and powers and any resolution of the House has no force of law and will not bind the Railway Board. The House can to-night judge about the action of the Government and also about the action of the Select Committee. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has said that the report of the Select Committee can be regarded as the report of the Government party because the Government has the majority of representatives on it and then he adds that such a Select Committee censures the action of the Government. If this is so then we can conclude very clearly that members on this side of the House on the Select Committees do not act like hon. members on the other side of the House. But I want to point out that the Select Committee does not censure the action of Government. We admit that the committee disapproves of certain things and this is to the credit of the committee but I know that the position is not at all such as has been represented by the hon. member here. We do not censure the Government but it is our duty to look at things in the light of the laws of the land and if it appears that things are done which are not in accordance with the law then we have to point it out but hon. members on the other side think of course that we should be slavish followers of the Government as they always were and that we have not any right to express our opinions as members of the Select Committee. The matter was referred to us together with the explanation thereof in the report of the Auditor-General and the members came to the decision that they could make no other report than what has been put before the House. The matter is very clear. If we come to what the Government has done then we acknowledge that it is in conflict with article 130 of the constitution which provides that proposals for the building of railway lines must be considered by the Railway Board and that if the board disapproves of the proposal and the Government decides nevertheless to build the line, the cost must come out of the consolidated revenue fund. Here this was not the case but instead of the Government trying to evade the question and to give a nice appearance to it the hon. Minister of Railways comes out with the matter and he acknowledges that what has happened was against the law—something which the previous Government in similar circumstances did not do but tried to give a nice colour and a nice turn to the matter. I was astonished tonight to hear the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) justifying the building of the line from Lydenburg to Olifantspoortje. Which was illegal. I expected that he would have honourably acknowledged that it was not lawful because we know that he is an honourable man and I was much surprised that he would not admit that it was illegal. He as a layman went so far into a legal question as to approve the matter and say that it was in order. The member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) acknowledged as a lawyer that the building of that line was illegal. I fear that I must range myself in this matter on the side of the lawyer who says that that was just as unlawful as the building of this railway line. The great question is simply this: was the Government in the peculiar circumstances justified in doing this technically illegal thing? The Minister has shown how any Government has the right of building such a railway and then coming to Parliament for approval but where it has not been built on the advice of the Railway Board an eventual loss shall be met out of the general revenue of the State and not out of the railway revenue and funds. This is the only difference that there is and the Minister of Railways is quite prepared to stand the consequence hereof if the Railway Board thinks it advisable not to include this railway in the railway programme. He is ready to come to the House with a proposal on his own account. The House and the whole country approve the action of the Government. No one will deny this that such a great famine reigned, that everyone felt that it should be alleviated one way or the other. The Minister thought that there was no better way of giving emergency loans than this and the Minister had good reason to think when the Railway Board came before Parliament with a programme of railway construction this railway would also figure on it. The Minister was fully entitled to do this because it was said in the Select Committee that the Railway Board had recommended that railway to the former Government but that that Government would not agree thereto. When accordingly the Minister decides to build such a railway to alleviate the necessity we cannot blame him. The general manager has said that the Minister has not made a mistake but that it is rather a fault that the former Government delayed the matter so long. The members of the Railway Board also desired it as a desirable railway line. Where the Minister of Railways took these matters into consideration he had the fullest right to build the line to give the impoverished people there a chance of earning something. If we look at the expenditure connected with this railway we shall see that it is not by a very long way as much as the former Government spent on its three illegal railways. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water) has mentioned the cost of the three lines. That comes to almost half a million while this railway is only going to cost about £150,000. The only difference therefore is that at the moment we have a Minister who does not wish to escape from a difficult situation and give a nice colour to it which would not be honourable. We therefore admire him for it and the Select Committee could not do otherwise then point to the legal side of the matter but at the same time to recommend that the matter should be confirmed. I am thus very pleased to support the proposals of the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H Brand Wessels).

I only want to say a word with reference to the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) and to express a hope that the House will not agree to it. There is nothing in the evidence given before the committee, or, at any rate, one would have to stretch the evidence considerably to justify placing upon it the meaning conveyed by the amendment as to the way in which the Railway Board view their duties. This amendment of the hon. member conveys a wrong idea to the House and to the country as to how the Railway Board really did view their duties in this matter. The hon. member for East London (North) has stressed one word, and that word is “deal.” He has stressed it to an extent far beyond the real meaning of the word. You may take almost any word that is in use and stretch it out of its proper meaning. That is what the hon. member (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has done in this matter. The impression given by the hon. member for East London (North) and the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) is that the board made no report on this railway. There are certain facts which are not in dispute. We are all agreed that there was an amount of distress that the Government could not ignore; we are all agreed that the Government broke the law in starting railway works as a means of relief. There was another course open to the Government, which I am glad they rejected, and that was the course of dishing out doles to these people. A fund has been started with a view of helping these people with food, clothing, etc.—and all honour to the people who have contributed to and are controlling that fund— so as to meet the immediate necessities of the situation, but I am glad that the people of Namaqualand did not ask for charity. They came to the Government and said, “We want work; our families are starving; our brawny arms are capable of producing something.” When hon. members read through the evidence they will find that the Railway Board make it clear that when, in 1922, the railway programme was under consideration by the late Government, this was a line that they recommended as a desirable line to be built. There was only a certain amount of money available for the building of the line’s and the Government of the day dropped this particular one, but the Railway Board had personally gone to the district and investigated the position. The Railway Board had the report of the railway engineer, the report of the traffic officers and charts and maps of the district. They had all the information before them when the Minister went and said. “As a means of relief, we are going to start this railway.” The Railway Board were in a position to immediately agree, as they had all the facts before them. Why the Railway Board did not make a report is because they do not report until the Bill actually comes before Parliament. When a Bill is presented by the Government for the construction of railways, then comes the Railway Board’s detailed report The board has made its investigation and is prepared to put the figures before the House To my mind, the Government are to be complimented, firstly, upon having refused to give a dole to these people, and secondly, upon being prepared to take their courage in their hands and commit a technical breach of the law rather than see the inhabitants of Namaqualand go down to their graves owing to starvation. I hope hon. members will reject both amendments and will adopt the report of the Select Committee as presented to the House The first amendment moved is practically a censure on the Government, and this is merely a misunderstanding. I trust that both amendments will be rejected by the House and the report as it stands adopted.

Amendments put and negatived and the original motion put and agreed to.

I move—

The House will have seen from the estimates of additional expenditure which were laid on the Table of the House that I am asking for an additional vote of £190,163. The principal items are: Running expenses, £158,425; interest on super-annuation and other funds, £2,722; miscellaneous expenditure, railways, £18,251; miscellaneous expenditure, harbours, £10,465; steamships, miscellaneous expenditure, £299. Although there are considerable savings on different items on the estimates, as hon. members know, the Appropriation Act does not permit us to utilize those savings to meet this amount of £190,163. That is why I am asking the House to vote this amount. The explanations are given in the additional estimates, and at this stage I do not propose to detail them at length. I should, however, like to deal with a few of the outstanding; items. The first is running expenses. The total sum originally asked for was £3,735,305. There has been a material increase in the train mileage upon which the additional estimate was founded. The increase is 10.6 per cent., and this has been incurred both in passenger and goods traffic. The revised estimates for running expenses will be £3,893,730. The second” item is £2,722, interest on superannuation and other funds. The amount allowed under the original estimates was £358,805. The monies to the credit of the superannuation fund during the year were, however, greater than was expected. The third item is miscellaneous expenditure, railways, £18,251. The particulars are given. The first is an item of £255, salary and gratuity paid to an ex-stationmaster whilst under suspension.

Is that New Clare?

Yes; my hon. friend knows that case. I was unable to agree with him in that case. I am prepared to give the facts to this House in committee. The remainder of the additional amount to be voted is due to the increased amount payable in respect of the special cost of living allowance at Durban and the allowance to the artizans. The revised estimate under this head amounts to £91,997. For the fourth item, miscellaneous expenditure on harbours, the same remark holds good, namely, the special living allowance paid to employees at Durban, and the further sum of £8,000 which is for additional provision for the cost of assets withdrawn from service and to be written out of capital account. There is a saving on that vote of £200, which makes the revised vote up to £19,220. Under miscellaneous expenditure, shipping, the position is we had to expend £299 more than was voted. That is due to the rate of exchange of disbursements on ships in foreign ports being higher than was estimated.

Is that Australia?

No; foreign ports. To sum up again, I am asking for an additional vote of £190,163. There are, however, savings under other heads which shows that there has been a nett saving on the whole of the expenditure of £31,911. So that the gross amount voted by Parliament last session must be reduced.

That covers the £190,000.

That covers that amount. I think hon. members will agree that in view of the 10 per cent. additional traffic over our lines in the current year for passengers and goods it is a very satisfactory result that we have saved £31,000 on our estimate. With the increased traffic there has, of course, been a very largely increased revenue, and this is reflected in the excess over the estimated revenues, showing a surplus at the end of January this year of £1,090,000 in round figures. Unless something unforeseen happens, the financial position of the Railway Administration will be very satisfactory at the end of the financial year. As against this surplus of £1,090,000 we must set off the accumulated deficit of £770,244. If this is deducted from the surplus at the end of January we have a surplus of £319,756, with February and March still to come. As hon. members however know, an extraordinary number of items of expenditure are usually brought into account during March. For reasons which members will appreciate, I do not propose at this stage to deal with the question of the disposal of the final surplus. Turning to the estimates of additional expenditure out of loan funds members will see that I am asking for £62,521. The details of this amount are very fully set out in the schedule of the estimates, and I do not think it is necessary to detain the House. There is, of course, the extraordinary expenditure of £20,000 on the Klaver-Kokenaap line, but, in view of the very full discussion we have just had, I do not propose discussing that question any further.

I think I ought in the first place to congratulate the Minister on the result of the working of his department, which has been more satisfactory than I had expected. I am not quite clear, however, about his savings. He states that he has saved £30,000 over and above the £190,000, so I understand that he has saved on other items of last year’s estimates about £220,000. I do not see how this is to be reconciled with the general manager’s bulletin for April, which, dealing with the period, i.e., April 1, 1924, to November 30, 1924, shows that the working expenditure of the railways was £10,948,000, an increase of £274,000, or 2.6 per cent. How does the hon. Minister account for that?

I have given you the actual figures.

I suppose this bulletin is semi-official?

But this is the estimate to the end of March.

Then there is another point. He states here, accounting for the additional expenditure on main services, running expenses and so forth, that additional train mileage represented an increase of 10.6 per cent. in passenger and goods traffic. I do not know what the increase in the passenger traffic is, though I have no doubt it has been considerable, but I want to point out that according to the bulletin there was a decrease in the goods traffic for the first six months of the year, and details are given showing loss of traffic on grain, sugar cane, material for railway construction, fruit and so forth, though there are, of course, increases in other items.

My figures cover the whole period.

Then why does not my hon. friend grant a further reduction in railway rates and fares? I know he made a reduction on January 1st, representing about £500,000 in gross revenue, and, I understand, according to these figures, he will be able to afford to grant a further reduction of the same amount. Why has he not hastened to give the people of this country the benefit of these reductions? What is the good of piling up money, now that the deficit has been paid off and he has a surplus of over £300,000? I did not think he had so much. He must remember that our rates and fares are still over 33 per cent. above the prewar basis. The people are still paying over £4,000,000 in extra rates and fares more than they would do if these were on the basis current in 1913. The Railway Department have in the last two or three years made very material reductions in coal rates and rates on agricultural produce; but the rates on general goods—groceries, clothing, boots and the like— still represents a heavy burden on the people of the interior, and I think the Minister should recognize the position and relieve this burden as far as he possibly can; and he can easily afford to sacrifice another half-million. But now I want to draw attention to the Loan Estimates. We are asked to vote an additional £42,000. The major portion is to pay for the introduction of the policy of employing civilized labour on railway construction and also on railway maintenance. My hon. friend has a schedule in which he sets out the reasons for this extra expenditure on loan account. On page 3 of the Loan Estimates the total of this extra expenditure on civilized labour amounts to £75,776, part of which comes into the estimates of the current year and part will come into next year or future years. I make it altogether £75,776. But there is one point I do not quite understand. My hon. friend will see on the third item an additional amount of £25,000 for the Hercules-Magaliesberg line is required to meet extra cost of earthworks, culverts, etc., also civilized labour, £4,300. The cost of quarters for civilized labour for the maintenance of the line is £10,000. What I want to ask is, as the estimates of this particular line were not made out on any different basis from the estimates of other lines, for instance, the Belmont-Douglas line or the Settlers’ or Kokstad lines, why is anything extra required on earthworks and the like? We employed white labour on the Franklin-Kokstad line and others, but nothing extra had to be asked, for while on the Magaliesberg line with white labour you asked for an extra vote. You are asking £18,000 additional for the Harrismith-Warden line. Of course the estimates for that line were on the same basis. I admit that so far as the extra quarters are concerned, that I can understand, as we made no provision for such, but I do not understand why for these lines you should have to ask for more money for the white labour employed, whereas we carried on without it. I just want now to make a few remarks as regards this employment of white labour which I say now really comes before us in this vote. I was not against the employment of white labour, nor the late Government, on these works, for we instituted it in the first place and carried it on and tended to increase it. But if this white labour is to be employed, or as it is called here, civilized labour, I think we know that means: European labour for the most part, I contend it must be put on a sound economic basis from the first. I do not say—please understand clearly—that you have got to pay the European the same wages as a kaffir, because in the first place the European should be and is considerably more intelligent, is usually a steadier worker, and has more initiative, and so on, and after the time of training he can become quite a good workman. Another point is I do not object to a statement made the other day by the Minister of Labour that the engineers and the officials of the railways and other works be given clearly to understand that this is going to be a permanent system, for they will then recognize the position and work accordingly. Therefore, I think, if they give more attention to matters of organization and the like they will tend to produce more efficient workmen. With these two things the efficiency of the workman and also of the management and organization, the European ought to earn considerably more than the native can do. Then if you adopt the principle I want to lay down he will earn more money. Pay him what he earns. What I want to lay down very strongly is: I do not object to the white labourer, but I object to paying him a bonus for his labour simply because of his white skin. Take every means you can to make him as efficient as possible. That should be laid down very strongly. Use every means to make him efficient, but stick to the one point of paying him what he can earn. Put the matter on strict economic lines. If you pay him more than he earns it means you are taxing the people of South Africa to pay a bonus to the European labourer. That is the position. But with the increase of his efficiency and the increase of efficiency of organization we should be able to organize the European and get far better results from him and pay for these results.

Do you object to these items?

No. But this is the first opportunity the House has had of discussing the white labour policy of the Government. We shall not have the opportunity on the general Estimates as the general and railway Estimates will have to be discussed together. I would like to point out that everything that is charged to transportation in addition to what the labourers actually earned and the working expenses and interest and the like is really an extra charge on transportation in this country. South Africa is a country of long distances, and if it is going to get the full benefit of our railways they must be run in the cheapest possible way in reason, and the lowest possible rates charged. Nothing tends to increase production and prosperity more than cheap transport rates. Another reason why I wish the white labour experiment to be conducted on sound economic lines is this. There is a strong: prejudice against the employment of white men on unskilled labour, and the bulk of employers would give the preference to coloured men and natives. One advantage which should accrue from employment of white labour by the Government is that it should tend to break down this prejudice. In the first place the Government experiment would mean the training of some thousands of these men, and people would be accustomed to seeing white men doing unskilled labour. By this means it is hoped that you will induce other employers to follow the Government’s example, but you must do it on sound economic lines.

What do you mean by that?

Pay them what they earn. If the railway work is not done on economic lines other employers will not follow suit, and the prejudice against Europeans doing unskilled work will increase. There is another point. Strong pressure will be brought to bear on the Minister to increase the wages of these men; it occurred the other night when we were discussing the telephones. Some hon. member urged that the pay of Europeans engaged on telephone construction should be increased. That hon. member is no friend to these men, who should be paid according to the market rate and to what they are worth. There will also be a claim later on for these men to receive all the privileges of being in railway employ. These men have to justify their employment for the country will not pay more for labour than it is worth, and in times of depression the country cannot afford to do so. The more the department keeps the employment of these men on sound economic principles the greater the success of the experiment will be, but if those principles are departed from it will be a failure.

There is one thing we can always expect from the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that he will deal with a matter in an honest fashion. At all events we get the blunt truth from the hon. gentleman, as far as it is possible for him to give it us. There is one thing that gives us inestimable pleasure, his discovery that in his time the country has been drifting to a lower economic level owing to the employment of unskilled coloured labour. The recantation of the hon. gentleman is refreshing. Like his revered leader he is very clever, or perhaps incompetent, in giving us precise details of what he means, for instance, he impressed on the House that we must carry this white labour experiment on on sound economic lines. What does he mean by that? When I interjected that question he could not answer and I ask him again what does he mean by sound economic lines? Does he want the Minister of Railways to run the experiment on kaffir wages lines? We all know what the hon. gentleman has been and how he conducts his own business. What he means is to depreciate the working wage-earning class down to and if necessary, below the level of the kaffir that is what he means. He would set the standard of white wage-earning capacity by that which is earned by the Chinaman in his own country. That is what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Jagger) would do and do with the greatest of pleasure. So far from these being sound economic lines, I say they are unsound economic lines. If we carry the hon. gentleman’s understanding of sound economic lines to its logical conclusion, there will be no room in this country for the white race at all. If you apply the sound economic lines that he talks about to the wage-earners, what justification have you for not applying the same principle to the profit-taker? Before long, if we agree to the dictum of the hon. gentleman, we are going, in the first place, to eliminate the white wage-earner and later we shall eliminate the captains of industry in this country. What makes the progress of this or any other country? The employment of the vast masses of the population in profitable under takings, profitable not merely to those who run those undertakings, but profitable also to those who are employed in them. What is the advantage to the country of a low-wage proletariat? None at all. It is an unsound economic doctrine to preach low wages and high profits. The hon. gentleman says: “Don’t pay more than they are worth.” Again the veiled suggestion that you shall pay them on a kaffir basis.

The hon. member (Mr. Jagger) did not say that at all.

He would depress them to the lowest kaffir level.

That is not what I said at all.

No, but that is what the hon. gentleman means. I ventured to ask him, when he said “pay them what they are worth,” if he meant piece-work, and he admitted that. I asked him what scale of prices he meant. What scale of piece-work rates does the hon. gentleman want them to be paid?

Perhaps I might explain to the hon. gentleman. For instance, on railway works the scale is fixed by the engineers.

What about your day labourer?

They fix that also—exactly what his labour is worth. They arrive at a conclusion as to what European labour is worth and they pay accordingly. The only fair thing to lay down is to pay them what they earn. With the organization we have brought about he should be worth more. Pay him that amount. I might say my friend, the Minister of Labour, is now paying some of his unemployed on the piece basis.

It is not the piece basis that matters; it is the standard you must maintain.

The explanation leaves us just as clear as before. It is again the kaffir rate he is dealing with. That is what he means when he talks about engineers fixing the rate, but he knows that it is the Minister who sets the policy. I will give one instance where the estimated price was based on wages, that is the deviation of Benoni. The hon. gentleman agreed that that deviation should be carried out entirely by white labour. I congratulate him on that, but he must have set the price.

I did not.

Yes, by fixing the sum total. Then he came and said the price must be reduced.

Absolutely untrue.

The engineer said he would resign if the hon. gentleman’s order was carried out.

That is untrue.

The engineer said he refused to carry out the order and reduce the wages—

It is a most extraordinary thing. I will mention the engineer’s name, Mr. Bateman. I commend him to the most serious and favourable attention of the Minister.

The hon. member must accept the word of another hon. member.

Under the rules of the House I do so. I merely commend Mr. Bateman to the attention of the hon. Minister, and I hope he will make the experiment a gigantic success, and not play with him and attempt to reduce his prices by half. I am once more in agreement with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) in regarding this as an experiment, and I asked whether he objected to these items. I am very pleased to hear that he did not, because we have to build up a white, virile work-a-day race, and you cannot do that by building a colour bar against them, as the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has done his best to do; because he employed natives in preference to whites. Hitherto white men have been debarred from obtaining employment in unskilled work. I congratulate the present Minister of Railways on having reversed this order of things. He has determined to play his part in building up a white race. We shall have to abandon this custom of looking upon unskilled work as natives’ labour. In no other country have captains of industry been allowed to import cheap labour diamond mines and trade, but my hon. friend will surely not say that I am therefore prevented from judging about the soundness and justness of this law. He has made various prophecies to-day. I leave him to them, but we have had many prophecies from him and we have often seen that just the opposite has happened. I do not wish to deal further with what the hon. member for Standerton has said, but I want to mention one point, and to point out the impressive way in which he in accordance with the melodramatic speech of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) this afternoon, is now busy in frightening everybody about the Socialists. It seems to me that my hon. friend does not comprehend the difference between social legislation and Socialistic legislation. If he calls this Socialistic legislation, then I hope we shall have more of it. We are not afraid of the Socialists. We fought and won the election on this point, and I am prepared to do it again. Now I want to be a little more serious.

It is time.

Yes, I can quite understand the hon. members. They have been listening the whole afternoon to speeches which contain little. I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer). He discussed the matter throughout in a business-like way and so as to actually cause his meaning to become known to the House. Now I wish to say that the hon. member has taken up the position that control is quite unnecessary but if there must be control —so I understood him—then it is perhaps necessary that the Government should exercise a kind of final control. So I understood him, while other hon. members such as the member for Beacons-field (Sir David Harris) takes up the position that we cannot be without control but that the Government should have nothing to say in the control. As I say the hon. member for Kimberley is against control because it is unnecessary but if it must be then according to him it is possible that to a certain extent we should go in the same direction as in the Bill. He is only against the Board of Control buying diamonds, that is what he is opposed to. Before I go further I want to call the attention of the House to something that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has entirely overlooked. He says what right have you to appropriate another man’s property? I should like to know if the hon. member and other hon. members have thought of what the share of the State is. To what extent the State has an interest in the diamond trade. The share is no less than approximately 40 per cent. of any sale of diamonds after the appropriation has taken place. The Government has thus more than a third interest. What was the position in the past under the Government of my hon. friend the member for Standerton? Then the Government had no say at all regarding the sale and control except what was obtained in South-West. But De Beers and others had their hands free to dispose of diamonds as they chose but if the Government row finally has: to say that recently there have been matters that make it dangerous to leave this matter any longer to private companies and that the Government should have joint control then I ask the hon. member for Standerton has the Government no right to at any rate as far as its share is concerned also to have a say?

Yes, but you want 100 per cent. control.

In this way we are getting a little nearer each other. In the beginning he objected to the principle in every way but in the end he has conceded the principle. Now I come back to what the hon. member for Kimberley said this afternoon and from which it clearly appeared that he had much trouble in making his arguments hang together. He succeeded, but it was a difficult matter. The hon. member clearly conveyed that the Government should indeed have the right to interfere in certain circumstances which I do not even need to refer to. Our hon. friend for Standerton now and then finds a large stone in the road against which he knocks his foot. Here is another of them, namely, the decision of his own Minister, the Minister who last year was Minister of Mines, and the member for Parktown (Mr. Rockey), who took part in the discussion to-night was on the Select Committee who reported on this matter. And what does the report contain? In the first place, that there should be control over the proceeds of precious stones. This is what is contained in this Bill and therefore my hon. friend can have nothing against it. In the second case the control of the sale of precious stones is mentioned. Then follows the words: by the producers in which the State must also be included. Thus … the State must have control. No, one thing is certain that the Select Committee said that there should also be control over the disposal of diamonds by the producers and also by the State. The whole principle for which the hon. member has stood is hereby cut away from under his feet. The report says nothing of this principle. He began by saying: Away with the principle contained in the Bill, and he said further that we had no justification therefor but in the end he has conceded the principle of control by this board. Further he says that the board must have money, well the House will have to vote it. The House of Assembly will therefore also have control over that board. Other hon. members have said: how about the board and where will the Government find the people to properly do the work? But as a matter of fact, if the buyers and sellers could get people to-day who are sufficiently capable of doing the work why should the Government then not obtain them? No it is very clear to me that in this whole debate not a single argument has been adduced why the Bill should not be passed. I again take the argument of the hon. member for Kimberley who, together with the member for Beaconsfield (Sir David Harris), has great knowledge of the matter and so I give my We did it when we brought in the Chinese. They tried to import Chinese into England, but the people there set their face against it. All this work is done in Europe by Europeans and it could be done in this country also; in fact there is no country where it could be done better than here. We ought to seek to build up a white labouring class on a high standard of pay and of civilized life and to increase the prosperity of the whole community by raising the spending power of the wage-earning section.

For many years past this subject has been discussed. I was looking up the debates in 1912, and I find the hon. member who has just spoken and some of his friends then made speeches which word for word are a repetition of what he said to-night. He ends up by saying the only remedy for the existing evils is to increase the spending power of the workers. That is all very nice, but where is the money to come from? The hon. member cannot face that question and never Will. The hon. member talks about eliminating industries. There is one industry he will never eliminate and that is the industry of talking. That does not produce work. But the hon. member forgets that there are certain fundamental facts which it is impossible to get over, and the first is this, that this country, although it is a long way from a good many other countries, is dependent to a large extent on world factors and conditions. It is impossible to put the cost of production up to an unlimited extent. The second point is that, if we are going to eliminate native labour from the large industries, we are going to eliminate it from the railways and the mines and other large employers who have been mentioned to-night. There is one inevitable result which will surely follow, that the high remuneration which is now given to people who are called the skilled men, in these industries, will come down to the wages of the white people who are to do the unskilled work. That is a fact which the hon. member will never face. That is a factor which cannot be ignored and the only possible way in which that difficulty can be got over is if the average unskilled white man, who would take the place of the native, could do two or three times his work. Allowing for the fact that the white man should have more intelligence and initiative than the average native in that class of unskilled work where not much skill is required. It is hard work, muscle, and docility which count, and in that class of work the white man is not going to do three times what the native is doing, and the third fundamental fact that cannot be ignored is that you have four or five million natives in this country and they have to live; We have here the Minister of Labour, but he is not a Minister of Labour at all, he is a Minister of one sort of labour, only of white labour. It is only two days since the Minister said it was not necessary to consider the question of unemployment to natives, because that was not a serious matter. Is it not the case that a deputation has approached the Prime Minister in regard to unemployment among natives in Kingwilliamstown, who are practically starving. The Minister and his friends are depriving large numbers of natives of employment, and now they are receiving deputations asking for work for natives who have been thrown out of work and who are unable to live. That is what would happen in a far greater degree if the white labour policy were pressed to its logical conclusion. What would be the feeling among the native population if that state of affairs were allowed to continue? We can do a certain amount in the way of providing employment for white men on unskilled labour, but we must do it with our eyes open and knowing what it is going to cost. Does the Minister think that next year the men will be such a success and will give so much more work and show so much more intelligence and initiative than the native, that the cost of the system will be nil? The Minister knows that that will not be the case. As long as we go in for that policy we must be prepared to pay for it. And we are going to pay for it. The country will pay because the rates and the fares will not come down to the extent they otherwise would. Against that I admit, that if it were not for this policy money would have to be spent on providing relief for some of these people. We are going to save a certain amount in doles by employing these men on the railway. Let us hope that the indirect advantages of their employment will compensate us for the extra cost, and that we shall be doing something better for the people than if we were merely giving them a dole. But that is no real solution of the question. If that policy is pursued beyond certain limits the result will be that the wages of skilled men, which are maintained at a high level because the unskilled work is done by natives, will come down. The next point is that if we apply that policy beyond a certain point we shall have a difficult problem to deal with so far as the natives are concerned. It is a difficult problem enough to-day, and the difficulty will be greatly increased by the indiscriminate extension of this white labour policy. I know that when one puts forward facts like these one is always told one is a pessimist.

Are you sure they are facts?

I have heard the hon. Minister years ago over and over again repeat these things on the same lines and the position has not changed. The number of natives in the country has not decreased, the desire of the skilled white man to retain the Superior position has not disappeared, and the same problems as I have indicated to-night remain and will continue to remain. Don’t let us go into these things thinking that everything will be smooth. If we go in for this policy we shall have to pay for it, and let there be no mistake about that.

I have listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) who has just sat down. He has not the courage to say that he is opposed to the introduction of civilized labour on the railway. He is perhaps afraid that people outside will disapprove of that, but indirectly he has given the House to understand that it is a very dangerous position to import white labour upon the railways and other State undertakings. I think that the House generally has the conviction that the time has arrived for the policy that the hon. Minister of Railways is now carrying out, viz., to use white and civilized labour. This certainly will meet with the approval of the House and the country. From the remark of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) one would think that he is afraid that a few pennies more will have to be paid in railway rates if white labour is introduced.

Don’t talk like that.

The farmers will perhaps have to pay a few pennies more, but if we decide that we will use white labour on the railways then we must assume the responsibility of seeing that a living wage is paid to people. As the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley, has sail, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) used a screen when he tried to make it clear to us that we were running a great danger of paying the people too much, and it has rightly been Said that the basis on which he would like to pay is the basis of the native. I say that is an unsound basis. I will tell the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) what is a sound basis, namely, the basis in other countries. We must compare what is paid in other countries in pro portion to the higher appointments for the ordinary work of the cleaning of the trail etc. Take for instance Australia. If a man gets £1,000 there in one or other managing capacity, what does, then, the ordinary daily workmen get there who, for instance, keeps the lines clean? In this way we get a sound basis. I ask the hon. Minister not to allow himself to be driven away from the right path and to take as a basis what the native earns. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has said that if we make the basis too high that the danger will exist that we will drive the people away from the railways and that other industries will not employ any people for similar unskilled work. That is one side of the matter. But the other side is that the people must learn to do such work. In our country people are not accustomed to it that the white man should do a certain kind of work, but if they will learn to do the work at a living wage then the railways and other industries, and perhaps later also the hon. member in his business and the businesses of his friends also go over to employ white people for this class of work. I hope the hon. Minister will not allow himself to be put off and to put the basis too low. I go so far as to say that the public outside is willing to pay a little more for railway rates if the poor white man can be helped thereby to get work. And in the end the extra money which is spent comes back again. We shall pay a little more—I speak now as a farmer—for railway freight, but the purchasing power of the country is strengthened and indirectly the money comes back again. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) was entirely right when he said that a basis of a fairly high wage with good purchasing power is better for the country than a low basis with weak purchasing power. This is already always been proved in other countries. I don’t want matters to be exaggerated, but hon. members on the opposite side are afraid of something which to-day does not exist. The hon. member who spoke before me said that if we make the basis too high then the officials who occupy high places, clerks and other officials, will have to take a reduction of salary, but if the man who performs a lower class of work gets proportionately less than his due, then this does not prevent that the higher officials should come down a bit. Then the hon. member made the further observation that the native in the country would become entirely unemployed if we do not give him a chance on the railways. But does he know that thousands and thousands of kaffirs are being imported into the Union? And yet there is sufficient opportunity for work to give them all employment. Our farmers cannot yet by a long way get sufficient labour. We have great difficulty indeed in the Transvaal to get people, and if there is a famine—as mentioned by the hon. member— where the Government must come to the rescue because people cannot earn enough to support their families-—then I say that it would not be necessary if they will look for work from the public, the mines and the farmers. I think he is entirely on the wrong tack. I heartily agree with the policy of the Minister. If the hon. Minister does nothing else than teach the people to do this class of work, then he does a great work in the interests of the country, and when once the people learn that this work can be done by white people, then they will be employed more and more on the railways and in other places. In conclusion, I am not afraid that our farming people will be unwilling to contribute their share to bring about an improvement in the existing conditions of our country.

It is perfectly clear from the speech of the hon. member who has just spoken that what some people want in this country is to keep the natives from every avenue of employment in order to force them on to the farms.

That is their right place.

They want to force the natives on to the farms at any wage the farmer is prepared to give.

We pay more than they get in the towns.

They often get more in a day in the towns than they get in a month on some farms. It is time we protested against this. The Minister is very eloquent when he touches on the subject of civilized labour. I would like to know how many coloured men he employs on the works for which we have to vote large sums to-day.

I am quite prepared to give it to you.

I would like to have it.

Certainly.

We want to find out what is the Minister’s meaning of the term “civilized labour.” Each Minister in turn seems to have a different interpretation. The Minister of Railways said this afternoon that coloured people were employed on this new line, hut we have the general manager’s statement that there are no coloured people employed there.

No; he said he was not aware of the figures.

Then on the other hand we have the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs talking of “white labour,” and when I said do you mean “civilized labour,” he said: “Yes; there are a few coloured employees too.”

No, he did not.

You are not yet the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. He stated that clearly; but if the hon. member for Umbilo is correct then it is clear that by civilized labour the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs means nothing more than white labour. Then hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) said the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) was trying to bring white labour down to and below kaffir labour, and would do so with the greatest pleasure; also that he would if he could altogether eliminate white labour. This is an improper and unjustifiable accusation. If he took the trouble to look up a few figures he would find that before the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) became Minister of Railways the average wage of a European was 4s. 3d. on maintenance and 6s. on construction, and that during his term of office these figures were 9s. 3d. and 8s. respectively. I should like to remind the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) also that whereas he blames the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) and says that his idea is to get the white man below the level of the native, the wages paid by him as Minister of Railways were above those which are now being paid by the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs for telephone construction. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) paid 10s. a day on the Dunswart construction works whereas these telephone men are getting 6s. 6d. per day. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) did not pay any white man 3s. 6d. a day as an hon. member opposite suggests. Moreover, coloured men, who by some Ministers are classed as civilized and by others not, are now working in the Cape Town docks and getting only 4s. 6d. a day from the Government whereas private stevedoring firms are paying wages at 8s. a day. The House should know how much weight to place on the remarks of the hon. member for Benoni. I wish to put it to the Minister that if he is going to increase expenditure by high wages, I do not think that anyone disagrees with the payment of a proper wage for proper work.

What is a proper wage?

Something more than your Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is paying. I would suggest that if the expenditure is to be increased for this civilized wage you should not ask the railways to pay for it. The extra amount should come out of general revenue and not out of the railways, because you are expanding the policy of the Government, and penalizing one section of the community, that section which alone is bound to use the railways. If you think this is a good policy and should be pursued, it should be financed by the whole of the public, and not one section only.

There is one thing I want to ask the Minister to deal with when he replies and that is bilingualism on the railways. A very large number of false reports are being deliberately spread among the railway men in Natal in the workshops and elsewhere. I have received a letter this afternoon showing that it is being deliberately stated in Durban that artizans in the railway workshops are to be compelled to learn Dutch. That is absolutely untrue. I want the Minister to show quite clearly that it is untrue. The Minister has replied to a question from the hon. member for Maritzburg North in a way which if it were properly interpreted by the people in this country would make it quite clear what the policy of the Government is in regard to artizans. But more is needed. I think he should make it quite clear that unilingual artizans will not be hampered by the language qualification. I have another letter to the effect that the shunters in Durban are under a cultivated impression that they have to learn Dutch. The “Natal Witness” had a headline “Brasspolishing in Dutch ”. Another point I would like the Minister to deal with is the question of pre-Union men who were in the Natal service before Union. I should like a statement showing that these men are not affected in anyway in promotion or superannuation by their unilingual position. I do not want to anticipate a debate on the Wages Bill or Mines and Works Bill, as hon. members opposite have apparently been trying to do. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has tried to make this House believe or rather to make the country believe through his speech that the wages paid by this Government to white labourers are less than those paid by the late Government. The minimum wage in certain sections may be lower than the maximum wage under the last Government, but the average wage under this Government is far higher than that under the last Government. If that is not so, why is the last Government out and this Government in? The railway men would rather suffer almost anything than have the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) back into power. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) said we should be very careful before we adopt this white labour policy. He had three points. One point was that we would be unable to develop a white civilization because of the world’s competition. I would ask him, have Australia, New Zealand or the United States found that? It has been possible for a white population in those countries to compete successfully with countries which have a large native population. The second argument the hon. member raised was that high wages were uneconomic. I would refer him to the example of America. High wages do not mean high costs. Indeed, high wages are often the concomitant of low costs. The wages paid in the Ford factory are infinitely higher than those paid in other motorcar factories. The Secretary for Commerce in America points out that, given a scientific spirit in management, constant and careful study of operations, and modern buildings and equipment, proper arrangement of plant, etc., a high wage rate means inevitably a low labour cost.

That is what I have been advocating myself.

High wages do not mean high costs. The third question is, according to the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin), what are we going to do with the unemployed native? There are still 80,000 natives imported into this country every year to help to do the work of the country. Has the same solicitude for the well-being of the native always been observed by hon. members opposite? Did they show that same solicitude for the native when Chinese were brought in to work on the Rand mines?

Business interrupted by Mr. Speaker at 10.55 p.m., and debate adjourned; to be resumed on 16th March.