as Chairman, brought up the Report of the Select Committee on the South African Association Incorporation Act, 1906 (Cape), Amendment (Private) Bill, reporting the Bill without amendment.

Bill to be read a second time on 3rd April.

When the debate was adjourned the other night the civilized labour policy of the Government was being discussed. Numerous objections to that policy had been raised by hon. members opposite. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) urged three objections (1) World competition, (2) high wages and (3) what are we to do with our natives who would be displaced by the more general use of civilized labour. I pointed out that night that we were importing into this country something like 80,000 natives per annum to do labour in this country that might very well be done by the natives of this country. I Would like to ask the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin), does he mean to infer that his Party support the policy that white labour in this country must not be employed upon work which is at present or has in the past been done by coloured labour so long as this importation of natives continues? Is he prepared to support a policy of sending these natives back to their own country and stopping the importation of natives into the Union? With regard to the speech of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), as far as I could gather his phrase was that we should pay the civilized labourer what he earns, pay him what he is worth. Does that mean that the civilized labourer is to be paid on exactly the same basis as the natives of this country, is he to receive exactly the same payment as a native of this country, if he does exactly the same quantity of work as the native does? The native is paid sufficient to enable him to buy the necessaries of life, and if the white man is to be paid on the same basis as the native then his standard is to be brought down, according to the South African Party, to that of the native. We already have the double standard in so far as white employees and employers are concerned. If an employee or a body of employees attempt to ask for wages which are considered to be more than their work is worth, they are told that they are doing wrong, but the employer, the manufacturer, who is successful in extracting from the people large sums of money and who is able to make big profits is held up to admiration and is usually given a title. Surely there is a double standard in this country—one for the employer and another for the employee. There is one point I would like the Minister to take into consideration before he starts reducing rates. In my opinion and in the opinion of many men on these benches, the first charge on the railways is the wages of the men who work upon them, and unless the railways are able to pay a decent wage to the men employed, rates ought not to be reduced. There is another point which I would like to put to the Minister. At the present time there is an organized attack being made on the peace of the mind of railwayman in Natal. They are being deliberately misinformed.

The hon. member (Mr. Reyburn) cannot discuss the language question on these Estimates. He can ask a question of the Minister, but cannot discuss the matter.

I would like the Minister to make a clear statement in his reply as to what the position of affairs exactly is.

I would like to refer to the question of the coal rates. We know from the Minister’s statement that there will be a considerable surplus this year on railway earnings, and it has already been suggested by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that there should be a considerable reduction in the railway rates. I know that it would please the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Reyburn) if the railway rates were untouched, and if we devoted all the surplus to pay the men employed on the railways.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he must confine himself to the items in the Estimates. I do not think the question of railway rates can be raised on these Estimates.

I understood it could be, because the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) discussed the matter. If I am out of order, I will immediately sit down.

I do not think we can go into the question of rates on these Estimates. The hon. member must confine himself to the items appearing there. I think it would be better to reserve any discussion on the question of rates until the Part Appropriation Bill is reached.

I think there is occasion for great concern at the policy which has been inaugurated by the Minister of Railways in regard to labour matters on the railways. We in South Africa, unlike many other countries, are not blessed with great navigable rivers, canals and waterways which will afford transport to the interior. In this country we have to look to our railways to meet our requirements in this regard, and we have in our plentiful supply of native labour a means of constructing railways and providing cheap transport which would have been denied to us but for the presence of those natives. But, instead of availing ourselves of the opportunity of doing our construction work by cheap coloured or native labour, we have an enunciation from the Government that the natives are to be shouldered out of this work, and that the whole of it is to be done by Europeans and on the basis of a European wage. That, I think, is going to react very injuriously upon the commerce, development, and interests of this country. With cheap transport it is possible to establish industries to form farm colonies in the interior, and give them the means of conveying their products to the nearest market, but, if we are going to impose a prohibitive rate of transport, we shall exclude those people from those benefits. I think it is a mistaken policy, and if there is one branch in which we should not endeavour to create a close preserve for the highly-paid European worker, it is our railways. We feel that the European workers in South Africa have a claim, but I say that to create straight away an expensive method of transport is going to kill our efforts in other directions. Rather let us develop our industries and establish people on the land and provide cheaper communication for all. The hon. member who preceded me said the first claim was that of the employees on the railway. I do not hold with that. Some little time ago the secretary of the Nurahs, Mr. Moore, stated that the railways belonged to them, the people, and, if the workers could not get satisfaction from the Government, every man should take possession of this job, and then they could run the business for themselves. By organizing they could hold up the country without a single man leaving his job. That is the spirit of some of the men on the other side. They think that in an important branch of the Government service these organizations of the workers should be allowed to hold up the country at the order of the leaders of those organizations. If we admit that principle, if we permit any department of the Government to be dictated to by the leaders of those organizations—

I was merely replying to a previous speaker who dealt with the question of civilized labour on our railways. It seems to me that the first consideration is the interest of the taxpayer and not of the employees. We have to study the taxpayer first. Another point is this: We know all our railways have been built with native labour. Are we now to turn these people out and tell them they shall have no more opportunity of earning their livelihood on the railways? I think such a course is unfair, and I very strongly oppose the policy adopted by the Government.

I think the hon. member who has just spoken is under a misapprehension. He is mixing up the question of civilized labour with that of civilized wages. The point he has missed is this, that unless, as we of the Labour party insist, your Government Department makes wages the first charge upon their service, and makes the wage a civilised wage, then this country is doomed, as far as Europeans are concerned. The interest displayed by hon. members on the Opposition side in the position of the coloured man and the native seems to me a little hypocritical. As long as you allow many thousands of natives outside the Union to come in and compete with the natives and coloured men already here, it is farcical to raise such objections as are raised by hon. members opposite. For my part I congratulate the Minister on having the courage and initiative to adopt this policy. We know that the late Minister of Railways laid down a policy of what he called “the economic wage.” The effect of that policy was to get a man for the lowest amount for which he would sell himself, the lowest possible wage on which any human being could exist. We on this side of the House are very glad this Government has got away from that, policy, and we shall support this Government through thick and thin. I always understood the farmers said they could not get enough labour. How can they expect to get labour if the natives are employed in such large numbers on the railways? I think it would be criminal on the part of the Minister if he did go in for a system of general rate reduction until all the railwayman are paid a decent living wage. The Minister has a long way to go even now. There are numbers of railway workers to-day who are not being paid what I should regard as a fair wage. I strongly support the Minister’s policy.

Before I make a few remarks on the question of civilized labour I would appeal to the Minister clearly to define what is meant by “civilized labour,” because that definition seems to me to lie at the very root of this matter. I admit that this is a very important question in regard to the European in this country. There is no doubt it is the duty of this House to take a very great interest in the European in South Africa, but it is also the duty of the House to bear in mind the interests of the coloured races. There is undoubtedly a feeling abroad, rightly or wrongly, among the coloured people and natives that the term “civilized labour” has been devised purposely to oust them from the rights they consider they have hitherto enjoyed. That is a very serious state of affairs, and I therefore submit that it is the duty of the Government to bring in a Bill clearly and definitely defining what is meant by “civilised labour.” It does not matter, to my mind, which Government is in power; the power of determining what this term should mean ought not to be left to the arbitrary decision of the Government or of a Minister. The European, as well as the coloured man, is entitled to a clear declaration on this point. We shall have the opportunity later of discussing the matter at length, but I wish, further, to say that to my mind it appears from the economic point of view, the first question we have to ask is “What can the industry bear?” Is the economic worth of an industry to be considered? Therefore I come back to this question; whether the Ministry is satisfied, from the economic point of view, in embarking on this policy, for which I admit there is a good deal to be said? There is, however, a feeling abroad that the Minister is going to employ entirely European labour. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) was very emphatic about telling the country that so far as the Labour members are concerned they would have no reduction of railway rates but high wages.

A living wage.

I understand the member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) echoed that sentiment.

Hear, hear.

I ask whether our agricultural and other industries are not to be considered in relation to this policy laid down by the Minister. I can see, if they compare this policy of white labour on the railways with the policy hitherto prevailing, it does not only mean a certain wage for a white man; it includes a large number of perquisites—medical attendance, good accommodation. These are factors which ought to weigh with the Minister, who is only commencing this policy. If it is to be carried on on an extended scale, is it economically sound? —that seems to me one of the crucial points in regard to this matter. The Constitution lays down that the railways shall be used primarily for the development of the internal resources of this country, which has invested millions of money in railway development. We who live in the country and are producers know what it means to pay high railway rates. I come from the South-Western districts, and, happily, my constituency is served by Government railways, but there are other parts of the South-western Districts where they pay very high rates. Even the Government rates to-day are 37 per cent. higher than they were before the war. Before the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) left office he reduced the railway rates by half a million, just after there was a slight sign of times changing for the better. Since then the Minister has reduced the rates by another half million and I agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) that he should have reduced them by at least one million. It is very peculiar that hon. members opposite who represent farming constituencies are hand-in-glove with the Labour party, and are kept in power by those who always cry out for extreme wages. To-day those hon. members are apparently satisfied that there should be no further reduction in railway rates. I come back to this question: if the Minister is going to amplify this policy is he satisfied that he is going to do his duty not only to the farming community, but to the industries of the country which require assistance in the way of development? There is another aspect of this question, and that is this: I have come in contact with poor people who have just been taken on by the Railway Department.

They are quite satisfied.

I ask the Minister whether he is really doing them that good service which he intends. My own impression is that we are bringing these people into blind alley where they can never progress and raise themselves. What is the real prospect in life for a man who is put to work on the railway with a pick and shovel, or sweeping the platform and the adjoining rooms? In the meantime he is helped by working but are we endeavouring to lift him by this kind of labour which we are now giving him. Seriously speaking, in the interests of these people whom we wish to raise, I say, emphatically, that I do not think there is the opportunity given of raising them in the scale of civilization by the class of work which we are entrusting to them. There are other avenues which Mr. Speaker would rule me out of order if I discussed just now, but by which I think we could lift our poor whites apart from this system, under which we do not give them a real opportunity to rise in scale of life. Is the Minister satisfied that he is really doing a very good service to the people, and giving them the opportunity of rising in the scale economically, and in the matter of civilization and education? These are some of the aspects of the question which I wish to submit now. I hope later on to have an opportunity of discussing the matter on a wider aspect, but I would again insist upon these two points. The Minister must come to this House with a clear definition of what civilized labour means. The country— both the European and the coloured man— is entitled to a clear definition. And the second point is whether the Minister thinks that it is entirely economically sound, considering the development of the country and the object of the Act of Union in regard to the railways, to go in on a broad scale of what he calls civilized labour; whether he thinks that is in the economic interests of the railways and the country in general.

I would like to emphasize the question put by the last speaker and to ask the Minister to give us a clear definition of what he means by civilized labour. I would ask specifically whether during the recess he has ever seen fit to appoint a civilized native on these railways. Everybody in the House must admit that we have civilized natives in this country; men who live up to a high standard; who are trying to lift their fellows and trying to do their duty to their own countrymen and to the white people. It behoves us also to do our duty to the native. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) had attempted to give the Minister an opening. He has stated: Close the borders of Lourenco Marques against the importation of foreign labour, and he suggested that that would be a solution of the problem of providing employment for these civilized natives. That is a fallacy. We all know that the natives from Lourenco Marques are the men who labour on the mines; men without education, who come as delvers of the soil. I would like hon. members on this side of the House to compare that suggestion with the position taken up by the farmers in the Northern Transvaal recently. At a meeting there the Farmers’ Association asked the Government to open up the interior of Africa in order that they might recruit labour from there for their farms. On the one hand we see the farmers asking for a foreign country to be opened up in order that they may secure more labour, and on the other hand the Labour Party are asking the Government to close these borders. What is going to be the economic result of closing such borders? The Mines will require more labour, and will be able to get it by paying higher rates, and the farmers will not benefit as they cannot afford to compete against such wages. It was asked by an hon. member of the Labour Party: Why do the farmers allow the labourers to leave and work for higher wages? Well, the other day when a Bill was brought into the House to control to a certain extent the children of the natives on the farms—

The House has seen my point. The farmers cannot say to the natives you cannot go and work there. Is there any farmer in this House who could compete with the Harbours, where they pay 5s. or 6s. a day or with the Mines?

What are you going to do with your whites?

I think that to attempt to solve that problem by introducing into it the native question is approaching it from an entirely wrong angle.

I must ask the hon. member not to go too deeply into the question.

We are now discussing civilized labour. It seems to me that if the Railway Department wish to do their duty by the civilized natives and to continue their present policy, they must introduce a scheme of labour segregation. If this policy is permanently adopted, it must be carried out to its proper and logical conclusion. A further point arises: What is to become of the large numbers of unfit labourers who are unable to go back to the mines owing to the diseases which they have contracted? I know of cases where 40 per cent. of the natives wanting to go to the mines were rejected by the medical officer. What is to happen to these natives? Are they not to have opportunities of earning money on railway and other Government works? I think the Minister of Railways must look at the matter from a broadminded point of view and realize that the policy that is being adopted by this Government causes the native to feel that he is in a cleft stick and if the native policy is going to be developed by a prick here and a stab there we are going to have trouble. This will stir up the natives right through the country. If there is anything that has brought the natives together it is this attempt to take them out of their legitimate sphere of labour in this country to make room for European and coloured labour. We must realize that if we have a solid body of natives against us the position will be serious. I appeal to the Minister to deal specifically with the point raised by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige). Let the country know if the Railway Department are going to adopt the policy of segregation on labour and let the natives know that they need not apply for work with the Railways and Harbours Administration. Since I have been down here I have had numbers of natives complaining that they are unable to get work at the docks, where they have been working for years. They say it is a coloured map’s country. If the Western Province is to be segregated for the coloured man, let us have the Eastern Province for our natives. If Cape Town is to be closed to the natives, let us have East London, Port Elizabeth and the Eastern Province, where the natives live, in which they can obtain employment. We have numbers of coloured men in the Eastern Province, they should be brought down here if we are going to have labour segregation. Do let the country and the natives know exactly what is meant by this policy of civilized labour. At present there is a feeling of suspicion among the natives; they are very amenable and easily led, but when they are driven they are sometimes driven too far.

I agree with the views expressed by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin), but I cannot quite agree with the Utopian views put forward by the members of the Labour Party. It seems to me that no wage can possibly be permanent and continue in force if it is not an economic wage. Whether you term it a civilized wage or whatever name you give it, it must be an economic wage if it is going to last. There has been a good deal of questioning as to what an economic wage is. My view is that the total economic wage is the amount available for the remuneration of labour —both by hand and brain—which, together with the normal remuneration of capital will enable a product to be produced or a service to be rendered at a price which the consumer is able or willing to pay. The economic wage of an individual is that proportion of the total wage fund that the services he renders bears to the total labour remuneration. In that term I include labour both by hand and brain, and the wage of any given product has to be divided between these two classes of labour. I now come to a point which has been emphasized from the Labour Benches; the remuneration of a director of industry. The remuneration he receives is the difference between the remuneration of the least efficient of his competitors and the results attained by his efficiency In all industries there are many organizers and employers who get no remuneration at all, for example, during the last few years a good many of them have gone into the bankruptcy court. In the absence of any method of increasing that wages fund, it is quite clear that if you give unskilled labour an increase in wages it can only be done at the expense of skilled labour. The only solution of the problem of increasing the wage fund to obviate low wages which has ever been discovered is an increase in efficiency. In America wages have gone up owing to increased efficiency. The Americans have developed the use of machinery to a very much larger extent than any European nation, and hand labour has contributed to that efficiency in America by doing its best to make the utmost possible use of machinery. It is out of that fund that hand labourers in America have received their higher wages. This is where your civilized man can come in in South Africa, and I mean civilized man irrespective of the colour of his skin. The civilized man can hold his own in this country by efficiency, and that is the point which was made by the hon. member of Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger)—that he had satisfied himself that in certain railway works although the individual white labourer had received larger pay per day than the native, he had succeeded by his skill and his civilization really in doing more in a given time than the native could do, and in that way he got a larger wage, to which he was thoroughly entitled. It is my belief that here is to be found the only solution of the civilized wage policy. The civilized man—and every white man should be civilized—is capable of doing more in a given time than a native, and his wages should be that amount more than the native’s wage. If you try to pay higher wages in any other way you will increase the cost of all products in this country, and instead of helping the wage-earner you will do him a great deal of damage.

It is very amusing to hear these beautiful views, but if the hon. member will study the report of the Price of Produce Committee he will find that the farmer receives only 23 per cent. of the amount which the consumer pays for his products. In other words 77 per cent. was clear profit for someone, and I would like to know who got that 77 per cent. I would like the hon. member to read the history of the world. We find it in all ages, when wages were based on the amount paid to the lowest civilized individual, the higher civilizations were destroyed. When you fix wages on the lowest scale you must throw out of employment those living on a higher scale. History tells us that not only has the British race been supreme in the world, but that nationalities of all colours have at different periods in the world’s history been the predominate nation. Unfortunately for themselves they followed the policy supported by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) and the hon. member for South Peninsula Sir Drummond Chaplin) namely that the economical rate should be based on the remuneration paid to those people who can afford to work for the cheapest wages. Democracies in other countries are not faced with the same evils which confront us in South Africa. In other countries the trade goes to the country which can produce the cheapest prices. British capitalists, for instance, have established mills in India because they can manufacture cotton goods there cheaper than they can in Lancashire. On the other hand South Africa imported Indian natives and Chinese to work here because these people were content with a smaller wage than are the natives of this country. We are face to face with a problem which other countries are ignoring, owing chiefly to the fact that no other country has so many different civilizations amongst its people, therefore we must solve this question not only for South Africa but for the world we must take a lesson from history. If you go back to the times of Babylon, you will find that the same thing occurred; that mighty nation obtained its labour from countries where the people lived on lower standard. You must remember that when you employ people on a lower standard of civilization than you are yourselves, you develop in them a creative faculty which subsequently is used to compete against you. We can never maintain our position by becoming commercial machines, but we must be the creators of all the arts, crafts, and sciences involved in every branch of the world’s industries. The history of the Roman and Venetian Empires is a clear analogy with that of the English-speaking people. The Romans and Venetians purchased the products of the world from people less civilized, which they resold at tremendous profits, but the time came when the people from whom they bought those products for re-sale to other nations woke up to what was going on and dealt direct with the final purchasers. I am very pleased that the Minister of Railways has introduced a civilized standard of wages. It should not be a question of a black or the yellow man, but the payment we make should be in accord with civilized standard so that the people we employ can live on a decent scale. Evolution will take place among the native and Asiatic races, and if we Europeans cannot hold our own in the face of their competition we shall go down in the economic fight; we have no right to hurry on our own destruction by maintaining a system under which the basis of wages paid is that which will be accepted by the least civilized man. Have a fixed standard on the railways and employ civilized men to do the work, and I do not care whether they are black or white, but on behalf of humanity and civilization I object to our committing suicide by following out the dictates and the policy of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin), and the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford).

I listened with great interest to the speech which has been made by the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) and I was very rejoiced to hear him take up a bold stand and say that it was not a question of black men or coloured men. Does he mean that?

I mean all I said.

If so, then I am going to ask the Minister of Railways and Harbours whether the policy of the Government remains on this point as it was stated by him at the end of last session. During his reply on the Railway Votes the Minister was making a statement about civilized labour and I ventured then, very humbly, to interject a question as to “how about natives who have reached a civilized standard?” Hon. members may be interested to know that this is reported at page 1423 of Hansard. The reply given by the Minister was that “the native who has reached a civilized standard at present is not being dismissed.” I then asked the Minister “Will he be appointed?” The answer was “No.” In face of that answer, I ask the Minister again, is that still the policy of the Government in regard to the civilized native? I associate myself with those who have so eloquently put up the point of view of the coloured man and the native who are being displaced by this policy. After several questions recently, I have not yet got a satisfactory answer as to what has become of the men, coloured or native who have been in the service of and rendered faithful work for the Government for years, and who are being displaced by this policy. How can we reconcile a policy which on the one hand is claimed to be the best for the white man and yet on the other hand not doing justice to the coloured man and native? If it is the policy of the Government not to give to any man, whether he is a civilized man or not, work on the railways because he is not a white man, I ask will the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) go down to N’dabeni location and preach that doctrine there?

I have never been afraid of telling the truth.

On the one hand he puts up a perfectly fine platitude that it is not the black man or coloured man that is being considered, and he knows perfectly well from the Minister’s statement last year and the policy of the Government, that when they are using the words “civilized labour” they are using words which are a pure subterfuge. When we talk about civilized labour” as the only standard, do we mean by that to exclude people of a certain colour, no matter what their standard is?

It is now clear how the country and the people came into the unhappy state they were in seven or eight months ago. Hon. members on the other side now show to the House and the whole country outside what their policy was.

What was it?

Some years ago the Minister of Railways discharged 12,000 whites now hon. members come and ask what must be done with the natives who are being discharged from the railways but I ask what was thought when those 12,000 men were discharged.

Where?

It now becomes clear to all what members opposite think of the white man of South Africa. The Government now wants to organize without oppressing the coloured man and native, but in as much as there are thousands of whites who did not have bread to eat when the Government came into power, and in as much as in consequence thereof famine occurred on all sides, the Government had to do something. I remember when three thousand or four thousand whites were discharged from the mines a large portion of them took their way to the diamond fields. What was the consequence? Everyone knows that in looking for diamonds the experience is that some people find them and others do not. Famine was the result. Throughout the whole country there were traces of famine in consequence of unemployment. No one can deny it.

There is still unemployment to-day.

But the Government is doing its utmost. Four thousand or five thousand whites including 1,800 lads have already been taken into the railway service. A few years ago three hundred lads were discharged from the department of posts who had previously been taken on. I have said in public more than once that if the previous Government had remained in power another five years many of our whites would have left South Africa. This has indeed already happened. Hundreds of our lads have gone aboard ships to go to America.

How many?

Hundreds of them have gone to America, Australia and Canada to find work there and what do we see now? Members on the other side of the House plead to-day for the natives that the natives must not be discharged, irrespectively of what happens to the white. About two thirds of hon. members sit here by the grace of the blanket vote. No one can deny it. The people who for years have sacrificed their property and blood to civilize the land must now hand over their civilization and everything to the natives. We must not forget that the native is to-day in a good position. In the mines on the Rand ten natives are employed to one white. What chances have the whites to get work? The policy of recent years has been to have cheap labour. Hon. members talk here to-day of natives who get 6s. per day in the towns. I say that natives on the mines work for 1s. 4d. and 1s. 6d. I do not know of such big wages to natives. A native must be very highly qualified to get 5s. per day and that is about the limit. But note what happened in the mines on the Rand. The white men were discharged. The engines underground were taken over by natives, they drive the engines to-day. The work of the white man is taken away and this is done in all departments. I ask what is to become of the white man if this continues. About 16,000 or 17,000 of the lads who leave school every year cannot get work. If the Government does not stick to and follow a policy by which a portion of the work intended for the native, another portion for the coloured man, and a third for the white man we will bring white South Africa into great danger. One thing is clear to-day and that is the policy of the South African party. It is no good fencing. The white man is not stood up for here but it is asked what is to be done for the native. Instead of them helping the Government in this terrible condition of things to give thousands of whites who are out of work an opportunity of making a living they talk only about the native.

We have been listening to a speech of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius). He has said that the previous Government discharged 12,000 white railway men. I am certain that it is not true.

I will prove. You sit in this House and do not know it.

The hon. member must not be in such a hurry. It is certain that we have to do here with a very important matter but what surprises me so much—I do not however blame the member for Fordsburg —is that he wants to drive all white people to the towns. I do not want that because I want the people to remain independent.

No it is not my scheme.

That is what surprises me so much and also that the representatives of the farming population—naturally not the member for Fordsburg—sit so quiet while large sums of money are being voted which will prevent the granting of lower rates. It is so surprising that they vote with the members of the Labour party who only want higher wages. That has been insisted upon, and I hope that the Minister of Railways will once and for all give a clear definition of the expression civilized labour. The hon. member for Fordsburg has maintained, and he regards it as a completed fact, that thereby only white people are meant. The Minister says that the coloured man will not be excluded. I as a Transvaal member want to understand this clearly and I want to tell him that the people there will not be satisfied to work together with the Cape coloured man. The Minister must make it clear whether the Cape coloured man will also be included in the expression civilized labour. I do not go so far that I would take away work from all those people. All the shouting about the Colour Bar on the Rand is caused by people like the hon. member for Fordsburg.

You lie if you say so.

I should like to know from him how many of those people and also natives we have not in the service. The hon. member for Fordsburg has certainly a native in his kitchen and he has nothing against it. If we proceed to pay higher wages on the railways then we will draw the people to the towns and villages. The tendency already exists to go to the villages, and there the independence of the people is taken away while our object should be to make the people independent. That was the policy of the previous Government, but the hon. member for Fordsburg does not want it. I am always sorry if a farmer comes to me and says that he is on the way to the villages or the towns. I always try to get him on to the land. The hon. member for Fordsburg does not do this. One cannot blame him for it. I congratulate the Minister of Railways and Harbours that the railways have done so well, and I am thankful that he can take on people again because I myself have often had occasion to write letters to the department about people who wanted work. But on the other hand we should be honourable and Christian and not just kick out the other people. I see that an amount is down for the building of houses for railway men where they are in outlying places. I should like to know from the Minister if they cannot be at the halts. In districts such as Zoutpansberg there are halts where there is no one to look after the goods for delivery. I know of cases where 10 to 12 kaffirs arrived with milk cans and there is no one to attend to them. If a man lived there his wife and children could earn something by looking after things. Finally I hope that the Minister will say very clearly what he means by civilized labour. It is an important matter. Wages will be higher and the farmers must be careful of representatives such as the hon. member for Fordsburg, who only pleads for higher wages. They want all sorts of unreasonable things in the land. The railways should be run on business principles. If we do not make the running costs low how can the country get reduced rates which are necessary for the prosperity of the country, but if these principles are adopted then we shall never get that.

We have here one of those matters where the action of the present Government is diametrically opposed to that of the previous Government. It is one of the points, we must admit it frankly, where—as is constantly being said on the other side —the schemes are taken over which they have already elaborated. We have here a point where we differ radically from one another. We are diametrically opposed to the action of the previous Government. That policy was to systematically put back our white people on the railways—and this means to a large extent the people who civilized work because undoubtedly the most civilized work is done by the whites —in place of the natives. This has been done in a clever and underhand manner. I have on more than one occasion had the opportunity of going with a deputation to the previous Government to discuss the matter of the systematic replacement of civilized labour on lines where we have white replaced by coloured or uncivilized labour. And what was the answer given to the deputations? The previous Government denied it, even with indignation, until we proved to them how on the branch lines and private sidings where any opportunity occurred not to reappoint a white man but a coloured person, and if a white man was transferred from the branch line to the main line his place was taken by a coloured man. So the former Government systematically introduced more and more uncivilized labour on the brach lines.

How do you know that?

I have investigated the matter myself especially in the Free State. The former Minister of Railways will not deny it. We stand, I repeat, diametrically opposed to the policy of the previous Government. The fact that some members opposite talk with contempt about the action of the present Government convinced me that there are many people who do not yet see to what a terrible state, so far as unemployment is concerned, we have come. The measure which the Government is now taking is largely a measure to which it has been driven by necessity. We have here to do with unemployment, which is one of the most important problems for the Government. It is not unemployment among the coloured people but among the whites. No one will be able to get up in this House as champion of the coloured people and say that there is so much unemployment amongst them. We know very well that a kaffir does not look for work long. There is so much room for uncivilized labour that thousands and thousands of them are imported, but the white man if he wants to live in a civilized manner finds it extremely difficult, especially if he is unskilled, to find work. The statistics of the census which we recently had must fill everyone with unrest. The director of the census, Mr. Cousins, has, as hon. members know, pointed out that every year between 8,000 and 9,000 lads who reach the age of 18 years can find no work. The farms cannot take them up nor the industries in towns, simply because it is to-day economically impossible. I use the word economically because, of course, we must keep account thereof. It would be foolish not to do so. But we have here to do with the railways and other occupations. Every member opposite who knows anything about farming will agree that it is possible for a farmer to keep 80 to 100 men on his farm while he will find it difficult to have two or three whites. Go through the Free State and you will find on various farms taken altogether, large and small, about 80 natives, while the economic position is such that the farmer cannot keep on more than one man for work on the farm. That is in consequence of the economic condition there. The native can live at a minimum cost. It suits him to work hard for six months in the year and for the rest of the year to do nothing. That is impossible for a white man. We have in this country to do with the great problem of unemployment among the whites, and as we have no unemployment amongst the coloured people we should introduce civilized labour in any place where it is economically possible, and I say that on our railways it is more economically possible to replace uncivilized labour by civilized than on our farms to-day. I do not wish to say that we must systematically at once abolish all native labour, we cannot do this. And the policy of the Government is not that. They take account of the economic side of the matter, and only as far as possible do they in contra distinction with what was done by the previous Government replace uncivilized labour by civilized and to help to solve the great problem of unemployment in this way. I will acknowledge that it is true what some hon. members on the other side of the House have said, that in consequence of this policy our tariffs will not be able to be so low as possibly otherwise. I will acknowledge this, and I will also acknowledge the necessity in our land of as cheap transport as possible. It is a great question, but on the other hand, if you have to choose between two weights that we must hang about the necks of the taxpayer, then we look for the lightest weight, and I think that the little bit that we should pay more in tariff if we import civilized labour on to our railways is a lighter weight than when we hang the consequences of unemployment round the necks of the taxpayers. The poor whites have increased more and more. Year after year larger amounts are necessary for relief works, and the problem has always become more difficult. I believe that it is a smaller weight round the neck of the taxpayer if we introduce civilized labour on our railways and other Government works in a sensible way, while we keep an eye on the ordinary laws, and I understand that our hon. Minister is not following this policy indiscriminately without taking count of economic laws. I believe that in this way we are conferring a great benefit on the people. In the first place the number of unemployed who otherwise would have to be put on relief works is reduced, but on the other hand we confer a great benefit on our people by teaching them that there is no such thing as kaffir work. The doctrine which we should have taught long ago is that the white man must be willing to do any work. I believe that the Government will progress very far in this respect by the policy it is now pursuing. But then we must also remember that when the work is done the white man must also be placed in a position of living as a white man on his wage so that he need not sink to the native level. I think we are conferring a benefit along these lines upon our people. Already there have been large changes owing to the action of the Government. I have noticed it, but there are still many white people, especially among the poorer ones, who think that they can make the kaffir work and that they do their duty if they abuse the kaffir from time to time. That is the unsound economic system which has been built up on kaffir work. The act of the Government teaches our white people that it is no shame to do the work previously done by the kaffir, I therefore accept that this burden is lighter than the burden which is laid on the shoulders of the people if we increase the number of poor whites. The sensible manner to systematically teach the people that such a thing as kaffir work does not exist is also of great moral value to our people. I feel as a matter of fact the danger—there is a shadow side to everything—that the whites in the land will think that just because they are white their work has more value than when it is done by a native. Against this view we must naturally fight with all possible means, and we must make clear to him that he is expected to do his work capably and that he will not be paid if he does not work. As far as the railways are concerned, I think that the workmen there are taking the right view. I come personally in frequent touch with these people, and I do not believe that they think that they only get the wage because they are white. The people earn their bread in the sweat of their brow and the natives are not rendered unemployed because there is a large field of labour for them, especially on the farms and, of course, also in the native areas. I only wish to refer to two points briefly which also should actually have been included in the additional appropriation. While we employ white men on the railways we must also take care that they are enabled to live as white men. I am sorry to see in the Additional Appropriation Bill no provision for a few little things that I think should have been put right long ago. At many points along the line, I speak especially of the Free State, there are workmen living in houses which have been condemned for years. I say this is also of economic value. I am surprised that we do not have more accidents when I think in what houses these people live. They are on duty at night and must sleep in these corrugated iron huts during the day, in the hot, burning sun that shines on them. It often occurs that next door another family resides whose children make a noise during the whole day, but whether he sleeps or not, this man must, the following day, go on duty again. I think it is in the interests of the safety of the public that more money should be provided to replace or improve these houses. And while speaking on the question of coloured persons on our railways, I would only like to point out that no provision is made in the additional estimates for other intolerable things in the Free State—

Yes; I hope that hon. members on the opposite side of the House will also appreciate that we have been forced to the policy which is being pursued in consequence of the poor-white problem which has become more and more serious, and that this measure is one to bring about an improvement in the position. The farmers, however, are doing an injustice to their less privileged fellow whites, because they always give the preference to coloured labour. This was acknowledged at the Cape National Party Congress.

The prospect of improvement or advancement by employment for these men as casual labourers on the railways, is a very poor one, and really I think our energies should be directed to seeing whether something better could not be done for them. The hon. member who has just sat down said that the proportion of natives to whites among the farming population in the Free State was 80 to 1. I commend that to the consideration of members in the corner. I think we must agree that if these white labourers—Europeans —were absorbed by the farming industry they would have a far better prospect. There was an interesting congress held by the Nationalist party at De Aar not long ago, and one of the speakers (Mr. Stals) had the temerity to say that the farmers were not playing the game by their fellow Europeans, the poor-whites, inasmuch as they did not take these men on the farms. He had his reply from Mr. Louw, of Malmesbury, who said they were not going to take that kind of labourer when they had a better source of labour at hand, viz., native labour. It seems to me that the attitude of Mr. Louw is that of the farming population generally. They will not have these people. I make bold to say there is very good material amongst these people, and that it would be a proper and simple treatment of the question if they were absorbed by the farming population. I do not exactly know what system the Minister follows in regard to the employment of these white men—whether they are employed by piece work or by the day—but so far as I can gather from the figures in the additional estimates, where there is a reference six times in the Minister’s explanatory memorandum to civilized labour, it seems to me civilized labour spells more expensive labour. If so, it means heavier railway expenditure and rates; there is no way out of it. It seems to me that if these people could be employed in bringing about increased production and the native, as in the past, be employed on railway construction, there would then be a better prospect for the poor Europeans, and a better prospect of the railways working on an economic basis.

I think it is only right that I should bring to the notice of the hon. Minister something I heard to-day in regard to travelling on the railways. A large number of people are now coming from Europe to escape the winter there, and I was informed by a gentleman who has just come back that he found the railway carriages, lavatory and sleeping accommodation, generally speaking, dirty, and that things were very bad so far as the railways were concerned, and he stated that we cannot expect these people to come here unless we make a vast improvement in our railway accommodation.

A point that has struck me very clearly in connection with this debate is the total change of view on the part of some members of the Labour party in their attitude towards unemployment. In June, 1923, during a debate in this House on unemployment, we were interrupted by a Communist, who secured himself to the rails of Mr. Speaker’s gallery, rather suitably with a donkey chain. This occurred while were were listening to a perfervid declaration on the part of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs—then the hon. member for Greyville—who has so little interest in this great national problem of unemployment to-day that he is not even in the House. He said on that occasion that “the Government has exploited the necessitous circumstances of those thousands and thousands who are in want and down, in order to draft them on to necessary construction work at starvation wages. He went on to say that the Government had “done nothing to tackle the unemployment problem seriously, that relief-work policy was no policy,” and when it was suggested that this policy was a palliative he said it was “not even a palliative.” He added that “men were offered work by the Government on railway and irrigation schemes at kaffir’s wages.”“ We were,” he said, “building railways and irrigation works and developing this country at the expense of the Europeans of South Africa—men, women and children ”! Now what are the unhappy facts in regard to this question? At the present moment, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), there are a number of blind alley occupations into which Europeans are being placed by the Government, and I contend that they are being given a false sense of expectation in these positions. In the province from which I come there have been abundant instances of natives employed as station labourers having been dismissed and European taken on in their places at a wage of 3s. per day. Now it is quite impossible for a European to live in this country on that wage, and it seems to me that it would be much better for the Government to abandon the idea of employing white people in that capacity—it is almost putting a premium on their being dishonest, and certainly putting before them a very strong temptation to be dishonest, when it is not an economic wage (I borrow the phrase which my hon. friends on the Labour benches were fond of using when criticizing us). I do not hear so much about the economic wage today; that seems to have passed from their minds completely. When the Minister informed us the other day of the scale of wages paid to the European labourers as being from 3s. to 5s. per day we naturally supposed that the members of the Labour party would declaim against the exploitation of the white people of this country for Government work: “The driving of thousands and thousands of people on to construction work at starvation wages.” But we have had nothing of that. I hope it is an indication that wisdom is coming in where it was badly needed before, because there is no doubt that this problem is a most difficult one. The Minister himself, I think, since assuming office, has shown that temperate mood which indicates that he is approaching this question in a serious manner. He is bound to realize that this unemployment problem is not as simple as it looks and that the whole question is one that bristles with difficulties in spite of the manner in which it was treated or approached by members of the Government party when they were in opposition. We were told by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) that to employ any white man at less than a trade union living wage was to exploit human flesh and blood because of the necessities of the time, and it was that hon. member who was so bold as to suggest that the Government should give aid to people to leave this country because of this problem of unemployment. We do not hear any such drastic remedies suggested to-day, and indeed we hear very little as to the difficulties of the unemployed or the circumstances under which they are faring to-day under the scheme under which the Government employs them. The hon. member for Yeoville (Hon. P. Duncan) suggests that this is due to the influence of chloroform administered by our friends of the Labour benches.

Oh.

The hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) is endeavouring to face both ways at the same moment in view of his constituents’ feelings, but I am afraid he is finding it a gymnastic exercise which puts too great a strain on his agility. I notice he is the only member of the party who considers the question of unemployment of sufficient importance to detain him in the House. He is the only hon. Labour member at present in the House.

You have frightened them off.

There is one point which I would like the Minister to consider, if I am in order in mentioning it now: that is the booking of tickets through Messrs. Thomas Cook & Sons.

I am afraid the hon. member cannot discuss that matter.

I bow to your ruling, Sir. I will take the opportunity of bringing the matter privately to the notice of the Minister. I do wish to emphasize that to place these European labourers in blind alley occupations at a minimum wage of 3s. a day is really a mistake. It is not founded on wisdom and is going to recoil upon us in the long run.

What did your Government pay?

I am dealing with the scale of wages in existence at the present moment. I admit that the late Government paid a wage that was probably not any better than the present wage, because I understand that certain privileges are attached to the employment of European labourers under present conditions. But even with the better conditions, even with the free travelling (I do not think anybody will go travelling on 3s. per day), the free medical attendance and medicines and other improvements that have been made by the administration, it seems to me still a wrong and mistaken thing to employ Europeans at 3s. a day. What seems to me so inconsistent of the party on the other side is that what was denounced as a sin when done by the late Government is now proclaimed as a virtue. In almost every utterance they give voice to in their constituencies they refer to the thousands taken on in the railways, but omit to add that they are taken on at 3s., a wage which the late hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Boydell) calls starvation wages and kaffir wages. These were the pronouncements that came from the Labour benches in those days, but those voices are strangely silent now.

I want first of all to deal with one financial point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), and then to confine myself to the three main subjects that have been dealt with, namely, reduction of rates, civilized labour, and the question in regard to language qualifications raised by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn). I wish to point out to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that for once he has erred. He was making a comparison with last year, while the figures I gave referred to the current year’s estimates. I know he now appreciates the position and therefore will not labour the point. The position in regard to reduction in rates is that while I am in general agreement with hon. members who have urged that we should if possible make further reductions, and I agree with them when they say that a further reduction in rates will assist production, and that it should be the continual effort of the railway administration to reduce rates as much as possible. But hon. members already have seen that in the next year’s estimates we are facing additional expenditure. I want to refer in passing to a few of these items. The railway administration will, as a result of the last valuation of the superannuation fund, have to face very large increased contributions to the fund in order to stabilize the fund and keep it in a sound position. Unfortunately the position at the present, both as regards the pre-union pension funds and the 1912 superannuation fund, is very unsatisfactory. It is going to cost us £178,000 in addition to the amount provided last year, but the employees have a right to ask the Government to face this position. Their future interests with regard to pensions should be acknowledged and the payments increased. They have that right just as much as the users of the railways have a right to ask for the lowest possible rates. The Government is prepared to face that responsibility. I want to point out, too, in passing, that in the estimates the Government is making provision for repayment of a portion of our debt. It is a matter that will be fully discussed afterwards, but I want to show hon. members that we are making a payment of £250,000 in reduction of debt, and that that is another reason why we should go slow in regard to reductions in rates. During this year the interest and working charges on the Durban graving dock—of great value to South Africa as it is—will mean additional expenditure, and I am just afraid that for the first few years it will not be a very payable proposition, if we consider it as a purely business proposition. With regard to the civilized labour policy, I admit that it is going to cost the administration more. In reply to the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), I have to inform him that the Government is not prepared to find this extra money from the general revenue. The railways are a State undertaking, and have a duty to the country as a whole. If hon. members do not like it they must recognize that it is the policy of the Government. In regard to the reduction of rates I do not however think that we have come to the point where we ought to be satisfied to say that the rates should be stabilized. I think the time is coming when the Administration will be in a position further to consider this matter and possibly to give further relief to users of the railways. I want to point out to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), however, that when he compares our rates with those of the pre-war period that it is not quite sound, because the cost of exploitation, inter alia—the wages paid to our employees—are on a much higher scale than before the war, and there can now be no question of reduction of wages to our employees. I think all hon. members will agree. I am sorry that in dealing with this question of civilized labour there has been so much feeling. It seems to me a question of such supreme importance that we ought to discuss the question calmly and coolly, and if we differ should not engender any heat about it. I have been asked by several members to define the policy of civilized labour. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) read from Hansard of last year in which I clearly stated what the policy was. Evidently hon. members want me to define it again. The policy of civilized labour is to give in the European areas to the civilized man—whether he be white or coloured—an opportunity to earn a wage which will enable him to live according to a civilized standard. In the native areas we aim at allowing the native there to occupy any position for which he may be fit. In no single case have I replaced a native by a white in the Native Territories. Hon. members opposite seem to misunderstand—I will not say wilfully —the whole position. We are not dismissing, and have not dismissed, any native except on branch lines where we have replaced natives by Europeans.

You have replaced coloured men also.

No. If the hon. member will give me any particular case I will deal with it.

Take the line from Carnarvon to Calvinia.

If the hon. member will give me the facts I will deal with them.

You must have the facts.

Does the hon. member imagine I carry all the figures with me—considering that we employ about 80,000 men—I must ask him not to make stupid interjections. I will give the House the figures for the period during which the Government has been in office. We have appointed since July 1st, 1924—the date when the Government took office—to January 31st, 1925: lad labourers 2,137 and Europeans 2,528. We employed on July 31st 4,294 coloured people, and on January 31st, 1925, 4,908 coloured people—an increase of 614. I hope this will dispose of the story which it seems to me that hon. members have deliberately concocted when they say that the Government is out to oust the coloured man. Hon. members opposite are very much disappointed that the Government is carrying out its pledges. The Prime Minister made a speech at Stellenbosch in which he pledged to the coloured people that their rights would be protected, and hon. members are very much disappointed that we are carrying out this policy.

It is so unexpected.

When I gave, the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) the official figures with regard to the Klaver-Kokenaap line, he refused to accept them. I ask him and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) whether they know that for months now the railway administration in conjunction with the Labour Department has made every effort to increase the number of coloured people employed at the docks. The hon. members for Cape Town (Central) and (Harbour) ought to know that. We have been very successful in this respect, and yet hon. members opposite want to make the country believe that we are not looking after the interests of the coloured people. The coloured people, however, are satisfied with the bona fides of this part of the House. Hon. members opposite have the habit of representing that the present administration is throwing the natives on to the streets. When the Government took office on July 1st last, the number of natives employed was 39,074; on January 31st last the number was 36,145, or a decrease of 2,929. Can there be any question of our throwing natives on to the streets? These figures show clearly that with regard to the policy of replacing the natives, we have been carrying out a sympathetic policy, and while we have replaced the natives, there has been no question of wholesale dismissal. If hon. members will bring cases of alleged dismissal of natives to my notice I will see that justice is done to those particular natives. But where natives do leave our service we are committed to the policy of replacing them either by Europeans or by coloured people. We are doing the same with regard to the Indians in Natal. On June 30th we employed 2,132 and on January 31st, 2,032, a decrease of 100. For all other grades exclusive of those already mentioned we have appointed 3,633, making a total of 8,912 Europeans and coloured employees appointed during the Government’s period of office. I have pointed out that the native in his own area is being protected; and I go further than that, namely, where in the native areas European wastage takes place we are replacing with natives.

Which native area?

The Transkei. I now come to the question of the satisfaction these men have been giving. I think it is important that I should inform the House as to what the experience of the department has been as a result of this departure. It is costing us more, I admit, but at the same time I want to say that we are getting value for our money. I have clearly laid down and I say it here that the railway department is not a charitable organization. We cannot employ Europeans or coloured people without asking them to do an honest day’s work. The men who are being employed—and let me say to hon. members who think that we should not have gone in for this policy, that we have had to turn down thousands of applications, because we were not able to place all these men—realize that they have to give a good day’s work, that they must be efficient, and unless they are prepared to give sustained effort, we cannot continue to employ them, whether they are white or coloured. We have taken steps to encourage thrift, and especially to encourage the lad labourers to save money. We have given them opportunities in regard to furthering their education, because I am absolutely at one with hon. members who have said that we must be careful not to make this a blind alley. It is an instruction which I know is being carried out by all officers of the department to encourage as much as possible all these lad labourers and the European labourers. It will please all hon. members to hear that for the seven months ended January 31st last, we have been able to promote 218 lad labourers, and that the officials concerned give me the most encouraging reports as to what these lads are doing. As regards other European labourers, we have promoted 376. The policy is proving a great success, not only from the administration’s point of view, but from the national point of view. These men are only asking for an opportunity. If there is one thing that this policy has done, it is that it has exploded the accusation against the European, that he is not prepared to do hard work. I do not say you will not find a small proportion of that class, but the proportion is very small, and as regards the large majority, they are prepared to work and prepared to do what is sometimes called “kaffir’s work.” I very strongly object to this term, because if you take England, Germany and other European countries, all classes of work there are done by Europeans, and why should not Europeans in our country do this class of work? As far as the administration is concerned, if we are justified in doing so, we will give them promotion. In regard to the co-operation of the public, we very much appreciate, as a Government, what some firms have done. I do not want to mention any particular names, but the names will occur to hon. members of firms in South Africa who have loyally followed the policy of the Government and given the European a chance in their workshops, in their factories, and in their stores. I would appeal to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), who, I know, is not so unsympathetic as may sometimes appear from his speeches, I would appeal to him, as a leading merchant, to give an example in his factories and in his business. I know he is employing a large number of Europeans and coloured men there, and we appreciate that.

†*Allow me in this connection to say how pleased I am that the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) touched upon this matter, and I think that what he has laid down should be taken to heart by every representative of the farmer constituencies and by all farmers, and that is that the problem can and should not only be solved by the Government, but that every landowner owes it to the country to help to bring about a solution of the matter. I wish to say this to everybody; unless the farmers are prepared to do their share, we shall not be able to solve the question.

Hear, hear.

The Government has shown that it wants to do its share, but the farmers and the trading community will have to show that they are also prepared to do their share.

I am convinced what the hon. member for Waterberg has said will find an echo in the heart of everybody in the country.

We really mean it.

I accept that the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw) is also serious and honourable in this matter. I have seen that he is sometimes frivolous, but I accept that he can be serious in a matter such as this.

†I have been asked to deal with the question of wages. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), I am sorry to say, gave, I won’t say wilfully, the House the impression that we are paying 3s. a day. That is true, but to a very limited extent. The position is this, that we are paying a minimum of 3s. a day, aged 18 3s. 6d. per day, aged 19 4s. per day, aged 20 4s. 6d. per day, aged 21 and over 5s. per day. We are giving no local allowance, wherever they may be working, but I may say that we are not employing these men in the fever-stricken areas. We are giving them free housing. Under the previous scheme they were getting a minimum of 4s. 6d. and a maximum of 6s. per day. Now we are giving the men over 21 5s. a day, but we are also giving them free housing. If a man does not get a free house we are giving him an allowance, in the case of the unmarried man ranging from 6d. to 10d., and in the case of the married man a maximum of 1s. 9d. So that a married man without a free house is getting 6s. 9d. a day. But we have made a further great advance on the scheme of my hon. friend (Mr. Jagger), and that is that we are giving them five paid public holidays. We are also giving them free sick-pay and hospital conditions. We are giving them free medical attendance, medicines for labourers, their wives, and their families, and we are giving them free passes and quarter fare tickets.

Just the same as the old conditions.

No; very much improved.

I just want to know, you see.

I want to point out further that these men will be given the opportunity of coming on to the permanent staff and contributing for superannuation purposes to the pension fund, in the new Service Bill which will be brought in during this session.

On what day will they come in?

My hon. friend must not anticipate the Bill. In the Bill I am bringing in I am making provision that these civilized labourers shall be allowed to come on to the permanent staff.

What about the others who were in the service already; do they get these benefits?

Those who are in the service already of course get what they were getting before.

But do not you give them those additional things, hospital benefits, and so on?

No; those apply only to the people we have appointed under the new conditions. I want to reply to the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) about the language qualifications, but I see the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has now come in, and I will first deal with his remarks. He was very much concerned about the coloured people. I will make him a challenge. He has a large number of coloured people in his constituency. I will ask him now whether he can bring any particular case to my notice where any of his coloured constituents have complained about the conditions of their employment under this present Government? I challenge him now to mention a single case.

That is not the point.

The hon. member distinctly represented to this House that the coloured people were full of grievances and he wanted the House to believe that they were being treated unfairly. I have the clearest proof that the coloured people are at one with the Government on this matter of civilized labour. I would ask the hon. member to make sure of his facts. He must not imagine that in this House he can deal with a matter of this sort in the wild way he does on the public platform at Caledon, where he talks nonsense about Bolshevism.

Oh!

I know hon. members opposite do not like what I have said, but let me tell them that making speeches at election time is not the same thing as being faced in this House with a party who know their facts. If you want to attack the Government you must be sure of your facts. I quite understand that some hon. members opposite are very much concerned about the coloured people and particularly about the coloured people’s votes. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) does not, however, talk in the same strain. On this matter hon. members opposite speak with two voices. We speak with one voice.

One voice?

Yes, with one voice. You are very much concerned with the votes of the coloured people, but I tell you this, that the coloured people have found out that this Government is acting honestly. With regard to all employees of the administration who came in before Union their position is clearly defined by the Act of Union, that is, that their services shall not be dispensed with on account of lack of knowledge of one of the official languages. The section safeguarding their rights will be loyally maintained by the present Government. The Government do not intend to interfere with their rights at all.

What about Mr. Venn?

Mr. Venn is Under-Secretary of the Interior, and we are dealing with the railway administration now. I want to say that the Government is going to abide loyally by the compromise come to with regard to the public service in 1923 and as set out in section 15 of Act No. 27 of 1923. That compromise was agreed to by all parties in this House and the Government will loyally abide by it. Hon. members will remember that in the Railway Service Bill of 1912, there was a clause laying down that in appointing any servant to a post in which knowledge of both official languages was necessary, the administration was to be satisfied that an applicant’s knowledge was sufficient to enable him to carry out his duties efficiently. The compromise refers, of course, only to the clerical staff. With regard to the remainder of the employees the clause of the Act of 1912 referred to will be re-enacted in the new Service Bill. That is, the administration will prescribe the posts where a knowledge of both languages is necessary in the public interest. Take an extreme case, that of an artizan, working in a workshop. No man would say that such an artizan should be bilingual. There is no necessity for it. We are not asking from our artizans that they should be good linguists; we are asking that they should be good workmen. With regard to the running staff, again it is not necessary, e.g., for engine drivers to be bilingual. But ticket collectors and guards must be bilingual. That is the policy which the Government will carry out, the policy of studying the public interest, and if the public interest is being met, then I do not propose, and the Government do not propose, forcing a second language down the throats of any of our officials. At the same time, it is my pleasing duty to be able to chronicle that the railway workers of all ranks realize that if they want to serve South Africa they must be bilingual. Is not that the right policy?

Hear, hear.

Hon. members opposite say “Hear, hear.” There are cases where employees must be forced to be bilingual and that is where it is necessary for the proper discharge of their duties in the public interest. They must however be forced in the terms of the Acts dealing with the question. If the employee is a pre-Union man he is protected in terms of the Act of Union, but if he was admitted to the service after 1912 he will have to qualify within five years; otherwise he will not get promotion or a higher salary. I wish to say definitely that we are not going to force the second language down the throats of our employees where it is unnecessary, but we shall apply the law. We shall not allow men to disregard the law as was done when the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was Prime Minister, and allowed one of his Ministers flagrantly to contravene the Act.

When was that?

In 1918. Does the hon. member for Standerton deny it?

Yes, I do deny it.

It is a fact that in 1921 the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) decided that the law had to be carried out.

What about it?

There is this about it—that you found the law had been contravened and you laid down that this was no longer to take place. The Minister responsible was Mr. Burton. That is the position and hon. members know it.

We know nothing of the kind.

I want to know what is the change you are making? From what you say evidently you are making a great change; what is it?

No, I am simply carrying out the law. Mr. Burton did not carry out the law.

Are you referring to Mr. Burton’s action or my action?

I am referring to Mr. Burton’s action, and I said it was the hon. member for Standerton who was responsible.

Quite right.

Then why do you deny it?

You are fencing with this language question.

I am not fencing. I have clearly indicated that we are carrying out the Act of Union and the Act of 1912 as it stands and will stand by the compromise of 1923. There is no fencing about it.

We will wait for it.

Why don’t you send for the Minister of Justice?

I know the hon. member for Fort Beaufort has been worsted in his conflict with the Minister of Justice. But that subject is no longer under discussion, I would ask the hon. member to raise it again when the Minister is present, and I give him the assurance that he will be worsted again. I feel this Vote ought to be passed by the House. The only serious criticism that has been raised by the other side is the question of civilized labour and I think I have satisfied the House in that regard. We have made a frank statement on this question, and in these circumstances we ask the House to support the Government in their declared policy.

Motion put and agreed to: House to go into Committee now.

House in Committee:

Expenditure from Revenue Funds:

Head 4, “Main Services—Running Expenses —Railways,” £158,425, put and agreed to.

On Head 15, “Interest on Superannuation and other Funds—Railways,” £2,722.

May I ask the Minister whether the report of the actuaries on the Pensions Fund will be laid before the House?

The report of the actuary appointed by the administration and the report of the actuary appointed by the men are available. The latter report is being printed and circulated for the information of the employees, and I hope in my Budget statement to deal fully with the superannuation fund.

Is the report unanimous?

The report is unanimous. I will lay the report on the Table of the House, but I hope the hon. member will not insist on its being printed. I may say that both reports are very alarming and that they disclose a deficit of £1,962,000.

Why not print both reports?

The report of the actuary appointed by the administration is a very long one, and the conclusions are simply confirmed in the report of the actuary appointed by the men.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Head 17, “Miscellaneous Expenditure— Railways,” £18,251,

I should like to draw the hon. Minister’s attention to the question of railway orphanages, and this appears to be the only opportunity. As most hon. members know, railwaymen have established orphanages in various parts of the Union.

I am sorry, but I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss that now. It is not on the estimates.

I notice in the explanatory memorandum of the Minister that £225 is provided for the salary and gratuity of an ex-stationmaster who was arrested on a charge of high treason and automatically suspended from duty, but ultimately found not guilty by the court. That leaves a balance of £17,996 of additional expenditure on account of the “cost of living allowance” at Durban. I should be glad if the Minister will tell us why this allowance has to be paid.

The position at Durban is that for a long time the employees there have been getting this allowance, which also applies to the public servants. They were getting £12, and lately it has been increased to £18. We are giving the higher allowance at Durban because the cost of living there is still very high. The lower allowance was paid by the former Government, but we realize that the cost of living there is higher than it is in the other coastal towns.

Have you increased the amount of the allowance?

Yes; it is now £18.

Vote put and agreed to.

Head 27, “Miscellaneous Expenditure—Harbours,” £10,466, put and agreed to.

Head No. 30, “Miscellaneous Expenditure— Steamships,” £299, put and agreed to.

Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue Fund to be reported without amendment.

Expenditure from Loan Funds.

Head 1, “Construction of Railways,” £62,521, put and agreed to.

Cannot we deal with the other Heads 2 to 6?

These are only explanatory.

Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Loan Funds to be reported without amendment.

reported the Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from the Railway and Harbour Revenue Fund (U.G. 7—’25), and the Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Loan Funds (U.G. 8—’25), without amendment.

Report considered and adopted, and Bill brought up.

I move—

Agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee now.

House in Committee:

Clauses, schedule and title put and agreed to.

House resumed:

Bill reported without amendment; third reading on 18th March.

I move—

The Bill with reference to the change of ground at Ebenezer, which I propose here, has become necessary since the completion of the work of the furrow out of the Olifants River, so that the ground there can be available for purposes of settlement. I do not think, however, that it is necessary to go into the irrigation works that have been done there. They date from 1883, when a report was made by the engineer of the old Cape Government about irrigable land, etc. Subsequently, an engineer of the Union Government also reported thereon with the estimate that the cost of the works would be £155,000. Finally it cost £602,000. The former Government bought certain land in order to extend the irrigation works. I will not say that the increased cost is exclusively due to that. The ground belonged to Hottentots. They got it in 1837 from Sir Benjamin Durban, who gave it at that time to a German Missionary Society for a mission station, together with ground which could be used by the Hottentots. The Government felt that these people (the Hottentots) would not be able to work the land in such a way as to be able to pay the water rate. My predecessor suggested that the ground should be exchanged so that the best ground could be used for purposes of irrigation. Messrs. Wege, Faure and Metford, who went there, made an agreement with the inhabitants of Ebenezer and Doom River and the church. Allow me to interpolate here that the ground was transferred in 1890 to the Dutch Reformed Church and an agreement was entered into with the church committee by which the ground was exchanged to the Government. On the basis of that agreement, another farm was purchased. Subsequently, dissatisfaction arose which was instigated by certain people. My predecessor then sent a second commission, and found that it would be better to meet the people there, as they had to go away, and it is customary to meet people who have to leave their homes. That is a consideration which always counts. The agreement was then concluded. My predecessor was there himself, and the Bill which I now submit to the House incorporates this second agreement. It contains inter alia: The Government grants to the inhabitants of Ebenezer the farm Viswater of approximately 8,000 morgen valued at about £14,000, the farm Sandkraal of approximately 4,500 morgen valued at £2,375, and then they still get free water for 300 morgen of irrigable ground. As compensation for improvements £1,400 is paid. It is stated in the later agreement what will have to be paid if the Bill is passed. The Government must make two small dams which will cost about £500, make hedges for £500, a dipping tank for £250, and pay the Dutch Reformed Church £3,000 for the church and the parsonage. They get water for a further five to six hundred morgen, but they must pay water rates therefor. They retain about 3,500 morgen of Doom Kraal and 4,600 morgen of Ebenezer. The Government gets 8,000 morgen of irrigable ground at a valuation of £22 10s. per morgen. Provision is also made that if the Hottentots do not irrigate the 500 morgen, then the Governor-General can resume ownership. It is proposed to place the land of the Hottentots immediately after the passing of this Bill under the Cape Mission Stations and Communal Reserve Act, which meets the requirements of the case in all respects. At the moment, there is a sort of board which, however, has no legal status and consequently has no authority. Under the Cape Act mentioned the settlement of the Hottentots will, however, get a sort of village council. There will thus be an authority who can investigate the rights to the ground, because the agreement of my predecessor cannot settle which Hottentots have a right to properties, and some of the people allege that all the people who live there to-day have no right to the ground. The matter can then be settled. Provision is made for the payment of water rates, etc. If the Bill is passed, the whole settlement so far as the coloured people are concerned will be placed under the Act. I think, at the moment, there are only five persons more at Ebenezer who have objected to the agreement. They are not against the agreement, but allege that they form a sort of royal house, and that the negotiations should have been with them. This has, however, not been proved. They have retrogressed, and not one of them has to-day got a house. They live in pondoks. We have, however, met them, and they are contented.

On this side of the House we are quite prepared to give the Bill our blessing. It is an additional proof—if proof were needed—that the really useful measures introduced by the Government were an inheritance from ourselves. However, I fully agree with the Minister that the Bill serves a very useful purpose. It brings to an end a long series of disputes with these people on the Oliphant’s River. Time after time we made agreements, only to find subsequently that discontent prevailed, but at last we succeeded in securing unanimity amongst them. This Bill is the culmination of much work, and there should not be a single objection to it.

Motion put and agreed to and the Bill read a second time; House to go into committee on March 25th.

I move—

This Bill has also become necessary by reason of the purchase of ground along the Sundays River by the previous Government. The irrigation works on the Sundays River differ from other irrigation works in the land. Formerly various private persons took out sluits before Lake Mentz was built, as at Selborne and Cleveland farms and so on. The canals were made there and later it became necessary to build dams to catch the water, and then various schemes arose as also the Sundays River irrigation scheme, which was taken over for exploitation by the Cape Sundays River Settlements Limited. The people spent a considerable amount of money there. They got into difficulties and actually mortgaged some of their property. The Government decided to intervene because there are many settlers who bought ground there and the Government wants to see what can be done. In the beginning the Government could not agree with the company as to price, but finally it was taken over for the sum of £110,000 plus costs. The Government bought a piece of ground—and with reference to this the first portion of the Bill is— of about 400 morgen which is not riparian. It lies up against the canal but does not border on the river. Why the Sundays River Settlements, Limited, sold the ground in that way I cannot say, because the people had to get water there, and there is, therefore, no reason for making a difference. These people bought the ground on the condition that if water could not be given the company would repay all water rates paid, in the second place everything that had been paid for the ground, with interest, and further, that recompense should be made of all improvements made by the purchasers. On these conditions the ground was sold, and the consequence is that the amount of compensation would have run to about £50,000. My predecessor, who bought the ground, took the moral obligation upon himself to introduce legislation to give the people water rights or compensation, and this Bill makes provision therefor, so it is proposed to cut out a piece of ground which is just as big as what the Government now holds and which is riparian ground and to exchange it for the other ground. This piece which the Government replaces is a little bigger, but it is not always irrigable, and for convenience sake the existing boundaries of the farms have been taken although it is actually a little bigger. The people will now have a right to water on that ground. I saw the irrigation board myself, and it was made clear that there is no objection thereto. A notice thereanent was published three times in the “Government Gazette” and hung up in the office of the Sundays River Settlements Limited, and also in other places, and no objection has been made. This is the first portion of the Bill. The second portion makes other provisions. The first point has reference to payments. The people originally bought water rights for about £27 10s. and £2 10s. the land. As the people got no water it would be unreasonable to demand interest on the whole amount of the transfer duty, therefore it is proposed that no interest shall be payable on transfer duty for any period before the operation of this Bill or six months thereafter. Then there is a second measure to meet people. There are some people who pay each year a one-fifth portion of the purchase price. They now pay 6 per cent. interest and have passed a bond for the outstanding amount. There are people, however, who cannot make any further payments towards the purchase price. In the first place they have actually had no water, and further other settlers were assisted under the Land Settlement Act so that we think we should help these people. Accordingly I asked for the power to reduce the interest from six to five per cent. and to give the people more time. Then further power is given to the Minister by this Bill to cancel sales of ground bought by people who do not want it any longer. Such people have paid a portion, but as they see no further chance in some instances of paying anything more. I want the power, upon mutual agreement, of cancelling such contracts. There are further also persons who have for instance paid the first instalment and then disappeared to Europe and elsewhere. We often do not know their addresses, and they do not take the least interest in the ground and all progress in development is at a standstill and the land is lying useless. Now I want the power, when the land board advises me that such a lot should be cancelled, to do it. Notice will be given thereof to the owner, and in cases where we have not his address notice will be advertised three times in the “Government Gazette,” and he gets an opportunity to go to the court and to interdict me. Naturally we shall not proceed with cancellation unless the man will absolutely pay no longer. These are the other powers. In the appendix hon. members will see what areas are now proposed to be called riparian areas and what are proposed to be cut out. Then power is asked to give transfer. I do not think it is necessary to say any more about this proposal. The Bill has become necessary because work on the scheme has practically come to a standstill and I have no power to arrange things there, but inasmuch as it is necessary, I think under the rules of order that the motion should be referred to a Select Committee, I propose that the motion should, after second reading, be referred to the Select Committee for Crown Lands.

I would wish to congratulate the Minister on bringing this Bill forward. The previous Government took upon themselves the responsibility of purchasing the assets of the Sundays River Company without the sanction of Parliament, and I was very glad to see how well it was taken by all parties of this House. Probably the Sundays River Valley has more difficulties and complications than any irrigable area in South Africa. This Bill will not solve all the problems of Sundays River, but it will go a very long way towards it. I congratulate the Minister on the way he has grasped the facts in connection with this matter. One of his first acts in taking office was to go to Sundays River and investigate this question. There is not a single clause in this Bill to which we, on this side of the House, would take objection. There is only one thing I would ask the Minister to do and that is to lay on the Table of the House the diagram showing exactly what are the two areas covered by the Bill.

I also support the second reading of this Bill. I shall be glad if the Minister will tell us precisely why it has been found necessary to turn ground which is at present riparian into non-riparian ground.

I would like to say how we welcome this Bill and how we irrigation farmers appreciate the effort made by the Minister of Lands in continuation of the proposals made by his predecessor, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) to solve this question. I am pleased the matter has been dealt with in such a comprehensive way as it has been by the Minister. The Minister said that by the proposed exchange there would be “a little more irrigated land” than there was, but I hope he knows that there is an outcry in the area about the amount of land already scheduled for irrigation. I think it would be a great error to increase the area of scheduled irrigable land in any way. The Minister should know that some of the settlers have tried to get the irrigable rateable area of land reduced; others want it left as it is, but the rates reduced I think it would be a grave mistake to increase it, but on the other hand the Government should take this opportunity of reducing, through its holding, the area of irrigated land. The Minister said, I think, that a little more would be put under irrigation.

No; just the reverse.

The only way to put the settlers on a proper foundation is to proceed as in this Bill. I am sure that we on this side of the House are very pleased indeed that this Bill has been brought forward.

I would like to add my blessing to this Bill. Naturally we, in Port Elizabeth are very much interested in this area and are glad to see the Minister is taking powers to relieve the unfortunate position of these men. I would be glad if the Minister could make some statement as to his intention in regard to these men because some alarm has been caused by a circular issued from his department in regard to the water charges. When the late Government bought from the debenture holders all their assets, it was understood the intention would be to relieve these people. The only way, I take it, the Minister will be able to sell that ground is by putting the existing holders in a position where they can make good. The position has become “blown upon” by the unfortunate things which have happened. I would ask the Minister what attitude the Government intends to take in regard to those holders.

This Bill will indeed be welcomed by many residents and non-residents of the Sundays River Valley. Whilst congratulating the Minister, I do not think he has taken the best methods of meeting the case. I understood the Minister to say that he did not know why non-riparian ground was sold as riparian. Well, it was found that the canal covered a lot of excellent ground, eminently suitable for irrigation, but which did not happen to be riparian. It was well known that this ground was not riparian. In fact, each purchaser of non-riparian ground was called upon to sign a document acknowledging the position and that he fully understood it. Some of these agreements were signed in London, and we have to consider the position of those who signed them there. I wonder how many hon. members who are not water-court lawyers understand the meaning of “riparian” and “non-riparian ”? Whilst it was clearly understood by the purchasers that this non-riparian land was to be entitled to water, there was also a condition in the agreement to the effect that if it was found that the company was prevented from applying water to this ground, the purchasers were to get a refund of all moneys expended in good faith on this ground with interest at 6 per cent. I think it would have been preferable for the Minister to arrange that the Government keep the bargain entered into by the company with these people. However, I hope he will succeed in getting this complicated matter made straight. I think he will admit that there are objections to altering the law of the land. But this is one of the exceptional cases which, failing compensation, permits of no other course being taken. We on this side of the House will support the Bill, and I hope the Minister will give the assurance which is so much required to give confidence to those who have taken up land and to possible future purchasers. I wish hon. members understood what a magnificent asset South Africa has in the Sundays River Valley. It has been described as probably the finest citrus valley in the world. It would be a great pity if anything further were done to check its development. Any eventual success will be due largely to those who had the courage to take up land and, despite disappointments and trials, are yet holding on to it. As the Minister has said, the Government have acquired for £100,000 ground and works, etc., which have cost £625,000. It is an excellent bargain for the Government, and they can afford to be long-suffering with those who, through no fault of their own, are in arrears with their instalments and water rates. I can assure the Minister that a period of five years without any further payment is necessary for the present holders, in order to give them that confidence which they require and, indeed, deserve. But it is absolutely necessary that the present holders should know where they are, whereas at present they have a millstone of debt around their neck and they have no security that the Government will not throw them out into the world, leaving them penniless. However, I do not think the Government will do such a thing. In view of such an excellent bargain, the Government can well afford to wait for the returns which I am sure will be adequate in the not very distant future. It is necessary to relieve these people from their terrible anxiety. I do not believe a single owner has so far been able to make enough out of his operations to pay the water rates. A good deal of money has been spent out of the pockets of the settlers, and this money has enhanced the value of the ground which the Government has acquired. I appeal to the Minister to give these people the sympathetic treatment they deserve, so as to encourage them to go on and turn their hitherto unprofitable holdings into a very profitable business indeed. I may say that, despite all the trials and difficulties, the view expressed by Mr. Kanthack still holds good, namely, that “it is one of the most promising closer-settlement schemes that the Union is ever likely to produce.” That is from the report of an official who was better qualified to speak on irrigation generally than anyone I know.

It must really be a very pleasant experience to the lion. Minister to see how favourably his Bill has been received, and to receive so many congratulations from this side of the House. I also should like to add my congratulations to the Minister, because I am one who believes that—notwithstanding the many difficulties with which the Sundays River Settlement has had to contend, largely due to that very great drought through which we have been, and to the effect upon the construction of the dam of a very great increase in the cost of supplies during the war—there is no place in South Africa where, with due care and consideration and with the support which I think will be forthcoming, there is a greater prospect of final success than in the Sundays River. Personally, I am not interested in this, but in another irrigation settlement, but I do believe there are great possibilities in that valley. There has been some doubt with regard to the original scheduling of the Sundays River area, and it seems that there was, perhaps, an error on the excessive side in scheduling 42,000 acres of irrigable land. I would ask the Minister to bear this in mind, and that in any changes which the Government make now in their desire to do all they can in the interests of the genuine settlers who have done so much to develop the Sundays River Valley, he will be extremely careful as to the amount of land not sold already in the hands of the Government which he will put upon the market. The less of that land, within reason, that my hon. friend disposes of, the greater assurance of water there will be to the settlers, and that is why I make this suggestion. With regard to making riparian land non-riparian and non-riparian land riparian, I agree in general with what the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has stated. In ordinary circumstances it would perhaps be a very serious thing to do, but then you take into consideration the whole of the ideas in connection with the Sundays River Valley. As my hon. friend knows, and as the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) must know, at the time the settlement was established there was an idea when the original arrangement was made that the water had been apportioned into three parts and that when the water was taken from a certain position. The settlers could use it exactly as they desired, and then as the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has pointed out, the land under the canal, I think in the vicinity of Caesar’s Dam, being of such a character and so much more easily and inexpensively to get the water on to that land and being much better agriculturally than the other land, it was thought that the Sundays River Valley, being entitled to one-third of that water, it would be more economically and judiciously applied to this non-riparian area. The position, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Col. D. Reitz) has stated, has engaged the attention of the Irrigation Department and the Government for some considerable period of time, and I remember some couple of years ago, when I had a meeting with the Sundays River Board, who came here to discuss the question, that the point that struck me forcibly was that no injustice could be done if you struck out of the scheduled irrigable area a quantity of land, and added an equal quantity of the non-scheduled area land of a better quality, because the settlement was entitled under the law to a proportionate share of the water which was about one-third, and no other irrigator was done an injustice so long as they did not take more than that share of the water, and so long as you schedule 900 acres odd of non-irrigable land which has had a great deal of development carried out on it. It is near the canal and easily irrigable and, so long as you take away another area of irrigable land, you would be doing nobody an injustice. I wish to impress upon the Minister the advisability in scheduling his non-riparian land as riparian and in taking out of the schedule land which is now riparian, though it will be very difficult and costly to work, my hon. friend will not err on the side of taking away too much of the non-riparian land. If you are taking away 900 odd acres or making that quantity of non-riparian land riparian, I would suggest that there is a lot of that land not occupied, but that he takes considerably more riparian land which now belongs to the Government than the 900 odd acres that is put into the schedule. I acknowledge how carefully he has gone into the whole question. I think he will admit that is a sound proposition not only in the interests of the settlers, but of the Government who now becomes their landlord.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.7 p.m.

There is no doubt that in connection with a great many irrigation schemes, we have to consider whether the impounded water would irrigate more land in dry seasons than the amount originally contemplated. This is all the more necessary in the scheme controlled by Government, which it has practically got for a bagatelle, for the sum the Government paid for the Sundays River scheme is in no way proportionate to the original cost. I do not think that any scheme of that character has ever been before bought at such a reasonable rate. I wish to congratulate the Minister on introducing the Bill, and I am perfectly certain it is going to receive the approval of all parts of the House, and it will relieve to a very great extent, the anxiety which has existed among the Sundays River settlers, who include men who will make some of our best settlers.

The case for the Sundays River has been very clearly put, and I am going to support the measure, as I consider it only a bare act of justice to the unfortunate settlers. Unfortunately, there is no provision in the Bill for the remission of water rates, and I hope in committee that this will be altered, so that the Minister will be able to remit, forego and cancel water rates. There is one matter that must have the early attention of the Government, and that is the question of transport. Without transport, the Sundays River Valley can never be a success, and I hope that before long some facilities will be given to the settlers to enable them to market their produce. The fact that the Minister last year gave four days of his time to the inspection of Sundays River was greatly appreciated, and as it is in my constituency, I would like to publicly thank the Minister for that visit. The way the Minister and his staff treated all matters brought to their notice raised the drooping spirits of the settlers, and I hope the Minister will continue to take that keen interest in the settlement and will pay it another visit next year. Sundays River can be, ought to be, and—I think—will be, made one of the most productive parts of the Union, but to do this you must treat the settlers generously and sympathetically. Every effort must be made to keep them on the land, and if that is done, there is not the slightest doubt that the bargain which the Government has made will turn out a very good one for the settlers and the country at large.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) asked me why I propose to cut out a portion of the irrigable area for the one I propose to bring in as irrigable land. I have got to do that, because the irrigators of the valley would, naturally, object, seeing that water is not too plentiful if we were to include an additional area as irrigable area without cutting out another portion that is already irrigable. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) misunderstood me. He said that I intended to bring in an extent of land which is much bigger than the extent which I intend cutting out. That is not so. I stated clearly that the respective areas would be very much the same, although the area that I intend cutting out now is a little bigger, that is 700 morgen as against about 500 morgen, which I intend to bring in as irrigable land. I have taken the existing boundaries of the farms concerned, but, generally speaking, the extent I intend cutting out is about the same as that which I intend bringing in. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) asked me if I could give him an assurance that I am willing to make the position easier for the settlers. As I said, I have already given an earnest of my intentions in this Bill. That is why I have taken these powers. Hon. members may be assured that we shall consider these people very sympathetically. It is a matter in which I shall have to be guided very largely by the Land Board, but I do not think hon. members need feel uneasy about the position. It is quite right, as the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) said, that we should try and keep these people on the land. I visited them, and I must say they made a very good impression upon me. I think they are a very good type of settler, and that they have done good work there already. That brings me to the other point brought forward by the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) that I should withdraw from the irrigable land a greater portion than is now proposed. I can hardly do that at the present moment. I do not want to anticipate the report of the Irrigation Commission. I may tell the hon. member this, that just at the end of the settlement there are about 500 morgen of excellent land which are to be bushed and stumped and I gave instructions to stop bushing that land until I know what water there is going to be. Of course, it would be absurd to put more people on the land when there is not enough water for the people already there. I shall go thoroughly into the report of the Irrigation Commission and see what can be done. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron), who is very intimately acquainted with the conditions there, has given the House a very clear idea of what the Bill aims at, and he said that we had bought a very valuable asset, far more valuable than what we paid for it. I am not so certain about that. It would undoubtedly have been a very valuable asset were we certain of the water. The great question is, is there enough water or is there not? Supposing, for the sake of argument, we find eventually that there is enough water for, say, instead of 1,800 morgen, 900 morgen only, that would reduce our asset immediately by nearly half. The soil there is unexceptionable; it is the best soil I have seen almost anywhere in South Africa, barring the Orange River. Mr. Kanthack considered that 14,000 morgen would be the area there which could be irrigated; the irrigators in the valley insisted on making it 20,000 morgen, and now the irrigable area as scheduled is a little over 18,000 morgen. The hon. member referred to circulars which were sent out to these people for payment. I may tell him that nobody is pressed, nobody will be sold up, as there seems to be a lurking fear in the hon. member’s mind. The department regularly sends out circulars to settlers all over the country reminding them of their instalments which are in arrear and that they should pay. That is all that has happened. That we must do, but I can assure the House that there is no intention of pressing these people unduly and selling them out. My Bill which is to be introduced, the Land Settlement Bill, makes it, quite clear that the Government is going to treat these people as leniently as possible, and give them every facility to make a fresh start. Then the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) raised a point about the remission of water rates. I may tell the hon. member that that is a very difficult question. These rates have to be paid for from 1918; they were to be paid for the use of the canals, not of Lake Mentz, to the Sundays River Settlement Company and, of course, the plea to-day is that there was no water and, therefore, they should not be called upon to pay. But that is part of the contract. It stipulates that they should pay from 1918, whether they got the water or not. The difficulty is that these are amongst the assets that we took over. What complicates the matter is that some of the people did pay, but they did not pay the Government; they paid the company. Supposing the Government decide to remit some of these arrears which have not been paid? Then, of course, the people who did pay would naturally say. “Where do we come in?” As far as the railway question is concerned, I can assure my hon. friend that a railway is necessary there. I spoke to my colleague, the Minister of Railways and Harbours, on the matter, but, of course, I am not permitted to say what happened. I can assure the hon. member that the Sundays River has received attention. I am perfectly at one with him that the valley cannot be developed unless there is railway communication. Having dealt with the various points raised in the debate, I hope the Bill will now pass second reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and referred to the Select Committee on Crown Lands for consideration and report.

I move—

In the course of the debate on the second reading of this Bill the opinion was expressed on this side of the House that it was inadvisable to give the Government the powers of control contemplated by the sections to which I have referred, in particular sections 1, 2, 4, 16 and 17, unless there had been a failure beforehand to arrive at a voluntary settlement. I think it will be agreed that it is undesirable in matters involving questions of intricate business that Government control should come in if the object for which that control is to be secured can be obtained by voluntary effort. The clauses which I will shortly deal with are: 1. limitation of quantity of diamonds to be disposed of by producers; 2, minimum prices for diamonds; 4, establishment of Union Diamond Board; 16, this gives the Governor-General power to deal with the sale or export of diamonds.

Will the hon. member (Sir Drummond Chaplin) allow me to point out to him that it would be much better if this new clause appears at the end of the Bill?

With great deference, I think it is desirable that it should be before the committee at this stage, because the considerations involved in this amendment must to some extent guide the committee in their decision as to whether the clauses to which the amendment refer may be passed or not.

I only made the suggestion to the hon. member.

I only did that because I should be at considerable disadvantage if the clauses to which the amendment refers are passed as they stand by the committee. What we propose in this amendment is that the producers, the large companies who control the production of diamonds, should have an opportunity of coming to an agreement between themselves. It is common ground, I think, that some control should be effected, but if this control could be come to by voluntary agreement then it seems to me that there is no reason why these drastic powers should be conferred upon the Government or the board. The amendment provides that if the producers have not come to an agreement by the dates which I have mentioned, then there shall be a conference of the producers convened by the Minister to see whether an agreement cannot be come to. We know that very often intervention by the Government in a matter of this kind is successful in bringing about an agreement between people who have differed. The second stage in the amendment is that the Minister can convene that conference of the producers when the Minister would be present and could exercise a soothing influence to bring the producers to an agreement. You will see that the Minister may call upon the producers to furnish any particulars the Minister requires as to the production, therefore the Minister may have in his possession all the information he wants. The result may well be that after such a conference the required measure of control may be obtained. As I understand it that is the object the Minister has in view. He told us he did not intend that this Bill should be put into force; he said the Bill was intended merely as a sword of Damocles to obtain the proper control and safeguard the interests of the producers. I think what I suggest would be a far better method of bringing that control about in the interests of the producers than the method provided in the Bill as it stands. As I have said, there must be some control, but it would be far better if the producers could come to some voluntary agreement to allow them to do so. I think the fact that the Minister can convene this conference would be sufficient as a sword of Damocles to meet the Minister’s requirements. It is obvious that if the clauses are to be fully discussed on their merits it would be better before they are passed—if it is the intention to pass them that we should hear from the Minister whether the object he has in view, namely, the imposition of some form of control, cannot be arrived at by the means I have suggested. I therefore beg to move this amendment.

In rising to support this amendment I am sorry the Minister has not had an opportunity of considering this and other amendments in advance, but perhaps I should say that sufficient time has not been available. I will endeavour to explain briefly what the effect of the amendment would be. Briefly we might say that, if this Bill is a sword of Damocles then this particular amendment would define the thickness of the cord by which it is to be suspended over the heads of the producers. It does nothing more than what the Minister told the House was his intention. He said he did not intend to use the powers conferred by this Bill unless the principal producers failed to agree. I do not think the Minister would for one moment question the fact that a conference of producers would be most desirable from his own point of view, assuming he was anxious to do his best for the Union as a whole. It would be realized that a conference of this sort would allow for representation of the South-West producers and also would bring in the various world interests concerned. A conference of that kind would be of great advantage to the Minister or to his board in determining the maximum quantity of diamonds which are to be disposed of and in fixing the quotas. It would provide valuable information which would be available before the Governor-General was called upon to determine these two matters. The practice of allowing the principal producers to determine for themselves what those figures should be would, if the producers could come to an agreement, be maintained. The new section would in effect be a suspension of sections 1 and 2 of the Bill which relate to the fixing of minimum prices and the limitation of the quantity of diamonds to be disposed of and of the sections empowering the Governor-General to restrict the export of diamonds and to veto agreements made by the producers for the sale of their diamonds. I feel the Minister can offer no objection to the amendment. It quite fairly expresses his intention which he said was to give the producers an opportunity of coming to an agreement between themselves and that being so I do feel with some confidence that the Minister will feel that this amendment is designed to give effect to his declaration.

The argument put by the mover of this amendment puts us in a difficult position. It would have been better if the hon. member had brought forward his amendment when all these clauses had been considered. The effect of the amendment of the hon. member would be to keep the sword of Damocles not suspended at all, but lying on the ground. The very purpose of this clause is that these people should come to an agreement. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the producers coming together and making their arrangements, but, if they fail to do so, then this clause comes into effect at once. The whole object of the Bill is to prevent the producers being put into that state of anxiety every six months that they are put into while they are waiting for the prices to be determined. I hope the Minister will not accept this amendment. There is no reason why the clause should not be carried out as it stands. I suggest that the committee should now decide to take these clauses as they stand on their merits with the sword of Damocles suspended over the heads of these big producers.

I cannot understand the argument of the hon. member who has just spoken. The Minister in charge of the Bill most distinctly stated that he would only bring the Bill into operation in case the sellers cannot agree among themselves, and yet the hon. member opposite asks the Minister not to let this clause go through. What objection can there be to this amendment? The argument of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) is ridiculous.

I rather agree with the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) that we should have more time to consider this amendment. The fault does not lie with the hon. member who moved the amendment, but with the congested state of the Order Paper. We never know what important Bills we are going to be called upon to deal with next day. I hope that when the amendments have been tabled the Minister will allow us to report progress, because it is very difficult to gather the effect of amendments from hearing them hurriedly read through; however, if he refuses, we must do our best with the amendment, or as much of it as we have heard. The Minister told us in his introductory address that he did not intend putting these provisions into force— it was merely intended as a sword of Damocles; but as a citizen of a free country. I object to a sword of Damocles hanging over my head, or that of any industry, and the operation of a law ought not to depend upon the mere whim of the Minister. If he does not intend to put the Bill into force unless the producers fail to agree, this should be stated in the Bill. No matter what Government is in power, the Minister should not be given these powers. I urge that this is a very reasonable amendment, because it seems to me that the producers and interested parties should be given a chance to agree, as is the case in all other industries. I am quite prepared to accept the hon. Minister’s assurance in regard to the application in this Bill, but, nevertheless, no Minister should be entrusted with these very wide and arbitrary powers.

At the conference held in Pretoria in 1919 the most important question discussed was that of the different quotas, and after months of discussion the quotas were agreed upon. The Government were a party to the negotiations, as the South-West Administration was represented by the late Sir Howard Gorges and his advisers. Those quotas have remained in existence from that time to this, and the only party who have received an additional quota or value of diamonds in excess of the quota has been the Government, because we felt the Government had great responsibility in South-West; so the other producers gave way for the sake of peace and quietness. There is no reason to think that the producers will not agree to the quotas. This clause applies almost entirely to De Beers, Jagersfontein, and the Premier. Now the Government is always consulted in regard to the Premier Company, in accordance with an understanding that has been in existence for some time. There is no real reason why the Minister should anticipate any difficulty. The quotas remain, as I think, for all time. I think that the amendment of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) is quite in agreement with the expressions which have fallen from the Minister himself, and to my mind it would be sheer obstinacy if the Minister did not accept this amendment.

I am not concerned with legal technicalities, but I am surprised at the anxiety of hon. members on the Opposition side of the House to get the amendment accepted. If the amendment is only placing on the Statute Book the intention expressed by the Minister, I see no reason whatever why the Bill should be burdened with the amendment. The main objection to the amendment is that it would nullify the whole of clause 1, the object of which is that the Governor-General may determine certain things if the producers fail to agree amongst themselves; but another eventuality may arise if the producers abuse their position. Suppose the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) and the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) compose their differences, and they come to an agreement which may, in the opinion of the Minster, be injurious to the best interests of South Africa, then if the amendment is accepted, the power of the Minister is taken away. Power should be given to the Government to intervene if the producers do not come to an agreement, or if they form themselves into a trust which may be injurious to the country. If the amendment were accepted it would entirely nullify the objects of clause 1.

I should like to add my appeal to the Minister in connection with the consideration of this amendment. The Minister knows a large number of vital questions were discussed on the second reading, and that therefore there were bound to be important battles or skirmishes in committee. It is difficult to speak without anything before us. The Minister has referred to this Bill as a sword of Damocles; I think he must be sorry now that he used that phrase. The Minister is a constitutional lawyer and knows that one of the most important things in law is certainty and precision. You want to know when a law is going to be applied; whereas this Bill leaves the Minister the option in the most extraordinary way of bringing this law into operation when he chooses. There is an old Green saying to the effect that: “The master has spoken,” but nobody knows in this case when the master’s voice is going to be heard. I contend that this amendment of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) gives the needed element of certainty. How are we to know that this sword of Damocles is not going to be used as a weapon of vengeance, or to bring about a favourable result of negotiation? It may be that this is not the actual purpose of the weapon, but it will be suspected that this is so, and that fact will lead to a great deal of unrest and uneasiness. The hon. Minister will be acting wisely in accepting the amendment, or otherwise in allowing the clause to stand over. At present members do not know how to deal with Bills, seeing that they are frequently raised from a low to a high position on the Order Paper in a way which takes members by surprise.

I did not want to intervene in this debate, but the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik), after arguing in favour of the amendment, ended up by asking the Minister to oppose it. I support the amendment, in spite of the fact that I know these conferences are often prolonged and endanger the diamond industry. This clause gives the Minister the power after five months of the six-months’ period for which quotas have been fixed has elapsed to settle any dispute amongst the producers, and the fact that he holds this power would be sure to bring them to a very quick and ready agreement. The Minister in the past has always adopted this procedure of seeking agreement, and only in the very extreme cases did he step in for South-West, where he had similar powers to those in the Bill. The Minister has himself sat as chairman at these negotiations of producers, and that is a very sound principle. Mr. Hull and myself have tried for years to get back to this position, because it was the procedure which worked so well before the war in South-West. I appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment, because it will mean security to those who have invested their money in the industry; and that is a most valuable factor, not only to the diamond trade but to another project which the Minister has at heart —the establishment of a diamond-cutting industry—because the first principle of diamond cutting is security in the trade for rough diamonds, and that can only be obtained if the producers settle their own differences and give the shareholders, the public and consumers the assurance that the people who are interested in the trade have decided the quantities of diamonds that are to be put on the market and how they are to be divided so that the trade runs smoothly and successfully. I speak as one having had experience of the old system, and as far as my own interest goes I might agree to let the clause pass; but I know that it will be for the best interests of the industry that the Bill should be amended in this way.

I take it from the remarks made by the gentlemen on the other side that they quite agree there should be the power of fixing the quotas and generally of the control of the diamond output. I understand that from the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), and I also understand it on a former occasion from the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. P. E. Duncan). I have understood from other speakers that all they object to is putting this power into the hands of a Minister. They ask why it should be in the hands of a Minister to say that A shall produce so much, and B produce so much; we are afraid to leave that power in the hands of any one Minister; but the curious thing is that they quite fail to realize that as the years have gone by this power has practically been in the hands of one man, but it does not matter, so long as that man is not a Minister, and is on the other side of the ocean. It is now in the hands of Mr. Solly Joel who can interfere with the quotas, and I defy hon. gentlemen on the other side to show that I am wrong. He gets control of the various directorate by ensuring possession of a certain proportion of shares, or better still, sufficient proxies from shareholders. He then has the directorate in his hands and the directorate put forward what he wants in regard to quotas. But hon. members are not prepared to put the allotment of these quotas in the hands of the Minister. That is the difference between us and the other side. We are prepared to trust the Minister and to say to him: You have this power and you can use it for the benefit of everybody; you can see that mines are not shut up just when people want to close them for the sake of getting a higher price for their stones, or getting rid of the stones they have already purchased. The Minister can come in for the general good and can deal with producers inside the Union. I am glad to see the hon. gentlemen opposite have got rid of the bogey of places like Brazil. One gentleman used to affirm that Brazil was producing £400,000 worth of diamonds a year when they were not producing £25,000 worth. Then we were threatened with New South Wales, and even if there were these outside menaces, they would be much better dealt with by a Minister because he would have the power and influence of the Government behind him. The Premier Mine is absolutely in Mr. Solly Joel’s hands, and he may instruct Mr. Ross Frames, its chairman, that the mine shall only produce so much, and Mr. Joel controls both the Premier and the De Beers Mines. That is where the previous Government made a mistake. They should have seen that we had direct representation on these directorates. It was through this overseas control that the Premier Mine was shut up when it might have been working, and it is now not working to one-third of its capacity. I am not surprised at lawyers presenting their arguments, but I am surprised that other men who have to guard the taxation in this country should stand up and defend this asset being dealt with not by the Government or the Minister, whom they could hold responsible for the fair running of this industry, but that quotas shall be arrived at by putting the matter in the hands of other men, particularly of Mr. Solly Joel. This is the views taken up by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin), whom I would like, in passing to congratulate on his appointment to the directorate of the Chartered Company, which is better even than an administratorship. No doubt this is the reward of loyalty. This is a clear-cut issue between the parties in this House, and we prefer to trust the Government rather than those who manipulate these assets of the country to their own constant advantage irrespective of the wishes of the community.

I think the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) has Mr. Solly Joel on the brain. If the Roberts Victor were a producing mine to-day, I feel sure he would have spoken quite differently and might even have sat on these benches and not adorned the Labour benches with his benign presence.

It would give you an air of respectability.

When I want any air of respectability I shall not take any of the hair from the hon. member for Pretoria (West). I would not have risen, as Mr. Joel can defend himself, but the statements made by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) are incorrect, and without the slightest foundation. In making that attack on Mr. Joel, he brought in the name of a gentleman, a friend of mine, who is chairman of the Premier Company and the De Beers Company, a gentleman against whose character, not one word has ever been said in the course of his lifetime. He was born in this country. And the hon. gentleman accuses Mr. Frames as being a puppet of Mr. Joel. I wish Mr. Frames were sitting in this Chamber to refute the unfounded accusations that have been flung at him by a man who is not fit to clean his boots.

I would like to understand what we are talking about. I have a copy of the amendment that has been moved and have read it and do not think it is possible to understand what it means. I will read it slowly—

What is the next succeeding section in which the Governor-General shall make a determination?—

How can you fail by agreement? When we are seriously considering a matter of this kind the first thing ought to be to see that the wording is correct. There is a great deal to be said in the arguments put before us, but you cannot expect us to put it on the Statute book as it stands. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) laughs, but I am sure he does not understand it. A lawyer would be able to argue six different sides to it. To say “fail by agreement.” An hon. friend suggests that the wording should be “if the producers agree to fail” I can understand that. I would suggest to the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) that he might try and put his amendment into wording we can understand. Perhaps the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) can suggest a proper amendment.

I was relying upon you.

I am not going to suggest, for I do not know what you want. In view of the fact that in his speech the Minister of Mines, on this very section, declared most categorically, this is the policy of the Government; it is an enabling act; we propose to take these powers and assume them and act upon them in certain contingencies. In the Free State if a company does not work its mine the Government can step in and carry on operations. As a result of that law no payable mine has been closed town in the Free State. What is suggested in the amendment—to call the producers together and to try and get them to come to an agreement—is what the Minister has already proposed.

If the only criticism of the amendment is what we have just heard then I have some hope of it being adopted. The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Van Hees) says that he cannot understand the amendment. This is a new clause 1, and if it is adopted obviously the other clauses will have to be re-numbered. Then he says that he fails to understand what is meant by “failing by agreement.” First of all the producers will endeavour to arrive at an agreement amongst themselves as to what are the proper figures; if they arrive at that they do so by “agreement amongst themselves.” Suppose, however, they fail to determine these matters then there will be a conference to ascertain whether it will be possible to settle the points at issue with the assistance of a larger number of councillors. Suppose they fail in turn then the Governor-General may make the determination. The hon. member says “I agree with this in principle, but we should trust the Minister.” I believe the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Van Hees) is a lawyer, and as a lawyer if the hon. member were asked to advise in drawing up an agreement whether he should insert the verbal assurances given him by the other party or whether he should take them on trust, I can imagine the zeal with which the hon. member would point out if the latter alternative were adopted serious difficulties would arise in the interpretation of the agreement. I do not doubt that the Minister would honour his assurance, but what can be his objection to inserting that assurance in the Bill?

It won’t be because of obstinacy, but it is on principle that I will not accept the amendment. It has been rightly pointed out that if the big producers agree among themselves then state control is immediately eliminated, if the amendment is accepted. I gave this committee a concrete instance the other day. The offer of the syndicate would have been accepted by the big four except as to an increase of £250,000 in respect of South-West. They said they were willing to take this over provided that instead of 3½ millions the syndicate made it 3¾ millions. That was actually suggested by Consoldia, the people who ultimately got a better contract from the Anglo-American. It is that sort of thing that must be prevented, I gave the House the legal position the other day in South-West. It amounts to this that the administrator can do what he likes. That is the legal position. It has answered for all these years, and the right hon. the Leader of the Opposition in his time did not think it fit to alter that state of affairs, nor does anybody suggest it to-day. Even during the long debate the other day, there was not a vestige of suggestion of that sort. The only alteration that was made in the Proclamation of 1921 in South-West was that if as to quotas, only as to quotas, the board agreed among themselves, the administrator would practically automatically approve. That is the only distinction. Surely, in view of what has taken place in regard to the syndicate in the past, in view of the experience we have all had, is it desirable to introduce this amendment? I certainly think not. The other day I also pointed out the dual capacity of certain gentlemen in the syndicate and in the companies. If the companies were controlled by directors who had no interest whatsoever in the syndicate, there would be some argument for the amendment. But that is not the case. I do not wish, because I indicated the intentions of the Government during the second reading debate as to the practical administration of this Bill when it becomes law, that these things should necessarily be formally embodied in the Bill. It would be absurd to embody the intentions of any Government as to the administration of a law in the Acts themselves. So much has been said about this expression of mine, the sword of Damocles—

I won’t withdraw. Why should I? I want to point out that you have had section 127, for instance, of the Gold Law since 1908. It has never been practically applied, but there was the sword of Damocles all the time. There is the principle.

It held no terrors.

The hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) very naively suggested that he wanted to assure me that such and such was the case. If he wants me to accept his assurance, why can’t he accept what I said during the second reading debate? I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment.

That raises really a very serious position. During the second reading debate I raised the point that in this industry run by private corporations and in which millions of pounds have been invested, the Government now steps in with arbitrary power simply to oust the owners, and I pointed out that there was not a word of consultation with these owners in regard to their interests in this Bill. The hon. member in reply pointed out that there would be this consultation. Now when we want to embody this principle of consultation in regard to these interests in the Bill, the hon. Minister rides on a very high horse and says his word is not trusted, and he goes further and says that on principle he objects to this, and that even if the owners were to come to an agreement at a conference he would not accept that agreement.

I did not say I would not accept the agreement.

I would point out to the committee how dangerous is the course on which we are embarking now. Very large sums of money have been invested in this diamond industry and invested because people thought that they would be in a position to run that industry themselves and see to their investments. They have run their industry forty years successfully without intervention on the part of the state and the state now steps in and says: “We shall take that over, we shall run your industry for you, we shall manage your industry for you and we shall not consult you.” When the question of putting this principle of consultation into the Act is raised the Government says: “No, we object in principle.” I think it is a very dangerous thing. I do not think the Minister realizes what he is doing here. I understood the position of the Minister to be entirely different during the debate. I took his position to be that there should be this consultation, but there was the risk that they might not agree and he pointed out, as the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) had pointed out, that a very serious risk had occurred in this recent conference of no agreement being arrived at, and I understood from the Minister of Mines that this Bill was intended to provide for such a case, where after long negotiations, after numbers of conferences had been called and the owners could not come to an agreement, a decision would have to be taken in the interests of the industry. In that case the Government would step in, but they would only step in as a last resort when the industry could not agree. I find I was quite wrong, and that this Bill is to be driven through and the Government are to step in in spite even of an agreement by the diamond industry. I think if that is the intention of this Bill it raises a very serious question. The Minister says that there was this proclamation in regard to the Regie in South-West, and that I never in my day thought fit to alter it. The Government are now bringing forward a Bill which will make this control a statutory control and, naturally, we are perfectly right in saying that that statutory control should not be an arbitrary untrammelled one, as it is here. How does this Bill begin? “The Governor-General may determine.” That is what it is. Not a word about the owners and the interests involved, not a word about conferences or consultations; “The Governor-General may determine.” Now the Minister goes further and says the Governor-General may determine in spite of an agreement by the owners. I look upon our Diamond Industry as being in a parlous position. For years we have lived in a position practically of security. We had no outside competition, we had all the cards here in our hands. The position is altering very rapidly and we do not know to what extent it may yet alter. The industry is shaken to-day by all these discoveries which are taking place in the wilds. What is the situation going to be when nobody knows what discoveries there may be, nobody knows what will be produced elsewhere, what the Congo will produce—

How will this Bill affect that?

What I want to say is that men who years ago were prepared to invest in the diamond industry of South Africa will not be inclined to do so in the future. On top of it comes this so-called sword of Damocles. I think this is very wrong. I would appeal to the Minister not to do this. I quite understand the Government saying they should have a measure of control in certain eventualities. That is the position I have taken up all through. The hon. Minister quoted a telegram sent by Mr. Hofmeyr to Mr. Hirschhorn for which he said I was responsible. I have never said we should not have a certain measure of control. But this Bill simply ousts the owners, shoves them aside, and says the Government will step in whether you agree or disagree and will settle the quotas and the rest.

“May” settle.

Well, all Acts read like that; surely the Minister knows that.

Not all.

The Bill simply puts the State in control in place of the owners. I think it is unfair and unjust. We are exposing ourselves to the charge of confiscation and to the charge that we are nationalizing this industry to a certain extent, and we are not compensating the owners.

We are taking nothing from them.

No; we are taking away the management from the owners, I think we are making a great mistake. I warn the Government that they are embarking on a course which will be very much against the interests of this country. Here we are having enormous discoveries—at least the papers say so—of platinum and the whole share market is agog with these discoveries. If these discoveries are of any value it means the coming of millions of pounds to this country—

I am sorry I have to interrupt the hon. member.

I think that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has frightened himself. In my opinion he is occupied more to the detriment than for the benefit of the diamond industry. He is frightening the whole world. I notice one thing, that no one yet has dared to look the position of South West Africa full in the face and we have not yet heard an argument intended to attack the position in South-West. There the State has control although the State has hitherto exercised to the satisfaction of all and the happiness of the whole of South-West Africa.

The management is left to the diamond people themselves.

Yes, the Administrator leaves the control as far as possible entirely to them but he has a say in the matter and the last say and if everything goes so well there why then is it not good enough for us. That is number one. But there is another point that I want particularly to refer the hon. member for Standerton to and which is also a point that no hon. member dared to look at and which they have all tried to get past. The hon. member for Standerton says that the State is now going to step in and take away the rights of other people. He has used now the word “Nationalization” of the rights of the producer. I believe that outside of Cape Town where he has made speeches he has used the word “confiscation” but what he will not see, and what our friends all will not see is the interest of the State in the diamond industry. How much of what the State now wants control over is the property of the State. The State is one of the largest diamond producers. This our friend opposite will not admit. And the State has never had any say hitherto with regard to its portion or the other portion. Why not? Is it a sound position that the State, one of the largest diamond producers, shall have no say whatsoever about the quantity of diamonds to be sold from year to year and the price they shall be sold at? We go further. My hon. friend the Minister of Mines and Industries has already referred to the great interest which the State has in the diamond industry. Upon my calculation the country’s share on the whole is over 30 per cent. Therefore I say the position is that one of the largest producers runs the risk of suffering irreparable loss without its having had up to to-day any say about its share. And if it has not had it up to to-day that is surely no reason that it shall not have it now. No, our experience has taught it clearly—and if ever anybody has had experience then we have had during the six months that we have been in power—that it may be necessary that the State should interfere and to talk of a nationalization of the rights of private owners cuts no ice. What Is done here? The State says simply to the manager of the mines: “Look, hitherto you have been free from control by me, but now I claim the joint say coming to me.” Therefore the proposal is to appoint an impartial diamond board to bring the various parties into harmony with each other, and this impartial diamond board will if necessary, in so far as control is concerned, regulate the fixing of the quotas and the sale of diamonds. These interests are now left to persons, but the time may come when it may become necessary for the State to act on behalf of all. The diamond board will be the trustees of those who are to-day called the great producers and also the trustees of the State. Now I ask with what right it is said that any attempt is made to take away his rights from anyone? Now what concerns control—

The business—

Yes, the business of purchase and the sale of the diamonds. Now I ask again, what has already been asked by the hon. Minister of Mines and Industries, what happens to the diamonds of the Jagersfontein mine? Have my hon. friends heard what the hon. Minister said here the other day? The Jagersfontein diamonds are placed upon the table and then the diamond buyers come—the syndicate—to buy, and who do you think—he asked further—who would anyone think values the diamonds—the syndicate itself, that buys them! It comes as a purchaser and says so much and so much these diamonds are worth. Here is your money. The State has an interest in it, and a fairly large interest too. Take the Premier Mine. There a different valuation takes place, but the State has never exercised any influence thereon and never had a say about the price of diamonds. I ask again if this is right. If we think that people act in groups both as buyers and producers, then we say simply that the experience we have had the last six months makes it necessary that the State should come between the two. Take now the appropriation of the shares. The hon. member for Beaconsfield (Sir David Harris) says to-day that the quotas rest on solid basis, but am I wrong or did we actually have a few months ago an instance where one producer wanted a larger quota, I believe it was with reference to South-West? No, the quantums are not so positively fixed. There is a party that wants more and at the cost of the State, because they want more of the mines where the Government has the greatest interest, 60or66 per cent. No, it is time that the Government shall also have a say in the concern of the diamond industry. The hon. member for Standerton has put the case that diamonds are now being found all over the world and that our people do not know where this is going to end. Now with regard to this we have already learnt a lesson. He tries again to frighten us, but what took place during the last six months? We had the case that the large producers broke away from each other, and what did we see? The man who had the largest parcel of diamonds took control of the market as he wished. That was the position. If the State in such cases can intervene and the State can beforehand make provisions that it can definitely step in under given circumstances, and at a stated moment, will it not be much better than leaving the whole matter in the hands of four people, who may perhaps at that time be six or seven, and who cannot agree with each other, whereby the diamond industry will be ruined. I think that we are going the right way with this control. We should at least take provision that there shall be a body which when necessary will protect the interests of the State and I say of the diamond industry also just as well—because the diamond industry and the State cannot be separated. Therefore we ought to have a body like the diamond board who will see that matters go right so that here is no danger of its being said: “Let the thing go and let the producers do just as they wish.”

Hon. members on the other side of the House did not know why we are opposing the passage of this Bill. It is not the case that any of us have any particular interest in De Beers or any particular diamond company, except the two hon. members for the Diamond Fields, although I hold 100 diamond shares myself. Apart from that, I do not think that any hon. member on this side of the House has any interest in the diamond industry. Nor are we proposing this Bill through obduracy, but because we are jealous of the honour of this House and the honour of the country, and above all, of the honour of the Government of this country. It appears to me, after hearing the amendment read, that is contained an easy solution out of a very difficult way. It was very obvious at the beginning of this debate that the Minister himself did not know much of what was going on, for while the hon. members for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) and Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) were speaking, he was in the corner holding a conversation with his permanent secretary.

I assure you I did not miss a point.

When we come to finance we are babes in arms, and need a feeding-bottle every time. We know so little in South Africa, and although we are beginning to flatter ourselves, yet we are really very small potatoes indeed. This great diamond industry of ours. Why there is one little street in London which could buy up the whole blessed industry in this country. What I want you to understand here is you are not only speaking for yourselves but for the whole country. You are pledging the honour of the whole country; our commercial honour, the honour of the people) of this country, and to this extent you may abuse it very much. I bought a few shares in De Beers because I believed in the honour of the directorate and thousands of other people who have put money in this concern, in the Premier and Jagersfontein, did the same. You are going to say we have no trust in them at all. We believe the time has come after all these years to take the management of the diamond industry out of the hands of these people who have managed it to the satisfaction of the shareholders otherwise the shares would not be at £10 to £11 each. They would be below par, but they are not. You are hurting this country very much to this extent: if you pass this Bill unamended as you are going to do. You are going to drive away capital from this country I know that if the progress of this country means anything to us and is going to mean anything to our children and our children’s children the sooner we can bring capital to this country the better and we can only do this by making the people outside believe in the honour of the country at large and the honour of this House.

The hon. the Prime Minister implied that the Jagersfontein diamonds were not properly valued and that they found their way into the hands of the syndicate at a price perhaps below their real value.

No. I said nothing about below or above.

I think that was the impression on this side of the House. If he says he did not intend it I will take his word for it. This is a business with great ramifications; a very delicate business. All I can say in reply to this is that the Jagersfontein have received full value for their diamonds and they did not leave a greater profit to the syndicate than the De Beers or the South-West diamonds. And now they say Mr. Solly Joel has large interests in the syndicate, and naturally he exercises all his interest to get the diamonds as cheaply as possible. Mr. Joel has one-third interest in the syndicate and he and his companies hold two-thirds of the Jagersfontein company and it is to his interest to get as large a price as possible for these diamonds. I do not suppose the Prime Minister knew that. In the course of this discussion the name of Mr. Brink has been mentioned frequently. I did not mention it. I have known him since a boy. He is an excellent diamond valuer and I can only speak of him with the greatest possible respect and admiration but if you encircle him with a laurel wreath when it suits you, then you must not ignore him when his arguments are opposed to your policy. He has written a book. He wrote it when in the employ of the De Beers. Speaking of the diamond industry he says—

That is his opinion.

He calls the Government the “man in the street.”

It is stated that this Bill has not deprived producers of their rights. Well take the De Beers Company. We have to organize, we have to search the world for mining and electrical engineers and scientific men. We have to conduct the mining. Those who are connected with mining know it is not all beer and skittles. We have to find the money. The diamonds we produce are our money. When we have done all the hard, solid work then the Government comes down and says: “Hand these diamonds over to us.” Is that not depriving people of their rights?

For what purpose?

How can we carry on? How are we going to get the money to carry on? If we spend, say, a million of money to produce six months’ diamonds, and the Government come and say: “Hand these diamonds over to us,” how are we going to carry on unless the Government advance the minimum price of these diamonds, or what they cost to produce? There is no provision for it in this Bill, and it is a mistaken idea of the Government altogether that they are protecting the shareholders, because the shareholders do not appreciate it. I stated on the 9th of this month that the De Beers shares and the Jagersfontein shares had depreciated in value by at least three-quarters of a million of money. The Minister said I was wrong and that the shares had appreciated. New I will prove that he was wrong, because I do not wish the figures in any statement I make to be discredited as I am always very careful when I quote figures and my figures have never been discredited before. On the 14th of February a London paper published a cablegram from Reuter outlining the objects of the Bill. In London, on February 13th, De Beers deferred shares were quoted at £12 5s. and Jagers at £3 3s. 9d. The night I first spoke on this Bill—March 9th—De Beers were quoted in London at £11 10s. and Jagers at £3, a depreciation of £900,000. The Minister of Mines dealt with the little fluctuations in between; he was very crafty, but it was not playing cricket.

No doubt the facts are as the hon. member has stated, but surely he does not ask the House to accept that as a really solid argument with regard to this Bill? The ordinary shareholder does not take very much interest in these things. One possible explanation of the fall is that it may be worth the while of persons very heavily pecuniary interested in the control of diamonds to produce that effect. It is not an impossible effect to produce and markets can be depressed and boomed professionally. We all know that. Mere market rigging is not a serious argument to advance in regard to the merits of this Bill. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is very much shocked at the action the Government is taking and the legislation it is producing. It is quite a different attitude to that which he and his colleagues always adopted.

I should think so.

It is very largely because he and his colleagues made an error in identifying too closely the interests of the country with certain powerful financial interests that the country has lost the confidence which it once extended to the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues. In this case the right hon. gentleman says: “I always agreed that the state should have some say in these matters, but this is going too far.”

This is ousting the owners.

I ask the right hon. gentleman what sort of effective say did the Government have in these matters, except owing to their being the representatives of the diamond producers in South-West Africa. Before the great war, when the diamond producers made their own arrangements with the syndicate, did the Government have any control?

No.

Owing to the law which prevails in South-West Africa and which is identical with what this Bill seeks to enact, and which the right hon. member looks upon as such frightfully socialistic legislation, merely by virtue of that the Minister had an effective say in bringing these negotiations to a successful conclusion. If you have to have a say, you must have a say with power behind it. Sitting over here, we can perfectly understand the tribulation and perturbation on those benches when this Government is bold enough and has the effrontery to consider the national interests before the interests of particular powerful corporations. I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman (Gen. Smuts) to cast his mind back over the discussions which have taken place in this House many and many a time when the diamond industry has been the subject of debate. Has it not always been said that this is a peculiar industry, and that the peculiarity of the product of this industry necessitates control in a way which might be undesirable in regard to other industries? That control, as long as it assumed the form of control by the diamond syndicate, did not, in the eyes of hon. members over there, present any difficulty. It is common knowledge—and I say this without the least desire to make any reflection on the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Sir David Harris), or any other member of this House—that those that control the syndicate were also very powerful shareholders and directors in the producing companies. If this Government, by the enacting of this Bill, takes power to itself, when it is required, to say “No; we shall insist, as we did in regard to South-West, upon exercising ourselves the control which you think is perfectly legitimate in the hands of the syndicate,” then I say this Government is doing a service to the State in making such an important provision in regard to one of our greatest industries. The right hon. gentleman spoke of arbitrary powers, that we were taking away diamonds from the mines as if we were simply taking them to steal them. This Bill enacts that, if it is enforced and any particular producer has to hand over his diamonds, they are handed over for disposal on his behalf, and cannot the Union of South Africa avail itself of the services of experts in things of this kind as well as those whom the right hon. gentleman has looked upon as the pillars of the state, and the only persons who ought to be considered in this matter? To-day we hear nothing about the peculiar character of this industry, the peculiar character that necessitates its control. Now it is treated as if it is on all fours with every other kind of business, and it is said that, because we are submitting it to this control, it is confiscatory legislation. Was it confiscatory legislation to continue the Regie system in South-West Africa? If, as the right hon. gentleman says, this is Socialistic legislation and a Socialistic measure, why, when he had the power, did he not abolish the unclean thing in South-West Africa where precisely the same powers were enjoyed by the Government over which he presided?

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but his time has expired.

I am sorry to find that the members of the Government are not willing to accept this amendment, but I think the discussion has served a very useful purpose because we have heard from the hon. Minister in charge of the Bill, and from the hon. Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Defence some explanation of the reasons which actuated them in resisting this amendment and insisting on absolute control by the Government notwithstanding that they had throughout the second reading discussion said they do not intend to put the provisions of the Bill into force unless it becomes necessary. After hearing the hon. Prime Minister and the hon. Ministers I think it is possible to form an idea of the reasons which lie behind their decision. The Prime Minister said first of all that the Government had a very large interest in the diamond industry and therefore it was right that they should control it. The second argument put forward by the Minister of Mines was that it was necessary to protect the shareholders from the baleful influence exercised by the syndicate. I have already stated that I have no direct knowledge of the conduct of the diamond business, but it does seem to me to be a very dangerous policy for this or any other Government to interfere with private enterprise unless there is absolute justification. If there was justification it might be found in the argument that the action of the syndicate has prevented and is going to prevent reasonable competition and going to stand in the way of producers. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) challenged the Minister to say whether he knew of any concrete instance in which the interests of the shareholders had suffered. It is common knowledge that the shareholders have not complained. The Minister of Defence said something about proxies—

I said they had not bothered about their proxies.

I say as the Government has a 60 per cent. interest in the Premier, which it owes to a gentleman who, if he had been here now, would be sitting on these benches—

I can say that with reasonable certainty. I have yet to learn that the Government have any cause of complaint. They have no complaints that the interests of the shareholders have been prejudiced of the prices given by the syndicate. I do not know anything about the negotiations, and in that respect I am in a position of nine members out of ten. We know nothing of the details of the matter, but are reasoning on ordinary general business principles. If the Minister has reason to think that the interests of the shareholders have been prejudiced, let him produce his evidence. Now we come to the other argument, which is, in effect, that because the Government has a large interest in the diamond industry the Government should control it. Of course it has a large interest, not only in the Premier Mine, but also through the taxation which it levies upon the mines. Ministers say in effect that because the Government has this interest the Government should take control. I should like to point out where that argument leads to. The Government has large interests in some of the gold mines, I think, roughly speaking, a 50 per cent. interest in the Government Gold Mining Areas. On the same principle the Government might say they would take over the management of that mine and work it. The only reason they do not do so is that, however much some hon. members would like to see it done, the members of the Government are sufficiently alive to the dangers of embarking upon such a policy. As a matter of argument, however, there is no difference between the one and the other. The same argument might be applied to any industry in which the Government has a share, although in the case of diamonds, in the absence of any statements to the contrary, we may take it that the disposal of the diamond output has been carried out hitherto in the best interests of the shareholders, the public and the Government. One sees from the manner in which this debate has proceeded that the senior wing of the Government, the greater wing, is paying very great attention to the arguments put forward from the Labour benches. The hon. Minister of Defence has really given them away. His whole argument—and in that he was supported by the Prime Minister—is that the Government, in order to control anything in which they have an interest, are prepared to go a long way towards meeting the views of members on the Labour benches, and in the direction of Socialism. I think the hon. Prime Minister has progressed a very long way since he sat on those benches as a member of the old South African party Government. I can imagine what would have happened if a similar measure had been brought forward from this side of the House. We, however, are going to try and preserve the confidence of this country, so that people are not afraid to put money into this country. I am sorry that Ministers have refused to accept the amendment which seems to me to assure them of all they want. They have given no reason for the drastic steps they have taken, and I hope that even now they will reconsider their position and that something will be done, even if it is not in the actual terms of this amendment.

I rise with the object of getting a little more information from the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris). I do so, admitting that I do not know very much of the subject, in fact, I would even be prepared to say I know very little about the mining business in this country. I would like to be clear on the figures he gave. If I understand him correctly he said the De Beers and Jagersfontein shares were depreciated, since the announcement of the introduction of this Bill, to the extent of £900,000.

Yes, I said that.

He stated that the De Beers shares had depreciated from £13 5s. to £11 10s. and he also told us that the Jagersfontein shares had depreciated from £3 3s. 9d. to £3.

Yes.

And he said these taken together amounted to £900,000. Did I understand him correctly, when he told us a little prior to that, that Mr. Joel was interested in the Jagersfontein shares to the extent of 75 per cent.

Yes.

So the Jagersfontein shares, in which he was interested to that extent, were depreciated. Would the hon. member give us some information with regard to the De Beers shares. Is Mr. Joel interested in the De Beers shares to the same extent that he is interested in Jagersfontein? Is he interested to any extent at all?

I will answer you. I am not under cross-examination just now.

I certainly do not wish to cross-examine my hon. friend, but this information which he gave, certainly had some effect on my mind, and I only want to be clear on the matter. Here we have it that the De Beers and Jagersfontein shares had depreciated although he gave us no information about Premier or South-West shares. He has not yet given us the information as to whether Mr. Joel, who was so largely interested in Jagersfontein shares, was also interested in the De Beers. I just want to ask him one or two more questions. Have the Premier Mine shares depreciated at all since that announcement; and, is Mr. Joel interested in the Premier shares? Perhaps my hon. friend would give me his answer later. Then in regard to South-West shares, have they depreciated at all, and would my hon. friend be so good as to say whether Mr. Joel was interested in the South-West shares? This £900,000 argument and the cutting he read from the paper were intended to mean something. I want to get this information to convince me that his argument is sound and that these shares had depreciated; Jagersfontein, in spite of the 75 per cent, interest which Mr. Joel holds, and the De Beers shares in spite of any interest which Mr. Joel may have in them because of the intended introduction of this Bill and that the Premier shares did not depreciate—(may have appreciated)—because of Mr. Joel not having any interest in them and similarly with the South-West shares. I hope my hon. friend will take it that I am not putting these questions in order to cross-examine him, but to clear up the argument he used to-night.

I listened to the Prime Minister in his statement that no one on this side of the House had attempted to controvert the fact that this Bill reflected South-West African legislation. The Minister of Defence said that this Bill was identical with legislation in the South-West which had been sanctioned by a former Union Government and therefore, we failed to see any logical grounds why there should be any objection to the measure from this side of the House. The inference that is drawn from that is this, that the principle of the law which the Minister now wishes to introduce is one which has been in practice in South-West Africa and has worked satisfactorily there, and therefore should work satisfactorily in the Union. In fact, the underlying principle of the German law is wholly different. When, in 1909, by an Imperial ordinance, all the producers in South-West Africa were ordered to hand over their stones to a nominated person, the declared intention was not thereby to establish an arbitrary Governmental control. The law enacted that this should be done for the “better control of realization ”; in addition the German Government had an interest in the collection of its taxation and the rights of royalty owners required protection; it was also intended to prevent I.D.B., and for all these reasons the law endeavoured to conserve in one set of hands the control of these diamonds. Immediately thereafter, the German Government nominated, as the person authorized to receive the diamonds, the Diamond Regie, which was a German Colonial company with limited liability, half the capital being contributed by the diamond producers and the other half by the Government. Under its constitution provision was made for an advisory board which was constituted solely by the producers. In the course of a few years the Government disposed of its share of the capital, and at the outbreak of the war, I think the whole of the £100,000 which was the initial capital of the Regie was held entirely by the producers. The Regie sold the stones in Berlin. In 1919 the administrator of South-West Africa was empowered by proclamation issued under Martial Law to assume such powers of the Regie as he thought fit, and he continued, as he had done under Martial Law, to sell the diamonds. The matter continued on that footing until the constitution of the Diamond Board in 1921.

Were the producers ever interested as purchasers? Of course not.

The Minister has no evidence to show how the diamonds were bought in Berlin. I challenge him to show that the diamonds were never bought by persons who might be interested as producers. What was done, when the administration responded to the continued demands of the producers in South-West Africa for some measure giving them the opportunity of consultation on the vital question of the disposal of their product? A new law was then introduced, as expressed by Proclamation No. 4 of 1921. That is the ideal law on which the hon. Minister relies. What do we find in that law? The very principle for which we are contending to-night. This ideal law contains in Clause 3 a definition of the functions of the board. If, as the Minister says, what has been found good for South-West is to be introduced into the Union, here is the proof that our amendment is necessary! This Clause 3 (read) says that the function of the board shall be to arrange by consultation amongst the several producers the allocation of quotas of diamonds for sale, and, failing agreement, to notify the administrator, who shall then determine the allocation. I do appeal to the Minister—

Yet the Minister refuses to accept the amendment. Whatever he makes clear, he does not implement by accepting the amendment the substance of his assurance. I ask him if, under the law of South-West Africa, as it stands to-day, the allocation of quotas is a matter which the Minister recognizes there as one, in the first instance, proper to be determined by the producers and only if they fail to come to an agreement, shall they notify the administrator, who shall determine the allocation, why he proposes to adopt a different principle in the Union?

Is that your amendment?

Yes, the amendment comes to this, that when the time arrives for the fixing of these quotas, first of all you shall ask the producers by agreement among themselves to determine the maximum production and these quotas; secondly, this amendment introduces a more valuable provision, and that is that if they fail to come to an agreement to determine these quotas, then you call a conference at which the Minister himself will be given an opportunity of being represented, and at which a further attempt would be made to settle the issue. Suppose the conference in turn fail to come to an agreement, then we would ask the Minister to do what he does in South-West Africa, and the matter would go to the Governor-General, who would then determine the allocation. I can see no difference in principle between the procedure under this amendment and the procedure as it is in South-West Africa, under the law of which the three hon. Ministers appeared so strongly to approve.

The hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Fourie), the heavy father of the House, has spoken. He said that he was very much affected by certain figures given by the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) showing a depreciation in shares to the extent of nearly £900,000. Then he asked various questions. He did not say why he wanted the information or whether he was going to support the amendment. I do not understand the reasoning.

Can you give us the information?

The fact remains that shares have depreciated from the day the Governor-General made his speech on the 13th February. I was approached by a gentleman who owned shares in De Beers, and he asked me whether he should sell them.

What did you say?

I said I thought the Government would be sensible and withdraw the Bill. No doubt he has now sold his shares and out his losses. This is only the thin end of the wedge. Why have hon. members opposite become such great Socialists all at once? When they sat over here, we heard nothing about Socialism from them. The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Van Hees) said: “Trust any Government.” He did not say that when the late Government was in power. He was one of the traducers of the Government then. I strongly object to placing in the hands of any Government the power to take away the rights of other people. The Minister said the idea was to get Government control. Well, this amendment does not take Government control away. On the contrary it gives people more confidence in the Government. We want more capital in this country, but legislation of this kind will scare capital away.

The old, old story.

I do not care which Government is in power, I will not be a party to supporting interference with anybody’s private business.

I am also pleased this debate has taken place because we have had some very elucidating remarks from the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and it was just as well to follow his mentality in view of his position at one time as the Prime Minister of this country. Nobody knows better than the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that under the old Transvaal law the right of disposal of precious stones is vested in the Crown; but although that hon. member was in a position to do so he has never attempted to carry out that principle, but has blindly followed the beck of the money interests, who have tried to control the diamond industry in the past. Now he accuses this side of introducing legislation which affects the big interests, and has said that the country will ring with what the Government is doing; but I think the country will ring with the way the hon. member for Standerton stands behind the big interests which are opposed to the interests of the State. This measure has been delayed, and purposely delayed, to protect these big-interests in the past. Although the State derived interest from the Premier Mine and South-West the hon. member was prepared to put the control in the hands of the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) and his syndicate. He was not concerned with the way the hon. member for Beaconsfield was going to deal with the State’s interest, but he is very much concerned with the way the interests of the hon. member for Beaconsfield are to be dealt with by the State. I think that reflects the attitude of the hon. member for Standerton and other hon. members opposite in dealing with this Bill. I want to touch on another little matter which reflects the attitude of the Government. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) read from the Select Committee’s report which foreshadowed the present legislation. I was one of the members of that Select Committee, and it was due to the fact of the Opposition members that the demand for the control of alluvial diamonds was defeated and that the principle was adopted that the control had to extend to the whole output, thus foreshadowing the present Bill. The hon. member for Standerton contends that we are not acting in the interests of the State, but I think this Bill is entirely in the interests of the State and only shows how the hon. member for Standerton acts in the direction of interests which are opposed to those of the State.

I think it is one of the most amusing things that anybody should take notice of the fluctuation of shares as showing confidence or non-confidence. Almost everybody in the Government of this country knows how markets can be affected by pitching shares on to it, and it would be quite in the ordinary course of manipulation simply to fling parcels of shares on the market and have somebody picking them up so that control is not lost. It is all camouflage. Members may recall what happened in the single instance of the Premier Company. Those who wanted to acquire controlling interest forced prices down by flinging their shares on the market until they were able to pick up what they required at a low rate.

Now tell us something about the Roberts Victor.

Yes, with pleasure. The Roberts Victor furnished diamonds for local diamond cutting and that was our crime. I hope the hon. member may not have lost as much money on anything he was concerned in as I lost on the Roberts Victor. I put my record on the company alongside that of any of his friends. I have nothing to express regret for. Whenever any reference is made by the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) to an unpayable mine, the Roberts Victor is brought in. I would like to know who shut up the Kroonstad Mine? There are other mines too that were shut up for the sake of making market profit. But I did not come here to fling these things about. The whole question at issue is much too serious to be side-tracked by anything of that sort. I was pointing out that overseas interests control directorates, and then I instanced Mr. Ross Frames as being chairman of two companies. I mentioned his name with the greatest respect, but I say, and I challenge the hon. member for Beaconsfield to contradict it, that Solly Joel can remove any chairman of the De Beers or the Premier Mine. He removed Sir Thomas Cullinan from chairmanship of the Premier Mine. He has put Mr. Ross Frames in as chairman of both the big companies. I wish members to remember what Mr. Wagner said when he was removed from the managing directorship of the Premier Mine. He had brought it to a period of great prosperity and differed with Mr. Solly Joel, and in giving a full explanation and describing his resentment at the way in which he was being-treated, he said he had served the Barnato interests faithfully (as well perhaps as the hon. member for Beaconsfield) and the time had come for Mr. Joel to say—

Now I am indeed sorry that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), the prominent man in my constituency should once again be standing on the side of capital as against humanity. What is this capital to him? What is this capital to us? We saw the other day that Lord Burnham had invested here a portion of £6,000 and drew £75,000 a year and will share in £1,600,000. That is the hundreds that come into this country and the thousands that go out. It is the behaviour of the operaters on the stock exchange which frightens capital away. I put it to the hon. member for Standerton, that this is a question of humanity. The people who are wanting syndicate control are determined that the alluvial interests shall be held down. There are 14,000 adult Europeans engaged in that industry.

Business interrupted by the Chairman at 10.55 p.m.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in Committee on Wednesday.