I move—

I just wish to say that in the course of my reply on the motion to go into Committee, the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) asked whether the conditions I set out as regards labourers applied to all European labourers in our employ. I replied that it was not so. That was a perfectly correct statement, but it is capable of misinterpretation unless I now make it clear that while these new conditions do not apply to all European labourers, they apply to all European labourers appointed after April 1, 1923.

When the matter was last before the House I mentioned three points with reference to civilized labour. In the first place I said that it was my view that the meaning of civilized labour should be clarified and fixed by Parliament so that white people as well as coloured people would fully understand what civilized labour actually means. The reason why this is necessary is that both sections of the population are interested in the matter of work and that it touches the rights of whites and coloured. I, therefore, said that I think that the explanation, the application of civilized labour should not be left to the discretion of any Minister. I then added that the fear amongst the coloured and native population existed that an injustice would be done them possibly by the application thereof and they might be deprived of any right they have hitherto had of working on the railways or Government works. My second point was that I asked whether the hon. Minister was convinced that the introduction of civilized labour was economically sound and if it could be coupled with the reduction of the railway rates. My third point was whether the Minister was entirely convinced that the application of civilized labour was the best manner of raising our white people and of making them technically competent for something better and higher for the rest of their lives. I regard these three points as very important and, therefore, I brought it to the notice of the House. What was the answer of the hon. Minister? He replied in a pedagogic sort of way in unpliamentary and insulting language that I talk in Parliament the same nonsense that I talk on platforms in my constituency. I do not intend to sink to the level of the Minister because the observation of the Minister is no argument and it does not befit the dignity of the House. I will only say this to the hon. Minister that if he thinks that this sort of language will frighten me or any member of the Opposition from saying what we think is in the interests of the whole population of South Africa then the Minister makes a great mistake. But I am almost prepared to entirely forgive the hon. Minister for what he has said because I know that he is in a very worried state of mind. Yes, I thought of the days when he sat on this side of the House when his slogan every day was that the salvation of South Africa, of the industries, and of the farming population was altogether dependent upon the lowering of railway rates. That we hear every day as long as he sat on the front Opposition bench. He then acted as the champion of the farmers and of the industries of South Africa, but the day before yesterday he had to swallow a bitter pill under the goad of the Labour party to tell the farmers and industries of the country that there would be no further reduction of railway rates. On the contrary there should be first of all a raising of the salaries and wages and other expenditure before a beginning could be made with the further reduction of the railway rates. I can thus imagine what the state of mind of the Minister was and I am thus almost prepared to forgive him. Now we come again to the economic side of the problem and it is that if our railway rates are reduced we thereby forcibly advance as contemplated by the constitution the development of the country, by which in a natural way the labour market of the country will be extended and more work can be given to white and coloured people. Thus the great question is whether if we in this way develop our industries and means of help, we do not possibly give a better kind of assistance than in the way which is now done, now that we are driving the people to our railways. I am very sorry and it will be deeply felt by thousands in South Africa that the Minister has declared that no further reduction of railway rates can take place.

I would like to say a few words in reference to this question of reduction of rates. I am not at all satisfied with what the Minister stated the other day. During the term of office of the late Ministry we had hanging over us the whole time a very heavy deficit; we had also depression in trade and so forth.

I want to point out that the reduction of rates cannot be discussed on this Bill.

But it is on the second reading of the Bill.

It may be discussed on the fourth Order and you can go fully into that question then. This is the Additional Appropriation Bill.

It affects the railways and the money has gone. My hon. friend the Minister was allowed to reply the other day on this very matter.

The Minister is allowed to, make a statement, but discussion is not afterwards allowed. The hon. member is entitled to refer to the question of rates in so far as they are affected by the employment of civilized labour, but he is not entitled to go generally into the question of the reduction of rates.

I want to go generally into the question of rates.

I want to take this opportunity of raising the question of the change in the name of the station Blackridge to Swartkopskloof.

The hon. member (Mr. Deane) cannot raise that question on this Bill.

I wish to refer to the definition given by the Minister the other day in regard to “civilized labour.” If he was correctly reported and if I understood him correctly, he said that the policy of civilized labour is to give 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 South Africa. I gather that the Minister was correctly reported. Ministers and others have a habit of saying that they are wrongly reported therefore I do not want to run that risk in this case. I want to put it to the Minister that, if that is his definition, then he certainly, in regard to the coloured workers at the docks, is not treating them as civilized labourers. The Minister told us the other day that he had appointed 2,528 Europeans and 614 additional coloured workers. I would like to know from him, in the first instance, whether in the 614 are included the 500 at the Cape Town Docks whom we see referred to in a letter in the press this morning. If so, is the letter correct in stating that, “unfortunately for the men, the work is of a casual nature”? The Minister very kindly told me that he gave figures which I refused to accept. I do not remember having refused to accept his figures, but I did then, and I do again, question whether he was right in saying that there are improved conditions in regard to the coloured men employed. He said that not only had they employed more men, but there were improved conditions. I want to put it to him that serangs and sorters at the docks to-day are not getting any more than they have done for the last twenty years. They are not even to-day permitted to make contributions to the Sick Fund, nor to the Benefit Society. Three years ago consideration was promised to them in regard to the Benefit Society and they were examined by the Medical Officer at the docks.

Your own Government.

Our own Government did not brag about giving improved conditions to coloured people. What I want to know is, where is this improvement? Serangs at the docks, who do responsible work, are getting 7s. 6d. per diem to-day, the same as they have done for many years past, while private firms are paying men for a similar class of work 12s. 6d. a day. The ordinary labourer gets 4s. 6d. a day and often he does not work more than three days a week, while private firms give their natives 8s. a day. Those are the results of enquiries which on the suggestion of the Minister I have made at the docks. I put it to the Minister that the rates he said civilized men were getting at the docks are not correct. As far as I can find, there has been no change either in the wages or working conditions. The Minister said he had dismissed no natives on branch lines.

That is quite wrong.

Then he said he has dismissed no natives anywhere.

That is wrong, too.

Which statement is wrong; I have made several? Which of my statements is wrong?

All of them.

I ask again, which of my statements is wrong?

The reference to the branch lines.

Does the Minister say he has dismissed no natives? Are these 500 coloured people taking the place of natives or are they extra hands? I want to impress upon the Minister that these civilized labourers who are doing responsible work get the magnificent sum of 7s. 6d. per day. These are men who live under conditions as good as any European lives under and far superior to the native who is working next to them and who gets from private employers practically double their wages. The Minister asked us whether we knew the Administration had made every effort to increase the number of coloured people at the docks and he said they were satisfied. Well, they are so satisfied that they have seen me and said the conditions to-day are no better than they have been for many years past. What does the Minister mean by improved conditions at the docks and does the definition of civilized labour apply to the men at the docks?

I am surprised at the statements made by the hon. member who has just sat down. I also have been visited by men employed at the docks who previously were walking the streets practically starving. We on this side of the House appreciate the efforts of the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Railways and Harbours to find employment for these men. The conditions of a very large percentage of the workers at the docks are today much better than they have been in the past under the last regime. I realize there are instances where men are getting the same pay as previously, but that is no argument that the Government has not improved the general conditions. What we have to realize is that every man who gives employment is a benefactor. If this Government goes on as it has begun it will soon have all the workers of South Africa supporting it. 18,708 men were discharged during the last five years of the last Government.

Nonsense.

Why, the hon. member himself worked his railways with 12,000 less men than there were when he became Minister of Railways. The man who takes away any individual from legitimate employment is certainly not a benefactor in the true sense although by doing so he may show a little temporary profit.

It is becoming really difficult to form an opinion about the statements of members on the opposite side of the House. We heard the other day that 13,000 people had been discharged from the public service and the railway service.

No, that was not said. It is only out of the railway service.

To-day we hear again that 18,000 have been discharged. If we go on we will come by-and-by to 100,000. Let me say that the present Government have dismissed more people in the last six months than the previous Government.

They are your political agents.

Any Government must try to give people work, but it is unfair of members to make such statements here. I, however, want to deal with another matter. The Minister of Railways has stated that he sees no chance of reducing railway rates during the current financial year.

The hon. member must leave that point until the fourth order is reached. He can then discuss it fully.

I should like to ask the hon. Minister in regard to his statement the other day, in which he laid down that in the native territories it was the policy of the Government to employ natives wherever possible, whether he included the Kokstad and Matatiele districts, as on the railways which run through these districts, the policy is to employ whites wherever possible?

I should like some information from the Minister with regard to the additional item £62,521 on Railway construction. I notice that one item giving rise to the addition is the doubling of the line between Pinelands and Raapenberg. I should like to know from the Minister whether that indicates that he proposes development in the Cape Flate Line. That line has cost in the neighbourhood of £70,000, and if it were doubled—as I hope is the intention of the Government—it will become a payable proposition. It is principally owing to the bottleneck between Pinelands and Koeberg Road that it is impossible to make the line effective, and it is necessary to extend the line direct from Salt River to Pinelands. I believe that the passenger traffic on that line is increasing more rapidly than the pasenger traffic on any other line, and there is a large area there available for settlement. I hope the line will be properly equipped, and that eventually it will be extended to the seaside somewhere near Strandfontein and thence to Muizenberg.

I am sure the House listened with great attention to the Minister’s statement on the very important question of civilized labour. He gave us a very interesting statement and treated the subject with the gravity that was its due. But I do not think he touched on the main point—that is, whether his policy is economically sound. I do not say that this experiment should not be tried even if it means increased cost, but in that case it is not fair to debit the railways with the extra cost. In the past this additional expense has always come out of a separate Vote, out of the Relief Vote, both in regard to railways and irrigation works. The Minister of Labour has explained what is being done at Haartebeestepoort. The men there are being taken on and are being paid a special rate which comes very largely out of the Relief Vote. And the reason for this is very obvious, because the extra cost ought to be spread over all the taxpayers. At the present time this £1,000,000—it may be £2,000,000—is being borne very largely by the farmers and up-country population in the form of railway rates, and in this way it militates against them. While I think that the experiment should be tried, I very much doubt whether it is legal, according to the Act of Union, to saddle the railways with the cost, because the Act of Union lays down that the railways must be run on sound business lines. To come to a special point: I notice that during the recess the Government took a Governor-General’s Warrant to start the line from Klaver to Kokenaap. That line was, I think, long overdue, and is the logical sequence of the Government irrigation scheme at Olifant’s River. It was started as a drought relief-work, without Parliamentary sanction. I would warn the Government that there is a tendency on the part of certain sections, whenever there is a drought, to use it as a lever in order to extract a railway from the Government. I do not say that this Klaver line is such a case, but there is a tendency, which the late Government also experienced, to rush to the Government for the construction of a railway as relief-works; it is only human nature to do so. I think however, that the tendency should be watched in order that we may not have a series of relief schemes for the construction of railways which will not pay for the grease in the axle-boxes. I do not say the Klaver line will not pay; it was long overdue, but I hope the Government will watch this tendency.

There are a few points I wish to make which I hope the Minister will deal with in his reply. We want to give the new Minister of Railways a fair chance to remove the bad effects of fourteen years’ maladministration by his predecessors in office, and if he continues on the present lines, I do not think we shall have much cause for complaint. I think it is well to remind the House as to the real cause of the disagreement and dissatisfaction in the railway service which exist even to-day. It is the inevitable result of the policy of so-called economy of the late Government, and especially of the late Minister of Railways. We have the report of the Railway Board for the year ending March 31, 1921, which states that substantial economies were effected by the abolition of the cost-of-living allowance and other steps were taken which seriously curtailed the spending power of the railwaymen. The report also points out that the eight-hours’ day was modified, involving in some cases an addition of thirty-three per cent. to the working hours of the staff. “Week-day overtime to the salaried staff was abolished; there has been modification of Sunday working and, except in comparatively few instances, no new appointments have been made, except some appointments in the catering department and some artisans.” Hence the argument of the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) is quite correct. It is not quite correct to say that 12,000 men were dismissed, but the fact remains that there were 12,000 fewer men in the railways at the end of a given period. If, for instance, a man leaves the service on pension or leaves voluntarily and you do not fill his place, there is one man less. The report goes on to say: “Owing to a decrease in traffic, and the failing off of work generally, substantial reductions have also been made in the total number of men employed,” and on page 19 it states that “as from 12th September, 1921, the hours of duty for the principal classes of staff were increased, except in cases where the intensity of the work justified a continuance of the eight-hour day.” This means that engine drivers, firemen, cleaners, shunters, guards, etc., were forced to work longer hours, and many men were dismissed at the same time.

What is the hon. member discussing now? He must confine himself to the Additional Estimates.

In the Estimates we are making provision for more civilized labour, and I am trying to show that why we have to make that provision is that large numbers of civilized men were paid off in the railway service during the previous regime on the plea of economy. I would like to quote the figures. They are on page 18 of the Report of the Railway Board for 1921 under the heading “General.” The decreased number employed on December 31, 1921, under all heads, was 12,448. Under that head there was a reduction in the white staff, whom we presume were civilized persons, including white labourers by no less than 3,952. The number of coloured persons was 6,367 less, and other casual staff 2,129, making a grand total of 12,448. I consider that justifies the argument of the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce). I want to ask the Minister to make a short statement in regard to the precise position as to the modification of the eight-hours day. Numbers of the staff have spoken to me and to other members on the subject. We know that a departmental committee has been appointed to go into the question, but if it is to go on as it is doing at present it will be five years before a decision is come to. We think the railway-men should be told without delay what the exact position is. Another point I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to is that at the present time, in order to make up the deficiency in rolling stock, and make it safe for travelling, it is necessary to work overtime in the workshops. If the Minister will make careful enquiry he will find that there are numbers of artisans out of employment throughout the Union. If the men in charge of the workshops intend to carry out a policy of working systematic overtime, then I hope the Minister will take steps to discontinue it. A policy of systematic overtime, coupled with piece-work, tends to shorten the life of the average worker who hopes to live a few years after he goes on pension. Such a policy is just as unfair to the outside unemployed man as to the railway servant. I want to say that, up to the present, we are perfectly satisfied with the new Minister of Railways, and believe he is making a serious attempt to undo the harm done by the previous Administration, and we will support him wholeheartedly, especially in providing more work in the railway service for civilized men.

A few days ago I brought to the notice of the Minister a matter of very serious importance, but in replying he apparently overlooked the matter. It was this: I was informed by a gentleman who was travelling through South Africa and who lately came from England, that he recently experienced great discomfort on the railway. He said that the lavatories and carriages were dirty. We are doing our best to encourage a stream of visitors from the old country and they ought to return satisfied at the way in which the railways are run. But this gentleman was highly dissatisfied and said he would tell his friends that South Africa was not a fit country to come to. I consider I am doing my duty to the country and the railways in bringing this matter to the Minister’s notice, and I trust he will enquire into it.

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) has discussed practically the whole of the railway budget, and I think the Minister must feel flattered that he has secured the support of such a distinguished member of this House as the hon. member for Salt River. I am sure it will give the Minister great satisfaction.

Certainly it does.

I want the Minister kindly to tell us how many natives have been discharged from the service of the Government under his new policy, and how many of these natives were for a long period of time in the service of the Government; also whether, before their discharge, the Minister enquired whether there was any possibility of their getting other employment. The Minister must know— certainly the Prime Minister must know—that distress exists to an extraordinary extent in the native territories. I have known these territories for many years, but I do not think there has ever been a worse period of distress than there is at present, owing to the long periods of drought which have occurred. Before the services of our natives, who have cut themselves off from their locations and entered Government service, are dispensed with, consideration should be given to the question of the possibility of giving them further employment. If these people have to go back to the Native Territories the Government will have to feed them, but as it is the Government will soon have to provide food to prevent the people already in the Native Territory starving, for there is no prospect of their getting a harvest, the rains having been of a very patchy character or falling too late to allow the people in the Territories to sow. A large number of natives have, without reason, been ruthlessly discharged from Government employ, after rendering good service. I hope the Minister will take into consideration the condition of affairs in the Territories, and will see that something is done toward providing work, in some other place, for these people who have been discharged from the railways, and certainly to see that they are not going to crowd into the Native Territories which are at present time in a distressful condition. Perhaps the Minister will also tell us the condition of the Cape Town Harbour Native Location. Although these people are natives we owe them a debt of gratitude; and if they have served the State faithfully for years the least the Minister can do is to assure the House that everything in reason has been done to make provision for these unfortunate people.

When the Minister replied the other day to the debate on the Estimates he practically told the House that he had departed from the lines laid down by the Act of Union for the running of the railways; he told us in so many words that the railways were now being run on political lines. He announced that the Department had gone in for a policy of civilized labour and had departed from the business or economic principles set forth in the Act of Union. This is clearly shown in the schedule to this Bill. The Estimates show that for railway construction the sum of £75,000 has been or will be spent on civilized labour alone, over and above what was estimated to be spent on ordinary economic labour. That is a fraction of the whole amount which is being spent in this way. The source from which this money must ultimately come is naturally the users of the railways—the farmers and the producers, and ultimately, all the workmen in the country. They will have to pay this money in increased rates and fares. The result will be that there will be more unemployment if this policy is carried out to its logical conclusion. A few years ago an Unemployment Commission sat in the Union and one of its strongest recommendations was that “cheap transport and marketing facilities be provided for the country’s products, whereby farmers can better be enabled to make a living on the land and the drift from the land to the towns be avoided, and that drastic steps be taken to enable the railway administration, by reduced expenditure or otherwise, to attain this end.” The words “reduced expenditure” are printed in italics, the only italics used in the report. This shows the importance which the Commission attached to this recommendation. But the Minister ignores it. The considered opinion of the Commission is apparently of no value in the eyes of the Government. Reduced expenditure does not necessarily mean lower wages—I do not stand for that, on the contrary, wages can be increased—but this effect can be achieved only by doing away with redundant labour and inefficient methods of running the railway. What does this civilized labour policy mean? It means employing civilized men to do uncivilized labour under uncivilized conditions, at uncivilized rates of pay upon which it is impossible to rear a civilized family. It means taking civilized energy and putting it on to uncivilized tasks and encouraging the intelligent white men to pit their muscles against black Africa. It is a tragedy that this enlightened House can think of nothing better, in all these years, to solve this difficulty than by putting our white intelligence in muscle competition with the whole of black Africa. We are set out now to produce white uncivilized labourers and navvies. We stand convicted of exercising sufficient thought to make use of civilized intelligence except with a pick and shovel. The navvy is synonymous in every country in the world with brute force and low mentality. It is the most barbarian part of a population of any civilized country. Anyone who knows the industrial history of England will know that the lowest depths to which British labour ever sank was during the great railway building boom of eighty years ago. The railway camps became so horrible that Englishmen refused to work in them. The contractors were therefore compelled to bring over Irishmen, who knew nothing of the conditions of work and living, and who could not get away. The conditions of the railway camps grew worse. The troops had to be turned out all along the line of railway construction because the whole countryside was terrorized by the navvies. Who have constructed the railways in Australia, the United States and the Panama Canal? Not English or Dutch, but people from Eastern Europe of low mentality and great brute strength. What is going to be the actual effect of this new civilized labour policy in South Africa? Persons in charge of the men on railways are very fearful of what the conditions are going to be. They have daily evidence of the effect which such employment produces upon white men surrounded by natives. The Europeans employed on railway construction in the Union are living under the most primitive conditions without an opportunity of winning out to an improved position. They are sinking down to the economic and moral level of the native. I know the sincerity of the Minister of Labour, and I appreciate his service to the country in trying to aid in the solution of our labour problems, but I differ from him in the method to be adopted. I believe the only possible channels through which we can uplift our people is by acting on the recommendation of the Unemployed Commission’s report and by providing them with machinery and tools which can be used by intelligent white men to create the wealth which machinery can alone create. To put a white man in competition with a native with nothing more than his unskilled hands is wrong, and is bringing him down to the level of the barbarian. We should give our people the hope of achieving better things and train them for work in other channels.

If the black will run the machine cheaper why not use the black?

Does not the Minister realize that everyone in this House is exploiting the natives—that he himself is drawing his salary by the exploitation of labour. There is not a farmer, a professional man, or a merchant in the Union who does not owe his existence directly or indirectly to the work of the natives. The attitude the Minister takes up is ludicrous, seeing that we have 100,000,000 black men in this continent, and it is foolish to think that one and a half million Europeans can stem the tide of nature. Why cannot we use our intelligence to guide the destinies of these people? I say that civilized men should be employed in civilized tasks around the machine which civilized intelligence has created. It is the duty of the Government to give him an opportunity to rise in the civilized scale on civilized lines. To put him on pick and shovel work in competition with the muscle of the native and to deny ourselves the work of these natives and thus to destroy their wealth creating capacity is not only foolish economically, but criminally negligent to the interests of our own race. Let me point to one example of this policy. We are setting up the belief in the minds of the people that if we can drive the native out of his natural sphere the European can take his place, consequently we are restricting native employment. That means the lowering of European wages, but our labour advocates do not tell the people that. We will take the case of the great cotton industry as an illustration One native can pick one bale of cotton during a picking season. We are talking about producing 1,000,000 bales of cotton and we want 1,000,000 natives to do it, yet we are proceeding on this foolish economic plan, and we are destroying the labour which would make us a live country and allow our people to maintain a civilized standard. This policy is therefore seriously imperilling the future of the cotton industry which would provide work for numerous white men. The Minister is following the line of least resistance and is offering people work at 5s. a day. This is an easy way of doing things, but what difference is this to taking a few thousands of our white youth and putting them into the Defence Force and saying: “We have not the wit or the money to purchase modern arms for you to defend the country, but will arm you with assegais and train you according to Zulu tactics.” That is a correct illustration of what we are doing economically. During the election members of the present Government asked: “What shall we do with our sons?” What is the reply? Make uncivilized labourers of them, make navvies of them, put them to sweep the streets of our municipalities, put them under the leaky canvas of a railway construction camp arm them with a pick and shovel, and let the blanketed native whom they have displaced come and sneer at our white civilization trying to save its soul by grovelling on its belly. This, then, is what we have come to in the year 1925. The descendant of the old voortrekker is being driven to steal the porridge from the pot of the native in order to live.

What is the hon. member’s alternative?

I gave it.

If such a speech had come from hon. members on these benches one can imagine the howl of protest which would have gone up from hon. members on the Opposition benches against our “soap box” oratory. We have had the most frank and unblushing exhibition of the preaching of the doctrine of exploitation of the natives that I have ever heard in this House, even from the economist of the South African party. I can understand the viewpoint that he and others like him take, when he says “Don’t deaden the pain, don’t give the patient an opium pill.” The only alternative to that is to kill him, because that is the inevitable result of the policy which has been followed for some years by the hon. member’s Government when it was in power—the constant pushing out of men on to the street, caring nothing where they went and providing them with nothing but starvation. That was the policy pursued by these hon. gentlemen and it is the same policy, presumably, that is advocated now. It is the same sort of balderdash preached, I think it was, in his own native State of Queensland. It is the same sort of talk that the whole world has heard in regard to the retention of the Kanakas on the sugar farms there. When the sugar planters were urged to employ white men on the fields of Queensland they said it was impossible, because, in the first place, the climate was too hot and, in the second place, they would never be able to earn a living wage and that the Kanakas were particularly fitted for the cutting and planting of the sugar cane as they seem to think the Indian is particularly fitted in Natal, much to the detriment of South Africa, and complicating our already difficult position with our native population by the importation of hordes of Indians. What happened in Queensland? The Government of the day said—

Immediately that bounty was offered these patriotic employers forgot all about the heat of Queensland, and about the miserable wages the white man would earn, their Kanakas were repatriated, white men were employed entirely and none of the ill effects which had been prophesied ensued.

I thought you didn’t believe in bounties?

I am one of those who have advocated bounties most strongly in this House. It is an extraordinary thing that you have Australian sugar, produced by white labour and having to go twice as far to the London market, competing on equal terms with sugar produced in South Africa by the cheapest form of labour that it is possible to get.

You have not got your facts right.

I wish hon. members would carry the policy of the South African party to its logical conclusion and then, instead of Zululand being so badly represented as it is to-day by the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Nicholls), they would probably send a much more efficient gentleman of Zulu descent who would at least be working for one-tenth of the price. The hon. member says that we have got to pay more for our civilized labour on the railways. Isn’t that inevitable, for a start at all events? The sons of South Africa, whether of Dutch or British descent, are not used to this type of work and they have got to learn it, and the reason for that is to be found entirely in the policy pursued by hon. gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Nicholls) spoke about America. There again he was off the track. Does he mean to seriously advance the argument that America has grown great upon its imported cheap labour from Southern and Eastern Europe? Will he read the book written by Henry Ford on the question of labour how it should be paid how it should be treated, and how it should be employed? The hon. member says that this initial cost the whole country will have to meet. He said that the farmers the producers, and ultimately the workers will have to pay the increased cost. If we do not call a halt to the policy carried out by those hon. gentlemen, and if we do not make a start with this white labour policy, we shall find that there will be no white workmen left in this country to pay at all. The only effect of reducing the wages of men, whether they be whites or blacks is the depreciation of the country rather than the increase of its prosperity. The employment of whites will at first of course cost more but it won’t be long before even from a monetary point of view, it will be found that they are more economical to employ than the natives. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) asked certain questions of the Minister of Railways. You can hear how concerned they are about the natives. I would commend to their notice some remarks on the colour bar made by Advocate C. F. Stallard at a dinner in connection with the South African party congress—

That is very interesting reading in the light of the remarks we have just heard from these gentlemen, who are pouring out floods of tears over the discharge of the poor unfortunate natives. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort asked the Minister how many natives had been displaced. I would like to know how many white men were discharged from the railways under the late regime, when the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) was Minister of Railways, and whether any queries were raised by hon. members on this side of the House as to where those unfortunate white men went to after they got the sack. How many white people, I want to know, are at present unemployed in the Union, and who, unlike the natives, have no cattle and no kraals to go to? In order to get the thing in its true proportion we must have that information. I want to know from the Minister whether all the natives employed on the railway came of their own free will, or whether they were recruited as in the past. The sort of talk we have heard from hon. members on the other side is crass hypocrisy—

On a point of order, I wish to know whether the hon. member is entitled to accuse hon. members of this House of hypocrisy?

Did I understand that the hon. member accuses me of needless repetition?

If the hon. member used the word “hypocrisy” he must withdraw it.

If you desire it I will withdraw it, but only if you desire it.

I am not quite satisfied with that reply. The hon. member must withdraw without qualification.

I withdraw and I leave it to hon. members to come to their own conclusions.

You have ruled that he must withdraw in an unqualified manner. He said “I withdraw and I leave it to hon. members to understand what I mean.”

I did not use those words. I said I withdraw absolutely, and without qualification. I did not say I can understand what the hon. member meant. I said hon. members can ascribe the right action to the hon. member over there. I said hon. members can draw their own conclusions, and I leave it to hon. members.

Statements have been made about the number of men dismissed when I was in office. According to the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) it has got up as high as 18,000.

I said 18,000 from all Government services, but 12,000 from the Railway Department.

12,000 is absolutely incorrect. I have the exact figures, prepared in the department before I left office. The total number of Europeans in the service on the 31st March, 1921, was 43,801.

What are you quoting from?

From figures I got from the department.

They have never been published.

On the 31st March, 1924,

the total was 39,024, disclosing a reduction of 4,777. There was no general dismissal throughout the service. The greater part of the reduction had been brought about by wastage. Some of these men leave the service of their own free will, some of them died, and some were dismissed for misconduct, and sometimes men went on pension, and we strictly enforced the law that a man should go on pension at 60.

But you did not replace them.

Of course not. The total decrease was 4,777, and yet during that three years we had a wastage of 7,311, so it shows that some men were taken on. When I took office I judged that we were over-staffed, and I gave instructions that no further men should be taken on. We took as few men as we could during the period I was in office. When I took office the railways were losing money, we were running on a deficit of close on £2,000,000 and losing money every month. We did not take on natives to replace these men.

Did you not do it on branch lines?

We transferred, yes. We replaced the white men on some of these non-paying branch lines, and put coloured men in their place. As a result of the economies we brought about we were able to reduce the railway rates. What was the consequence? The consequence was that to-day things are in a very different position, and the department is able to employ far more men. I hope that will dispose once and for all of this talk about the numbers of men we dismissed.

What were the numbers employed when you took office and when you left office?

I told you, 43,801, when I took office, and on the 31st March, 1924, when I left, 39,024.

And how many new lines?

There was the Douglas extension and so on.

How is it the general manager’s report stated there were over 12,000 less employed?

I give you these figures, and I stand by them. The accusation has been brought against me that we kept back rolling stock and so forth and cut down work. As a matter of fact we increased the railway stock by 314 vehicles in 1922-’23. The Minister is now in a fortunate position and I am very glad indeed he is able to have full-time work and also this overtime in the shops.

Is that total labour, or white only?

White only.

I think it is only right that the figures just given by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) should be emphasized. According to those figures the charge levelled against his Government is considerably worse than was pointed out by the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) and the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow). The charge they made, in so far as white labour was concerned, was based upon the report of the Railways and Harbours Board. Taking the figures at the 31st December, 1921, and comparing them with 1920, that report showed a reduction in the white staff of 3,952. According to that report the total number of Europeans employed on the 31st December, 1921, was 38,471. Now the hon. member has told us that when he took office the total number of Europeans employed was 43,801. That was on the 31st March. Therefore as between the 31st March, 1921 when the late Government came into office, and the 31st December, 1921, a period of nine months, a reduction had taken place from 43,801 to 38,471. On the 31st December, 1920, there were 42,431 Europeans employed. We were then on the eve of that wonderful “man-and-the-hour” election, and therefore between the 31st December, 1920, and the 31st December, 1921, we had an increase in the staff from 42,431 to 43,801. But the moment that election was over the policy which was applied on the mines was employed on the railways, and men were thrown out on to the streets. In fact, the Railway Department set the example to the mines.

I do not intend to cover the whole ground in regard to the question of civilized labour. I have dealt fully with the whole matter and I do not propose to do so again. In reply to the question raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) in regard to the replacement of natives by Europeans, I want to point out that he is wrong in one case, viz., in regard to branch lines in the Free State. Not only were Europeans there replaced by natives, but the houses which they occupied were broken up. That was a very unfortunate step, because we have had to rebuild them. Let me also say to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) that this is the only case where we have replaced natives by Europeans.

Have you replaced any natives at Cape Town or at the docks?

No; I want to say definitely that this replacement has only taken place on the branch lines that I have referred to.

And in the docks?

I shall deal with the conditions there later.

In the Free State the white men were not dismissed. They were transferred to other lines; no white gangers, so far as I know, were dismissed. They were sent to other areas, chiefly main lines; but I admit they were removed from these lines in the Free State and also from certain lines in the Cape.

I do not want to re-open the question. I would remind hon. members, however, that many of these men were bound to resign because they could not afford to be transferred owing to the low wage they were getting, and that was equivalent to dismissal. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) questioned me on the point of unemployment amongst the natives and Europeans. I would suggest that he should address his inquiries to the hon. Minister of Labour, as my department does not deal with this matter. My department is continuing to absorb as many civilized labourers as we can, but I am afraid I cannot give him the information he asks for. In reply to the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), I might ask him why he followed slavishly the late Government for so many years, and did not get them to carry out the policy he advocates. He now attacks us for taking a definite line of policy. That line may be wrong in his view, but we certainly have taken our courage in our hands and dealt with the problem. I want to deal with one point he has raised. His indirect attack on the members of the Railway Board is most unfair. He said this whole policy is a political matter. In doing so he attacked the members of the Railway Board; because I am glad to say that the members of the Railway Board have been so patriotic as to see that it is the right policy for South Africa. They are with the Government in this matter and have raised no objections, so that his attack amounts to a reflection on the Railway Board. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort has asked me for information about the location at the Cape Town docks. We are still employing natives at the docks, and they are still being housed in the location. He also asked for figures in regard to the natives dismissed. I would point out that, with the qualification I have mentioned, we have not dismissed any natives, but replaced wastage. The number of natives in our employ on June 30, 1924, was 39,074, and on January 31, 1925, we had 36,145, which gives a net decrease of 2,929. The hon. member further raised the question as to what has become of these natives. That is a matter the Native Affairs Department is dealing with. If any native is destitute in Cape Town or elsewhere and he applies to a magistrate, steps are taken to send him back at the public cost to whatever place he may have come from. He made a further point in regard to the distress in native territories. He is unfortunately correct in regard to the existence of this distress. The Government is aware of it and is dealing with the matter. With the complaint raised by the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) as to the experience of an overseas visitor, I would suggest to the hon. member that if he would bring any such complaints to the notice of the general manager, they will at once be attended to. I would ask him not to cry stinking fish in his own country. May I ask whether it is his own experience that our carriages are dirty?

Sometimes, yes.

If so, has he taken steps to bring the matter to the notice of my predecessor or of the general manager? I was very much surprised at his raising this complaint, and that is why I did not reply before. I can assure him that if he brings such complaints to the notice of the officials steps will at once be taken to remedy the matter. I know my predecessor will agree that we have a staff of which we can be proud.

Hear, hear:

The staff as a whole is one that we can be proud of; not only the senior officials, but all along the line. I think the hon. member will on reflection agree that it was not fair to cast a reflection on the members of the staff and suggest that they have been negligent The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) has dealt with the very important question of the eight-hour day, for which the employees have been pressing. I want to repeat here what I have said—that I am not prepared at the present time to commit myself on this question. It is a most important question. I think the hon. member will agree that we have taken the right step, and that is to refer the subject matter to a departmental committee, consisting of two members nominated by the administration and two elected by the elected members of the Conciliation Board, so that the men have equal representation on that committee. I am glad to say that this committee is making good progress and I can assure the hon. member that I am pressing them to complete their report in as short a time as possible. I agree that the position should be dealt with at the earliest possible moment, but I do not want to prejudge the whole position now. The committee is untrammeled in every way and is free to make any recommendation. When they make their report I shall take action and take the House into my confidence. In regard to the hon. member’s further point as to the employment of more men in our workshops, while I have every sympathy, I want to point out the danger of over-staffing our workshops; because the time may come when we are in the position that there may be too many men, an experience which we unfortunately have had before. I am sure the hon. member agrees that we do not want that unfortunate experience again repeated.

But stop the work?

I think my hon. friend will appreciate the position that we are working overtime to cope with the increased traffic and we, have unfortunately even had to work Sunday time in order to cope with the existing traffic and that which we are expecting. But when there is a legitimate vacancy and a suitable skilled man is available, if the hon. member will bring the case to my notice, we will try to give him employment.

Systematic overtime, not casual overtime.

I am now awaiting the report of the Workshops Commission. Until the receipt thereof I feel that I should not take steps to prejudge the position. I hope to receive that report about the end of this month, and shall then deal with the matter as a whole.

What is the cause of all this overtime?

We are behindhand in our repairs, and we want to deal with our repairs as expeditiously as possible, to move the traffic which is offered.

Not very long ago we were working short time. What is the matter?

My hon. friend must address that question to my predecessor. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) raised the question of civilized labour and asked whether the policy is economically sound. I say candidly that it does not interest the Government whether it is economically sound judged by ordinary standards. We are satisfied that this policy is necessary in the interests of South Africa.

That is a matter of opinion.

I want to repeat here that the railway organization is not a charitable organization. We ask value for the money we pay. But when we employ a civilized man we are prepared to pay him civilized wages and to make his condition such that he can maintain a civilized standard of living.

Even if it is not earned?

No. We are paying more to a European or civilized coloured man for work which can equally well be done by the native. We say that candidly.

And the same amount of work?

No, the same class of work. The hon. member knows from his own experience that the civilized labourer gives better service and shows more intelligence in doing the work. The general manager and officers are doing everything possible to get the very best out of these men, not by pressing them unduly, but by appealing to their intelligence to give the best service possible.

You are getting away from the point. You are paying rather more to a civilized man for the same kind of work than you are giving to the native.

No. For the same class of work, but we are getting a greater quantity of work. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) has called this a social experiment. This is not so. It is a definite Government policy from which we are not going to depart, and the House must accept that that is the position. It has been adopted in the interests of a civilized standard of living and we are going to carry it out. My hon. friend has warned me in regard to the construction of the Klaver-Kokenaap line. I shall bear that in mind. With regard to Pinelands station, we have a good service there and are doing our best to extend the traffic. We want to develop those parts and encourage people to live on the Flats by giving them a sufficient service to enable them to come into town every morning. As regards the future extension of that line, my hon. friend should address his remarks to the Railway Board. In regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), it seems to me that he is confusing two main issues. There is a big difference between the conditions under which men who are employed on open lines work and those who are employed as casual labourers. When I referred to the conditions which are being applied to civilized labourers I was referring to men in permanent employment, because I said these men would be eligible to be placed on the permanent staff. We have had a large number of natives working at the docks on casual labour. When ships come in their services are required, but if there are no ships to bunker, load or unload, they are unemployed. That is the position at all the ports. We cannot employ these men the whole time. What is the solution of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl)? Is he in favour of the policy which I am carrying out in conjunction with the Minister of Labour in employing a larger number of coloured people on casual labour at the docks? Hon. members have asked what has become of the natives. Their place is simply being taken by casual coloured labourers. Compare the coloured man living in the Peninsula with the natives employed at the docks, and ask yourselves who has the greater right to the labour offering at the docks. The coloured people have lived here all their lives and they have a greater right than the natives to be employed on casual or other labour at the docks or on the railways. I do not want to be unfair to the natives. If any native is stranded at Cape Town he should apply to the Native Affairs Department and he will be returned to the place he came from. The coloured people have the right, and I should like to hear whether the hon. members representing Cape Town are at one with me in this policy.

Who does the best work?

I am pleased to say that the reports I am getting from the port officers and others is to the effect that they are very pleased at the progress the coloured people are making. We will of course have to be patient. The native has been accustomed to this work. The coloured men do not take so easily to bunkering, but I am sure hon. members will agree with me that the coloured man should have the opportunity to do the work, and I have no doubt that after a little experience they will give excellent service to the administration. I shall certainly continue this policy of increasing the number of coloured people employed at the docks. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has attacked me for paying casual labourers 4s. 6d. per day. Does he suggest that I should pay them a higher wage? He says I am not paying more than my hon. friend paid, but I never at any stage indicated that I was treating temporary men in a different way from my predecessor. What I referred to were the permanent men on open lines, and I clearly indicated what the conditions were. He said there were natives getting more from private employers. But these men are experienced workers who have been working for many years with these private firms. Does my hon. friend contend that this is an economic wage for labourers? Does he speak with the same voice as the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl)?

I did not ask the question.

I know my hon. friend is too honest to do that. But what is this but vote-catching on the part of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl)? He knows quite well that he is attacking me for the same thing the hon. member did, and that if he was in my position he would do the same. We do not want to make the employment of coloured people at the docks impossible. If we did we would have to revert to the natives, and I do not propose to do that. The member for East Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) has asked me whether I consider the East Griqualand line to be situated in a European or native area. Up to the present I have treated it as a European area, but if he desires me to treat it as a native area I am prepared to consider it. I shall await his representation on that point. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Kirge) said he almost forgave me for the attack which I had made on him. I thank him for that and ask him again to accept my friendly invitation and to give me the name of a single coloured person in his constituency who is dissatisfied with the policy of the present Government. I feel confident that if the hon. member will sleep on it for another night he will come to the conclusion that the policy which is being followed by the present Government is the best in the interests of South Africa.

I would like to make some remarks consequent upon the attack which the Minister made upon me a few minutes ago.

You made the attack.

I thought it my duty the other day to bring to the notice of the Minister a complaint which had reached me. I did it in perfect innocence but he seems to have thought I should have gone to the Railway Board or the administration.

Write a letter to the general manager.

Or, as has been suggested, write a letter to the general manager. I thought it my duty to draw the attention of the Minister to what seemed to me a very serious complaint, and I have in some instances myself experienced something similar. I did not complain alone to the present administration, but have complained to the previous administration. I thought that the matter would have been looked into. Perhaps on reconsideration the Minister will admit that I took the right course and that he will make enquiries, and if it is a just complaint that it will be attended to, and so our visitors from overseas will not be frightened out of the country.

In view of the floods in Zululand and the washing away of the Tugela bridge which has isolated the road traffic, would the Minister kindly arrange for the railway bridge to be decked in. The road bridge has been swept away and road communication between Natal and Zululand has been destroyed.

Would the Minister, in the course of the discussion of this matter kindly inform us what is the actual position in Natal in view of the serious notices we have seen in the Press? I think the Minister may now be in a position to give us the information.

The Minister has evaded the question I put. He says I referred to casual labour. I did not. I prefaced my remarks by saying “men who had been employed for over 20 years at the docks.” Will he say whether he is paying these men, whom he refers to as civilized labourers, a civilized wage?

Yes, certainly. If I did not consider it an adequate wage I would not pay it. In reply to the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) … Oh, I see he has gone out, so he evidently does not take an interest in the reply. In regard to Zululand I shall have this matter investigated at once. I quite realize the position in which the farmers and the public find themselves, and if I find I can do as the hon. member has suggested, I shall do so. The latest information from Natal is that a daylight service is still being run on the Natal-Cape railway and the Cato Ridge deviation. On the north coast the train service is operating between Durban and Umfolosi as far as the bridge. It is expected that the normal service will be in operation between Ladysmith and Mooi River to-morrow.

The Minister has held out that he is going in for a civilized labour policy, and he told us that he makes no difference between coloured and white.

I never said so.

The Minister said the policy is to give civilized men, whether white or coloured—

Does that refer to wages?

What does the Minister mean when he says the policy is to give civilized men, whether they be white or coloured, an opportunity to earn a civilized wage?

Does the hon. member suggest that we should treat all employees the same, and pay them the same rate of wages?

If they are doing the same class of work.

The Administration is not prepared to treat all classes of workers in the same way and pay them the same wages.

If they are doing the same work?

Yes. Surely you realize that there are different standards of living in this country, even among civilized people. The policy you advocate would mean that we should pay all employees the same wages for all classes of work. I say definitely that we are not doing that.

The impression the Minister gave was that it was a question of paying the same wage for the same work irrespective of colour. That policy is now watered down.

I am very pleased to see that the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) has at last woke up—he has at last realized he has got constituents. I have said definitely that we are not paying the same wages. I have said that over and over again.

It is not a question of my position, but of the Minister’s, and of the way in which he is going to deal with the labourers. The hon. member for Paarl can look after himself. He has waited for the Minister to put his foot into it and the Minister has done it at last.

I move—

This Bill asks for four months’ supply, as the main Appropriation Act will probably not be passed by Parliament before the end of July. The main estimates have been presented to the House, and this Bill merely gives the Government the right to a vote on account of services which were authorized in the estimates of last year and certain continuing services on the Loan Account. The request for £9,400,000 is made up as follows: During April we will probably require on general votes, £1,450,000; on public debt, £800,000; and on the Provinces, £400,000, making a total estimated issue for the month of £2,650,000. During May we will probably require: On general votes, £1,350,000; on public debt, £400,000; and for the Provinces, £500,000, or a total of £2,250,000. During June we shall require on general votes, £1,400,000; on public debt, £550,000; and for the Provinces, £650,000, or a total of £2,600,000. For July we shall require on general votes, £1,500,000; on public debt, nil; and for the Provinces, £400,000—£1,900,000, or £9,400,000 for the four months. The total estimates for 1925-’26 amount to £26,278,000, but the expenditure is not disbursed in equal monthly instalments, as interest and other payments are heavier during the early part of the financial year than in the later months of the year. The Provincial Administrations also make heavier demands during the early part of the year, as the Provincial revenues are rather low during the first months of the financial year. As soon as the main Appropriation Act is passed, the Bill, of course, automatically ceases to have any effect. The Bill provides that no expenditure may be incurred upon any services which are not provided for on the existing estimates—that is the estimates for the present year, or for which there is no statutory authority—so that Parliament is not committing itself to any expenditure for which at present no Parliamentary authority exists. In regard to the appropriation of £3,600,000 on the loan account, this sum represents issues of approximately £900,000 per month, of which the railways take about £450,000 per month. The balance is required to finance the Land Bank and provide for the services of public works, telegraphs and telephones, irrigation, forestry, etc. So the main features are, as I have pointed out, that Parliament is only asked to commit itself to a vote of credit on account of services for statutory authority exists.

For how long?

Four months’ supply.

I quite realize that the Minister must take this partial vote, but I think it is rather discouraging to us to hear that the main Appropriation Act will not be passed before the end of July.

We will pass it earlier if you will give us a chance to do so.

I know quite well why the Minister does not anticipate that it will be passed before the end of July. He knows that if he got his Appropriation Acts through before that time it would be very difficult and in fact impossible to keep his friends behind him here to finish this enormous programme of legislation which they have got on the Paper. But it is very inconvenient, I suggest, to have a Part Appropriation covering one-third of the whole year. Hon. members who have read the Auditor-General’s report will see that great inconvenience arises owing to the fact that departments are confined in their spending during the first four months of the year to following fairly closely the lines of last year’s Estimates— Estimates framed 18 months ago—and the result is that they are either compelled to break the law, or they have to carry on the services of the country at very great inconvenience. I think that the Government ought to take their Estimates earlier than that time. They ought not to put them off until the end of a long session. If they are not going to put the Appropriation Bill through until they have got their legislative programme passed, I am afraid we shall find Ministers coming for another Part Appropriation before the session is over.

Is that a threat?

Not a bit. I suggest that the financial business of this country is the main business of Parliament, and we ought not to hang that over until the end of the session merely to enable the Government to keep their followers here until they have passed their ambitious legislative programme. There is another point I want to raise, and it is one of considerable public importance. I want to raise the question of the policy of the Government in regard to the public service. It seems to me, both from utterances we have heard outside the House and inside the House, that the Government is embarking upon a policy of undermining the foundation upon which the public service of this country has been built up. We have established in South Africa—and I think it is a matter upon which we may rightly pride ourselves—the public service in the main upon a sound and impartial basis. We have kept the public servants of this country free to a very large extent from political influences. We have given the public service reason to believe and confidence to believe that, so long as they do their duty to the country, their prospects will not be interfered with on account of the political opinions which they hold or the political opinions of the Government which may be in power for the time being. I feel that the policy of the Government since it came into office has been undermining that structure, and particularly in the direction of attacking the powers and constitution of the Public Service Commission. The reason for having a Public Service Commission in this country is twofold— first to ensure that appointments to the public service shall not be left to the unrestricted patronage of Ministers, to ensure that appointments to the public service shall be made on grounds of efficiency and on no other and second, to ensure that promotion in the public service is thrown open not merely to men in the particular department where a vacancy occurs, but that men right through the service if they have the capacity and efficiency and have served well, may feel that they have a chance of getting promotion in their particular line of duty, even if it does not arise in their own department. We have got two alternatives before us. One is to go along this line which has been laid down by the Act of Union and kept to ever since, and the other is to go back to a state of things which leaves in the unrestricted power of the Minister the right to make appointments and promotions in the public service. I say without any hesitation that if this Government is going in that direction, it is going to bring a great disaster upon South Africa. The Act of Union laid down that there should be a Public Service Commission. It did not define the powers of the commission very much in detail but it laid down that principle. In 1923 an Act was passed through this House a Public Service Act, conferring very extensive powers on that commission, protecting the commissioners against arbitrary interference on the part of the Government, giving them extensive powers in regard to appointments, promotion and discipline in the public service, but giving the Government certain rights in the event of their differing from the recommendations of the commission. When that Bill was passing through this House these powers were agreed upon without dispute by all sections in this House. The Minister of Justice was not here then. He showed at that time the same opinion of Parliament as he has done since of the Public Service Commission, so he may feel that he was not committed to having approved of the Act of 1923. But I say, without fear of contradiction, that the provisions of that Act of 1923 were accepted practically unanimously by the House of that day. Since this Government came into power they started making ominous moves with regard to the Public Service Commission. The Minister of Justice once or twice publicly said that the commissioners ought to resign, so that they might be replaced by members more in sympathy with the policy of the Government. That is absolutely contrary to the whole idea of the Public Service Commission, that they should be in sympathy with the views of the Government in power for the time being. The whole idea of the Public Service Commission is that it should be a barrier between the Service and the Government. Well, the Minister told us he thought they ought to resign, and as he found that they did not resign, he told us his personal opinion was that the country would be better without them. I know the Minister of Agriculture enthusiastically shares that view. He, too, wants to go back to the old plan where the Minister could appoint whoever he likes. Heaven help the country if that happens.

We have had past experience.

I have had a good deal of experience, and I defy hon. members to prove that any of its appointments were due to party politics. I happen to know a good deal more about it than the hon. member does, and I say that the Public Service Commission do not know and do not enquire and do not care what are the political views of the people they recommend.

They only care about your orders.

Does the hon. member suggest the Government gave orders? To make such a statement proves that either he does not know what he is talking about or that he is deliberately misrepresenting the case. I come to the 13th report of the commission. That I think is serious enough. Under the law which governs its working, the commission’s duty, if the Government should not accept its recommendation, is to report to Parliament. The commission have reported and I would like to refer to one or two details in their report. I fully admit that the Government, if for reasons of public policy they see fit, have the fullest right to depart from the recommendation of the commission. I also want to be clear that I am making no reflections on the officials who have been appointed in defiance of the recommendation of the commission. In the case of the gentleman appointed as Secretary for the Interior, I do not know him personally, but as far as I know his record he is a competent official. The same should be said about the gentleman appointed as magistrate of Johannesburg.

I should think so.

My point is, these are not the only pebbles on the beach, but what I want to emphasize is this, that the Government have approached these recommendations with their minds already made up as to whom they are going to appoint.

How do you know that?

Because it is in this report. They ask whether the commission would not mind recommending so and so. If it is clear that the Government asks the commission to recommend A.B. for a post, it shows they wanted to appoint that man.

We never did that.

In the case of the appointment of the Secretary of the Interior, I notice the reason given originally for not accepting the commission’s recommendation of Mr. Venn was that he was not bilingual. Well the commission did not think it was necessary that he should be. The Government differed from them. But the commission then recommend a man who is bilingual, and the Government say “Will you not recommend Mr. Pienaar?”

They had already made their recommendation; they cannot go on recommending.

I will take the Minister on that point. The commission are told that, having once made a recommendation, they had nothing further to do. I ask the Minister, why did he ask them: “Will you recommend Mr. Pienaar?” if he knew that once having made a recommendation they had nothing further to do?

The recommendation was not made at that stage.

Why does the Minister ask them to make a second recommendation if he has not rejected their first? I notice in the letter from the Minister of the Interior to the commission dated August 25th, he says—

On October 7th the Minister writes to the commission again—

So that though the Minister was not able to make up his mind about Mr. Venn’s capabilities in two months, an interview of a few minutes was enough to satisfy him about Mr. Pienaar. The letter goes on—

I have not a word to say against Mr. Pienaar; I have no doubt he will fill this position well and creditably. I do object, however, to the manner of his appointment, because it is overriding the functions of the Public Service Commission and going back to the system of patronage and of individual Ministers promoting and appointing whom they please. The second recommendation of the Public Service Commission was in regard to the Secretaryship of the Interior, which was given to Mr. Pienaar in spite of the recommendation of a man senior to him who was fully qualified. There was also the appointment of a magistrate in Johannesburg.

Who was the magistrate appointed?

The magistrate was Mr. Young, who was magistrate at Pietersburg, whereas the person who was recommended was Mr. Staten, a public service inspector and formerly an inspecting magistrate.

Who had not been on the bench for eight years.

I have not much to say about this appointment, because if the Government for reasons of public policy think they ought to over-ride the recommendations of the Public Service Commission they have a perfect right to do so. What I do complain of is that there is nothing in this report, so far as I can see, to show that the Minister to whom the recommendation was made dealt with that recommendation on sound, valid reasons before putting a junior, however capable, over a man who was senior to himself and who was fully qualified. The next case was the appointment of the chief of division of economics and markets, a new division in the Department of Agriculture.

This is very serious.

Well, I wish to point out how very serious I think it is. This appointment had been contemplated before the present Government came into office and a certain gentleman, Mr. Lamont, was regarded as most competent and was approved by the Public Service Commission, and this gentleman was sent abroad for a term to expand his experience and make him more fitted for this post. There was no question of bilingualism. He is fully bilingual. He was recommended by the department for the post in 1923 but this new division was not then appointed. When the Minister came to deal with the appointment of this officer he informed the commission that in his opinion neither Mr. Lamont nor any other technical officer had the necessary qualifications for the position. He stated that the only person suitable was Dr. Geldenhuys, and the Public Service Commission were asked to recommend him. We have been told that the Public Service Commission have no right to make further recommendations, but Ministers keep on asking them to do so. So long as they make a recommendation that the Government wants it is all right, but if they do not, it is turned down.

Perhaps they are too polite.

We have not often to complain of that in this House, but the climate in Pretoria may have a different effect. The commission in reply referred the Minister to section 11 of the Public Service Act, in which it is debarred from making a recommendation from outside the service unless it can be filled by transfer or promotion from inside the service, and they pointed out it was clear that Mr. Lamont had the qualifications and had been marked out for the post. This clause in the Act was not cavilled at by the House which passed it. It was put in for the due and proper protection of civil servants, that they should not have men brought in to fill high positions unless the commission was satisfied that there was no-one in the service capable of filling them. The reason why the Minister passed over Mr. Lamont was that he did not possess any academic degree, and therefore Dr. Geldenhuys must be the better man. The Minister, I am afraid, was brought up in an atmosphere in which academic degrees were not troubled about otherwise he would not attach such superstitious reverence to an academic degree. But surely if Ministers are going to adopt the principle of making appointments from outside the service to important positions of this kind, and if they are going to ignore the Public Service Commission’s recommendations in regard to public servants already in the service, they should have advertised the vacancy. It all points in the direction which I have indicated—that the whole policy of the Government is to get back to the practice of ministerial patronage and to assume the right of making appointments and promotions as they please. In both these cases there is clear evidence that this is the line which they are following. This is what the Minister says—

That proves it. Because he got a degree in agricultural economics, this man is the most suitable and capable in the whole country to fill this post. I never heard such a flimsy reason for over-riding the Public Service Commission. The Minister adds—

I would ask hon. members opposite to pause and consider before they start on this career of autocratic ministerial appointments. You are going to ruin a structure that has taken years to build up. I think this report discloses a position that is most lamentable and fruitful of future trouble. Another point we have to deal with is the question of bilingual conditions of appointment. The commission deals with that policy in their report, and I wish to touch upon it. We have already had one experience in regard to the circular issued by the Minister of Justice. I am glad to say that our debates do not seem to have been quite fruitless, and that steps are apparently being taken to modify the instructions in that circular in the directions in which they should obviously be modified. I see the Minister denies this, and therefore my opinion of him has gone down. I thought he was open to reason, but apparently not. I want to say quite clearly that I, and I think everybody on this side of the House, recognizes that we must in this country have, as far as possible, a bilingual service in regard to officials whose duties bring them into contact with the public. But when I say “as far as possible,” I mean that you cannot bring that state of things about in one day by a stroke of the pen. You have to go slowly.

Fourteen years.

What is fourteen years in the history of a country? These officials whom you took over at Union had a far longer period than fourteen years before them when you took over. The hon. member is in too great a hurry. I say it without hesitation, that the one thing that is going to put the clock back is the undue haste of the Government in enforcing this bilingual qualification. I think anybody might well be surprised on looking back in the history of this country at the progress made in bilingualism. It has made vast strides, and, what is more, the language question has ceased to be a root of bitterness and a source of yearly disputes in this House. But this sort of thing is going to rake up this controversy again and bring the language question again into the arena of controversy. The language question in regard to the public service has been dealt with in this House on more than one occasion, and in the 1923 Act, as the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) has explained, we had a long discussion in select committee on this very question, and we arrived at what may be called a compromise without a division. That compromise was accepted in this House without a word of protest from anyone. Why cannot we be satisfied with that? Why press the matter on beyond that compromise which laid down that after five years from 1923 a bilingual qualification was to be required of everybody as a condition of admission to the administrative and clerical services; but that until that time the present arrangement should continue under which qualification in both languages was not required as a condition of admission, but that unless an official qualified within five years in both languages, his promotion would stop. That was the position of things when the Act of 1923 was passed. Having regard to the conditions in this country, I consider that was a fair compromise, and I say now that the Government is deliberately going behind that and attempting to make the bilingual qualification a condition of admission to the service. We find from this report that cases have arisen where an official has been appointed on probation, as every entrant to the clerical service has to be, of twelve months. When these people come up at the end of the twelve months for confirmation of their appointment, with the approval of the department and Public Service Commission, the Minister says: “No; he is not bilingual; I refuse to confirm his appointment.” That is achieving the end of refusing admission to the service without the bilingual qualification. It is true you admit the official, but you do not confirm his appointment after the probationary period, and that is the same as refusing him admission. It may not be breaking the law, but getting round the compromise arrived at by mutual consent on a subject which we hoped was happily laid to rest. I refer now to a second-grade shorthand typist. This lady was appointed on the recommendation of the commission on twelve months’ probation, in November, 1923. In November, 1924, the department submitted the certificate prescribed by the Act to the effect that she was in all respects suitable and asked the commission’s recommendation which was given. The officer in question had passed in English only at the entrance qualifying examination, and the department’s attention was invited by the commission to the requirements of section 15 (1) of the Act which allowed her a period of five years in which to qualify in the other language. That is in accordance with the law. She had served her twelve months’ probation and was recommended by the department and the commission, and was required to qualify in the other language in five years. But the Minister of Agriculture says: “I refuse to confirm the appointment because she is not bilingual.” That is deliberately evading the law on a matter of the greatest importance and delicacy. I now come to the appointment of an entomologist; this man was appointed on twelve months’ probation. It was not stated in the letter of appointment that he must qualify in twelve months in both official languages. He was appointed under the ordinary civil service conditions. At the end of twelve months the department reported that his services were satisfactory and sought the recommendation of the commission for confirming his appointment. The Minister said: “No; he is not bilingual; I refuse to confirm the appointment.” That is a very serious hardship on this man. If the bilingual qualification is to be a condition of employment, let us clearly lay down that in twelve months, when their probation is over, they are to be bilingual, but it is a hardship that it is only when they come to be recommended by the commission and the department that the Minister should say “No.” I do say that if the Government go on in the direction in which they have begun; if they undermine the power of the Public Service Commission; if they follow the principle which apparently they have done, that the Minister is to have the uncontrolled right to make appointments in his own department, they will undo the work of years. I hope that now attention has been called to it, we will see sounder methods prevailing, and that this policy which has sprung up in one or two ministerial offices will be put a stop to. I see no objection to the Government differing from grounds of public policy from the Public Service Commission, but I object to the Ministers making up their minds from the beginning that so and so is to be appointed and carrying the appointment into effect. That shows a tendency for Ministers to take the whole power into their own hands regardless of the Public Service Commission and Parliament. I hope the policy which shows itself in the report of the Public Service Commission will be abandoned.

I desire to refer to a matter which has been exercising the minds of the people at Durban. I refer to the dismissal of E. Sandys, the deputy-sheriff and former messenger of the court at Durban, and also to the circumstances surrounding the appointment of his successor. I wish to express my appreciation of the courtesy of the Minister of Justice in placing at my disposal all the papers in connection with this matter, and I think he will admit that I have advised him that I proposed to raise this question in the House this afternoon. Sandys joined the South African Rifles about 26 years ago, and he was appointed assistant messenger at Durban in 1900 and subsequently he was made assistant sheriff. On the recommendation of the chief magistrate he was appointed messenger of the court in January. 1914, and for this purpose he forfeited all his pension rights. From that time to September last Sandys carried out his work to the satisfaction of the profession in Durban, and so far as I have been able to trace, without the slightest objection on the part of anyone in official circles. On September 11th last Sandys received this letter—

Sandys sent an acknowledgment to the effect that he noted that the new conditions would be sent to the magistrate and that he would be allowed to make a new application. On October 15th he received this letter—

Sandys replied expressing his surprise and referring the Minister to his own letter, in which it was stated that he would be given the chance of making an application and pointing out that the conditions of the appointment had not been sent to the magistrate. This is the curt reply that was sent to the man who had faithfully served the Union for 26 years—

When a rumour was circulated through Durban that it was proposed to dismiss Sandys, a petition was spontaneously signed by every member of the profession in Natal.

No it was not.

It was certainly signed by the majority in Durban and Maritzburg. It was an extremely comprehensive petition asking the Minister to reconsider his decision, and expressing the satisfaction which the profession had experienced from Sandys. The Minister with his customary courtesy, did not even condescend to acknowledge receipt of the petition. The Minister had indicated that the new conditions of service would be sent to the magistrate, and in doing so the Minister was apparently acting in accordance with the departmental Circular No. 24 which was issued on June 27th. 1921, in regard to the appointment of court messengers. These conditions set out that on a vacancy occurring the magistrate should put a notice in both official languages on his official notice board for 14 days calling for applications. The applicants must state their qualifications and the magistrate should schedule the applications and forward them to the Secretary of Justice with his recommendation. As I have indicated, this was not done. Rumours of this vacancy went round, and, notwithstanding that no advertisement was issued calling for applications, three men did apply. On October 1, a man named Saunders applied, and on the same date there was another application from a man named Basil Smedley, and on October 2 the magistrate at Umzinto wrote strongly recommending a Mr. B. J. du Plessis, who, in addition to being bilingual, is efficient in Zulu. None of these applications were acknowledged. On October 15. on the date when Mr. T. H. Spargo was appointed, these applicants were notified that the position had been filled. I searched in vain through the records to find any application from Spargo, and I cannot find that he ever applied for this position, and unquestionably the magistrate of Durban was never consulted in one way or the other as to the appointment of Mr. Spargo. I now come to a matter which I approach with the greatest possible reluctance, but it is better to speak out in these matters. Rumour has it that Mr. Spargo was appointed on the recommendation of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn).

Shocking.

There can be no objection of course, to Mr. Reyburn recommending an individual whom he may happen to know as efficient and a suitable person for this position, but this person did not apply, the name of Spargo does not appear in the file, but endorsed on the file is this very extraordinary minute—

The following minute dated October 14th 1924, from Minister to Secretary for Justice—

I venture to think that in the whole annals of parliamentary procedure one would search in vain to find an instance where a Minister sends an intimation to Mr. Reyburn and entirely ignores the magistrate and where this is done without any application from the individual, while at the same time, he turns down three applicants, one of whom, one would have thought he would have nurtured and regarded with consideration Mr. du Plessis.

No, that would be racial.

Oh, yes, but you have done such things before.

No, I have not.

Here we have a gentleman who is bilingual, highly recommended by the magistrate at Umzinto and has an efficient knowledge of Zulu. I want to tell hon. members that this man, Spargo had previously been dismissed by Sandys. Prior to his fortnight’s leave and during the time Sandys was acting as messenger he had dismissed Spargo. Spargo was the assistant to Sandys, and during the time he was acting in that capacity I am informed that Sandys dismissed him. The ostensible reason for dismissing these messengers was because of the very high fees which they were charging, and the very large amount of money which, it was alleged, they were making. And to that extent I agree with the Minister that a change in the system was a desirable one, but will hon. members believe that, in appointing Mr. Spargo, the Minister gave him no less a sum than £125 a month, or a salary of £1,500 a year. I would like the Minister to tell me what he was drawing as an assistant to Mr. Sandys when he was so employed.

What was Sandys drawing?

£6,000 a year.

I know he was drawing a large amount, but it is no use trying to sidetrack the matter in that way.

He was drawing £4,000 a year.

I anticipated the line that hon. members would take. I do not justify in any degree whatever the amount of money that Sandys was making. That was the system right through the country. I wish, however, to say that this system was abolished with a view to economy and they start off by giving Spargo £1,500 per annum. Having been duly installed in his office, Mr. Spargo begins to make his appointments. A few days after his appointment there is a letter from the magistrate, enclosing another letter from Mr. Spargo in which he suggests the appointment of eight gentlemen as assistants. The magistrate sends that letter on and makes no comments in regard to six, but he does comment in regard to two. One of these was named A. van Belkum, and he is recommended by Mr. Spargo as an assistant at a salary of £60 per month. This is what the magistrate’s comment was—

That is the comment on van Belkum. The next reference is to Mr. F. Nettleton—

There is nothing on record to show why van Belkum was offered £60 a month or who was the kind gentleman who recommended him or what his experience or qualifications were, or why the magistrate’s comments are entirely ignored. The Minister thought that £60 a month was too high and said it ought to be £35. Spargo writes back and says—

I assure hon. members I have most carefully perused this record and these are the facts as I have them. Absolutely no enquiry and the magistrate completely ignored and all these salaries fixed without any reference, as far as I can find, to show how these appointments were justified. I think hon. members will give me credit that during the 14 years I have been a member of this House I have carefully avoided any of these racial attacks and mud-slinging. I have taken this matter up on the instance of the man concerned. In its bald form it appears to me that a very grave injustice has been done. It is a matter calling for the most careful enquiry and the fullest replies. I want to ask the Minister why was Sandys not allowed to apply; why the conditions of circular 24 were not complied with; who recommended Spargo and why the recommendation was made; why the magistrate was ignored; why the notification of the appointment was sent through Mr. George Reyburn and not the magistrate; why applications from other applicants were ignored; on what principle or information were the salaries of Spargo, van Belkum and Nettleton arrived at; and is it true that van Belkum was also appointed a member of the Rent Board prior to the appointment to this office?

From the speech we have just listened to one would think that something really serious had been done. One would think if one were inclined to believe these were the facts that this was very grave. But the facts on record are not these facts. The hon. member said time and time again “Rumour has it.” He said: “I am informed” that Spargo was dismissed. But where are his facts? I will tell the facts as far as I know them. I know nothing of the reasons why Sandys was dismissed or the reasons which actuated the Government in making a change in the procedure with regard to court messengers. What the hon. member has skilfully avoided bringing out is the fact that Spargo was chief assistant to Sandys in the position of court messenger in Durban, and that is the reason why he was selected as the most suitable man. The hon. member says notification was sent to me and he asks why. I absolutely point-blank deny the statement that the notification was sent to me. I have seen a letter addressed to Mr. Spargo care of myself, and I will tell you why it was so addressed. Mr. Sandys was dismissed from the post and he was informed that Mr. Spargo, who was in his employment and had been for over four years, and had satisfactorily carried out his duties, was to be appointed as his successor and on the spot Mr. Sandys dismissed Mr. Spargo. After that it was impossible for the Department of Justice to find Mr. Spargo’s address, and they got it through me.

Oh! Oh!

Why not?

I was asked if the next man was a suitable man and I said he was. Now I would like to tell this House that Mr. Sandys who was a sergeant in the South African Police fourteen or fifteen years ago is today a man who is worth over £30,000. He has two motor-cars and a large house and the extraordinary position experienced in Durban, when the highest court in Natal was sitting in the Durban courthouse, was that the man who was receiving the highest salary of all people employed there, including the judges, was the court messenger. Mr. Sandys, as court messenger in Durban for many years, was receiving £6,000 nett and more each year. Had this arrangement which has now been made not been made, Mr. Sandys, as court messenger of Durban, or whoever took his place, would in January have received £440 15s. 1d. nett. Mr. Spargo, under the new arrangement, gets £125, and the balance was paid over to the Government. The amount which Mr. Sandys or Mr. Spargo would have received under the South African party way in February was £485 4s. 3d. Mr. Spargo retained £125, and the balance was paid over to the Government. A great deal has been made of the appointments which Mr. Spargo made on his staff. Now it must be realized that this is a private contract, not a portion of the public service. Mr. Spargo is entitled to employ whom he pleases, and the Minister is not responsible for them.

Who pays them?

Mr. Spargo pays them.

The taxpayer pays them.

As second assistant to Mr. Sandys, Mr. Spargo received a higher salary than £45. Mr. Spargo received £50 a month. Somebody asked whether Mr. Spargo would have been appointed if he had not been a member of the Labour party. I thought if he had been a South African party man there would have been no howl. Well, the extraordinary thing is that Mr. Spargo is a South African party man.

We can understand that.

He is a voter in my division, and voted against me at the general election.

No wonder.

Mr. Spargo’s father is a member of the South African party council in Durban, and works for the South African party at every election. If there is any disinterested action which the hon. Minister of Justice has done, it is the appointment of Mr. T. H. Spargo to the court messengership at Durban. I may point out another feature not mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson). In the regime of Mr. Sandys there were five Indians employed in the court messenger’s office. When the Minister of Justice took over, Mr. Spargo appointed white men entirely to do the work which was previously done by the Indians, although it was said that Europeans could not do the work satisfactorily. And two of the men who are doing the work are voters and voted against me.

How do you know?

One of them stood on the platform against me. The extraordinary thing is that he was against me because I was said to be lenient towards the Asiatics, although he is now doing work under the present Government, which was previously done by Indians. You don’t hear anything about “Yellow Asia” now, I notice. I think I have disposed of the idea that there was any political or other favouritism in the appointment of Mr. Spargo. He is not getting too much, for a man who gets the work done, and it is only a quarter of the sum the last man got.

The hon. member who has just spoken has very skilfully tried to draw a red herring across this trail. He has avoided the main question which the hon. member put to the Minister in regard to the appointment of Mr. Spargo. The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) asked the Minister why he did not fulfil his promise to give Mr. Sandys the opportunity of applying for the appointment. Secondly, the Minister was asked why he did not communicate the new terms and conditions under which the appointment was to be made to the magistrate, according to the Minister’s promise. Now it is quite outside the subject to tell this House that Mr. Sandys drew £4,000, £5,000 or £6,000 a year. The hon. member who introduced this motion said he was quite aware that Mr. Sandys was very well paid, and that he welcomed the change which the Minister made. Unfortunately, the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) did not state that Mr. Sandys paid his assistants out of the money which he drew. He had very many assistants. The present incumbent does not pay his assistants. They must be paid by the State, because Mr. Spargo gets a salary of £125 a month, and the Minister has fixed the salaries of the others; so they will not be paid by Mr. Spargo. It was to be expected, after the correspondence that took place in regard to the employment of Indians by solicitors in Durban, that the magistrate would lay down in the new conditions that only Europeans would be employed. If Mr. Sandys had the opportunity of knowing what those conditions were he would have agreed to the same conditions that Mr. Spargo agreed to, but he was never given the opportunity which the Minister promised to give him. It was a perfectly wrong way to use a man who has done his duty well for 20 years or more without giving him any reason or opportunity of applying for the post. Moreover, this gentleman was entitled to a pension when he applied for this post and got it. He has forfeited that pension. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) might have told us whether he recommended Mr. Spargo and why he was consulted in regard to the matter, or why his recommendation was taken in preference to that of the magistrate. According to the regulations in regard to the appointment of messengers, the magistrate is the man who is consulted. He is the only officer who is in the position to decide whether the duties are being properly executed or not. But in this case the magistrate is entirely ignored. I think an injustice has been done to a deserving officer. This man has given satisfaction to the profession and to the magistrate and, according to all the rules of justice, he ought to have an opportunity of applying for the post but he was ignored. I do not want to say much more about Mr. Sandys; but I do think that the Minister was extraordinarily liberal in fixing the salary at £1,500 a year.

It is not a salary at all. I will explain it later.

The Minister has agreed that Mr. Spargo shall draw £1,500 a year from the fees of office. Of course if the business falls off, he will probably have to take less; but the messenger in Durban has been drawing from four to five thousand pounds a year.

Profit?

It may have been entire profit; and, if so, the matter ought to have been looked into, and up to that point I agree that the Minister was right in going into the question and revising the terms of appointment. Then why were these appointments made without any advertisement? Why were the other appointments of assistants not made after giving the public an opportunity of applying for the post? I think there is no doubt at all that the whole question savours of giving jobs to pals.

S.A.P. pals.

I listened very carefully to the hon. member who introduced this motion and he did not say a single word about Mr. Spargo’s connection with the Labour party. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) has seized upon that point and found fault with the hon. member for having charged Mr. Spargo with being a member of the Labour party. I carefully noted that the hon. member did not refer to Mr. Spargo’s politics at all; but he did refer to Mr. Nettleton as being a well-known member of the Labour party, and evidently that gentleman has been safely placed at a salary of £30 to £35 a month.

Do you object?

I do not know whether Mr. Nettleton is competent or not; but I think the opinion of the magistrate ought to have been taken on the point. To come back to the Public Service Commission just for a moment. I feel, as a member who attended the sittings of the National Convention, and as a member who went about advising the public in Natal to enter the Union, that the Government is going back on the Act of Union. It was a special point with the Natal people as to whether the public servants who were taken over by the Union Government were protected or not, and it was represented to them by myself and others that their positions were assured to them under the Act of Union, and that the fact that they were not bilingual would not jeopardize their positions or promotion in the service. In one or two cases the Government have shaken the confidence of the public servants in this provision which they thought protected them, and from that point of view I think the Opposition are doing a service to the country in drawing attention to the way in which the Act of Union has been disregarded by ignoring the claims and rights of the public servants.

The report of the Public Service Commission on these appointments has been placed before Parliament, and I hope the matter will be thoroughly discussed by the House, because it affects not only the public service, but the public at large. We have set up machinery by legislation for securing that the public shall have good value for the money which it expends in paying its public servants. We have a body of tried and experienced officers of long experience at the head of the Public Service Commission. Two of them, I understand, are Dutch-speaking gentlemen, and one is an English-speaking gentleman. They are assisted by a band of inspectors, and what they do not know about the service I don’t think anybody knows. They have been in the service all their lives and they know the qualifications of the various officers. The public should know that the officers are experienced and well-qualified for the work they are appointed to perform. If the policy which the report foreshadows is followed out, the result will be that the public service will be broken down, the commission will be ignored and the public interest will inevitably suffer. The first complaint I have is that the recommendations of the commission have been ignored without any valid reason being given. Two cases are mentioned in the report; first, that of the magistrate of Johannesburg, and secondly, the chief of the new division of economics in the Agricultural Department. With regard to the first, the Department of Justice put forward the name of Mr. Young, and the recommendation was sent to the Public Service Commission, for its adoption. The commission had, according to law, to enquire whether this officer was, out of all the officers of the service, the best-qualified for the position. The commission said there were several officers senior to Mr. Young and that they ought not to be passed over, and the commission recommended that Mr. Staten be appointed. There was no question of language involved, for both officers were fully bilingual. But the Minister thought it better to ignore the Public Service Commission, which necessarily knew far more of the qualifications of the officers concerned than the Minister did.

It did not, in this case. I have known both officers for years.

Even if the Minister had known them for years there were hundreds of others in the service in the position of magistrates who the Minister never saw, and could not possibly see. In this case a fully qualified officer was passed over, although he was senior to Mr. Young. Is seniority not to count? I always understood that promotion was by merit, and other things being equal the senior officer should receive promotion. That was the rule that used to be followed. But now apparently promotion is to take place at the whim of the Minister. I think the Minister will have to make out a very strong reason indeed for ignoring the recommendation of the commission. With regard to the position of the chief of the new division of economics in the Department of Agriculture there we have another instance of the commission’s recommendation being ignored. The strange thing about this recommendation is, that the secretary for Agriculture wished Mr. Lamont to be appointed, and he was sent abroad in order to make himself thoroughly acquainted with the duties but when he came back instead of getting the appointment as recommended by the commission he was brushed on one side and an outsider was brought in.

Was he selected by the commission to go abroad?

I fancy he was. I am informed by the late Minister of Agriculture that the commission approved of Mr. Lamont being sent abroad in 1923. The present Minister of Agriculture, however, preferred to go outside the service. Here it was not only a question of ignoring the recommendation of the commission, but of ignoring the law. The Public Service Act of 1923 laid down that no person from outside shall be appointed to any position in the public service if there is a qualified man in the service. There is no doubt at all that Mr. Lamont was highly qualified for the position.

What degree had he?

There was no question of language qualifications, for he knew both official languages.

Was he qualified in economics?

Certainly he was, but I don’t know whether he was qualified in politics. We know from the report that the commission was advised that the Minister in his opinion thought that neither Mr. Lamont nor any other technical officer in the department had the necessary qualifications for the position. I wonder how the Minister knew how all the other officers of the department were not qualified for the post, for the Minister was new to his job. The head of the department (Mr. P. J. du Toit) recommended Mr. Lamont, and so did the director of field and animal husbandry, so where the Minister formed his opinion regarding the entire unsuitability of Mr. Lamont and of all the other technical officers I do not know; perhaps he will tell us where he got his opinion. The head of the Minister’s department and the director of field and animal husbandry approved of Mr. Lamont’s appointment; although holding no academic degree, his knowledge and proved ability were acknowledged as eminently fitting him for the post. I think the Minister ought to tell us why he went outside the public service. He is prevented by law from going outside the public service if there is a competent officer in the service who is qualified to fill the appointment, and that provision was put in the law in order to protect the officers of the department. I have seen it stated in the press that it is only right that young South Africans who qualify for these posts should get these posts. That was in connection with the appointment of Dr. Geldenhuys. I am glad to see so many South Africans going overseas and qualifying themselves for technical posts, but I do say: “Don’t jump them over the heads of your old and tried public servants.”

Lamont is one of our own men.

I was not aware that he was a South African, but that makes the position all the more extraordinary. The spirit of the Act of Union has been disregarded by Ministers in their appointments. In carrying out the provisions of the Act of Union with regard to the existing rights of public servants, the late Government played the game by the service and said to them: “You have been taken over by the Union Government and, so long as you carry out your duties efficiently and well, you shall get promotion from time to time,” but that apparently is not the policy of the present Government, and the service to-day is upset and dissatisfied and wondering what is going to happen next. Then the appointment of Mr. Pienaar to the Department of the Interior is one that shows a very serious state of affairs. In the first place, Mr. Venn has a long and creditable record of public service. He has acted as secretary of the department in Pretoria for 10 or 11 years during the absence of the secretary in Cape Town when Parliament was sitting, and is thoroughly conversant with the duties of his department. But he is put on one side, he is passed over. I say that Mr. Venn ought to have had that appointment, because, in the opinion of the Public Service Commission, it was not necessary that he should have a knowledge of both official languages. Mr. Venn was turned down and the commission then come along and recommend, instead of accepting the recommendation of Mr. Pienaar, which was made by the Minister, that Mr. Williams be appointed. Now Mr. Williams is much senior to Mr. Pienaar. He is thoroughly bilingual, he has a long and creditable record of service, and he is fitted for the post in every way. But, no, promotion is denied him. It seems to me, if that is to be the policy of the Government, the pre-Union officer need expect no promotion. It almost seems that an English-speaking officer who is bilingual need not expect promotion, and that, I think, has an ever more serious aspect than the other. I say that this is holding out very poor prospects indeed to men in the public service who acquire the other official language if their promotion is to be stopped in this way and the Minister is not playing the game by the service and is not doing justice to the service. Then there is another point in this report to which attention should be drawn, and that is that the Act of 1923 lays down that after 1928 all officers entering the public service must be thoroughly bilingual, and we all agreed to that, but, in regard to officers in the service, they had five years to qualify in the other official language. There again the Minister of Agriculture has ignored the law. Evidently Ministers look upon the law as a thing to be obeyed if it pleases them, and to be disregarded entirely if it does not suit their book. There is the case of a lady typist, who was employed by the Government in a temporary capacity from 1917. In 1923 she got an appointment as a second-grade typist on probation for a year. At the end of that year she was certified by her senior officers to be thoroughly efficient and her name was put up for confirmation. But, no, the Minister, in the exercise of the power which he seems to have assumed, turned her down on the ground that she was not qualified in regard to language. The law gave her five years to qualify, and I want to know by what right the Minister has evaded the law in that matter. Then there is the case of the entomologist, a gentleman who was highly qualified. He reads the law, he knows that he must serve one year’s probation, and he also knows that at the end of five years he must pass an examination in the Dutch language, otherwise his promotion is stopped. Now he serves a year, his probationary period is entirely satisfactory, his name was put up for a permanent appointment, but here again the Minister turns him down. The Minister is above the law. The law apparently is only made for other people not for a Minister. I would have thought that an entomologist, whose work is done in a laboratory, might have been excused as regards the other language, just in the same way as the Minister of Railways has told us he does not expect artizans to be qualified in both languages. At any rate, this officer ought to have had the advantage of the law, and I say that the law has been disregarded. I feel that the Prime Minister and myself and a good many others who were members of the National Convention have a duty to the pre-Union officials who were taken over at the time of Union. There was a very strong feeling in Natal against the Union in 1909, and I was one of the men who thought it my duty to stump the country in the cause of Union. Questions were put to me at meeting after meeting as to what the position of our public servants would be under the Act of Union, and I repeated the assurances given in the National Convention that they would not be interfered with, and that their promotion would not be stopped. But I now find that the Government is departing from the spirit of the Act of Union, and the Prime Minister himself knows that the intention of the framers of that Act was not to interfere in any way with the men in the public service who were unilingual. I was astounded to read a speech the other evening made by the hon. Minister of the Interior, I believe, at the Koffiehuis, where he said that in making appointments and promotion, other things being equal, Nationalists would be preferred. Perhaps the Minister will tell me if he was not correctly reported?

It was a correct report.

I say that was an extraordinary statement for a Minister to make. It will be the first time that politics are introduced into the public service of this country. I can say that the Public Service Commission, in making appointments to the public service, have never once inquired into the politics of the individual concerned. In regard to young men entering the service, I don’t know whether the Minister referred to them or not—I hope he didn’t—but I do want to say that in regard to young men entering the service, neither the Public Service Commission, nor any department, nor any Minister ever inquired as to the politics of any of the young men. And I can say from my own knowledge that I do not know of a single case in the departments with which I have been connected, and I have been connected with the Public Works, Interior, Public Health and Railways, where any inquiry was made in regard to the politics of the officials. If he did his work well we never interfered with a service man on account of his politics. The Minister wants to abolish the Public Service Commission altogether, but I say it is a body we ought to cherish and support, I say that advisedly. I have seen many cases where deserving officers would have been passed over but for the commission. There is too great a tendency to run the service in watertight compartments, and the claims of officers in a different department from that in which an appointment is to be made are apt to be overlooked. The commission ascertains whether there is any other officer better fitted for a vacant post in the various other departments besides the one in which the vacancy occurs. I ask the House how does any Minister know anything at all about the bulk of the people in his department? The only men who can know are the three public service commissioners and their staff who are continually going round. It would be a bad day for the country if the Public Service Commission were abolished. The commission relieve Ministers of a very great responsibility in making appointments. Making appointments must be a troublesome business, and a Minister has plenty to do without bothering about the hundred and one vacancies which occur almost daily in these departments. I have known the members of the Public Service Commission intimately for years since their appointment, and I know they are gentlemen of great integrity, well qualified for the position they hold, and they are entirely impartial. With regard to this language question I am, as I said before, perfectly at one with those who want to see a thoroughly bilingual service.

In theory, yes.

But do justice to the men who are already in the service.

Why did not you appoint a bilingual commission?

I understand there are two gentlemen who are bilingual. These are Mr. Fleischer and Mr. Hofmeyr. Mr. Robinson is not, I think. We ought to be proud we have such highly capable public servants at the head of our commission. I urge Ministers to seriously reconsider this policy they have embarked upon. I may be told that the late Government sinned in the language direction and were not free from blame. Well, I was sorry to read from the Defence Force Commission report that promotions had been made in a way the commission thought undesirable, and I was sorry also to read that language qualifications—

I am sorry, the hon. member’s time has expired.

I would like, in commencing the few words I want to say, to point out that we must in this discussion necessarily mention officials by name, but I hope to follow the example of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), and when I do name persons to say nothing with reference to their ability. We have here to do with an important subject, and it is accordingly especially necessary that we should have clearness and plainness about the point of the attack by the Opposition to-day. I shall personally attempt to find principles in everything that has been said. It must be plain to everyone that two clear principles arise for discussion. The first is whether any law or regulation of the land has actually been contravened or disobeyed and when this is done then, of course, a proper excuse or reason should be given. The second great principle is whether satisfaction has been given to the two sections of the population. It is clear to me that the Opposition continuously try to support the statement that the law is being contravened. I would just like to show to the lawyers of the Opposition that besides the regulation to which reference has been made, there is another point on which the Minister can rely. In the first place the Minister should have the right to appoint subordinates because he is responsible to Parliament and the people, and in the nature of things it follows that with regard to the appointment of subordinate officials he should have the selection. But I go further, and I say that the commission themselves acknowledge this. The commission acknowledges that the Governor-General in council, that is the Minister and the Government, have the right in certain circumstances to make appointment without reference to the commission. I will read from the report of the Government commission—

I personally am convinced, and all right thinking people in the House will know that this is the point of departure of the Minister. There is a second principle, and I want to go more fully into it. I wish now particularly to speak in connection with the appointment of the secretary for the Interior. The point of departure in such appointments is not in the first instance the capacity of the official, but changes must take place in the public service, and in consequence a place is sought. I would like again to quote from the report of the Public Service Commission. On page 8 I read—

I say, therefore, that in the first place the point of departure is not the special peculiar suitability of a stated person, but because a place must be found. In this case in the Department of the Interior the Minister could shuffle Mr. Venn and appoint him as secretary for the Interior. I have already tried to show that the Minister has the right to make appointments over-riding the recommendations of the commission. And if the Minister thinks that seniority alone in any case is not sufficient for an appointment, but that particular suitability should be taken into consideration, then the Minister has the right of considering such matters. But it is quite clear to me and it will also be clear to every Dutch-speaking Afrikander in the House and certainly in the country, that here again we have an attack made on one of the corner stones of the community, namely, equality of language. I want again to make a quotation from the report of the Public Service Commission to support my statement. I read from the minute of 13th October, 1924—

Now it was thus the question for the Public Service Commission whether a bilingual officer was necessary here. They were well aware of their duty, but they again found that bilingualism was not necessary, or rather that one section of the population had just to be satisfied if they were given a unilingual official. This is in my opinion a direct attack on a part of the population of South Africa, and if there is one dangerous thing with reference to the whole understanding between the two sections of South Africa, then it is that people still keep on denying the rights of a portion of the population and only maintain the right of another portion. I regret that to-day, after 15 years of Union, we must revert again to equality of language, and the equal rights of the two sections of our people. The people are disappointed that the feeling of equality of language is still being played with. The fight for equality of language was commenced 100 years ago, and if the population had joined forces sooner, then it would have had the victory long since—but now the same fight has to be waged to have our language used in South Africa. And this, after a fight of 100 years. It is the duty of the Public Service Commission to reckon with the rights of the other portion of the population. If that principle of language equality had not been acknowledged, then the Union would never have come into existence, and if we wish to further develop, then we must build on solid foundations and one of the corner stones is language equality. We must not put up a building that is top-heavy. It is a sad history to follow. How systematically, alas! The rights of a portion of the population have been abused. In this connection the action of the South African party Government in the University Act became proverbial for the lack of provision to satisfy the language conscientiousness of the population. It is noteworthy that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), at that time Leader of the Opposition, has acknowledged that it was one of the weak Bills. Whether he meant to refer to the language question he will know best. It is worth while following his speeches, and I would like to read a few cuttings from them, but I do not wish to take up the time of the House therefor. They will show us how systematically the sense of national growth and of language has been disrespected. I do not even want to go into the great agitation which was commenced that officials should answer questions by the public in the language which they happen to know or father in the language they choose. I will, however, return to the cry of indignation which came from the Opposition, because the Minister of Justice insisted that the necessary respect shall be shown for the language and feeling of both sections of the population. If we feel that way about it then I am sorry for the co-operation in the country for which we are panting. If we, after such a long fight and after the progress we think we have made must now come to the position that the Public Service Commission assumes to itself the right of deciding if bilingualism is necessary then it is really a sad state of affairs. With all respect for the Public Service Commission we have never yet heard that they have shown their sympathy for the ideals of the Dutch-speaking people. This is 1925 and after a fight of 100 years, we find a Public Service Commission taking upon itself to judge in such matters. The Public Service Commission regards it as its duty to do this. I quote further from the report—

This Public Service Commission is not yet in the position to-day to understand that the Dutch-speaking portion of the population has also got self-respect apart from the fact that the Dutch-speaking section also contribute to the taxes. This is not only regrettable but it is to be condemned that the Pubilc Service Commission should presume to give that ruling. I feel that all right-thinking people in the House will solidly support the action of the Minister of the Interior. We understand that a foxy turn is often taken in party politics but where such a flagrant breech of the rights and feelings of the people takes place we will all support the Minister when he does his best to have the rights of both sections of the people acknowledged. Not alone on paper but so that the principles of language equally find full expression in the land. We not only support him but we admire him that he has had the courage of his convictions to do the right thing in spite of the Public Service Commission. If it is still necessary after so many years to protect the rights of the Dutch-speaking people, then we should be thankful to him for his action on our behalf.

Only for the Dutch-speaking people.

I also mean the English-speaking people. We have never yet taken away their rights from the English-speaking people. We have acknowledged their rights and treated them sympathetically. We have even recognised their sentiment and admired them that they are so faithful to it. Nor is it the English-speaking people of the countryside who grudge us our rights but it is the politicians in this House who want to take away our rights. I think that there are members of the Opposition who will support the Minister of the Interior.

I see that the hon. member of Illovo (Mr. Marwick) wants to rise to take part in the debate. This makes me think that the storm which has been raised by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and others who spoke after him has come to an end. Therefore I think it has become necessary that I should say a few words. At any rate in so far as I am concerned as Minister of the Interior, namely, with reference to the appointment of Mr. Pienaar as secretary for the Interior. I begin by saving that there is one thing in the debate of which I am glad and that is that in everything that has been said none of the speakers has yet accused me that I had appointed someone who is not suited for the post of secretary for the Interior. On the contrary Mr. Pienaar can certainly be proud of what my predecessor the former Minister of the Interior has stated about his ability. Let me begin by saying that Mr. Pienaar is a man who has had a long and honourable career in the Civil Service. That he is one who began in the lower ranks of the Department of Justice and that he rose for successive years, occupied important appointments as magistrate in such important centres as Barberton, Ermelo and Germiston. Not only has he had a wide experience as magistrate but he has been an inspector of the Civil Service for a number of years and had extraordinary opportunities of becoming acquainted with the service in all its branches. I would like to point out that I had a conversation with the Public Service Commission about various possible candidates and when I mentioned the name of Mr. Pienaar they frankly stated through the chairman that in so far as capacity was concerned Mr. Pienaar at least was equal to Mr. Venn.

Nobody has attacked Mr. Pienaar.

That is what the chairman of the commission declared. I wish to mention further how homage is done to the ability of Mr. Pienaar by other bodies. When a few years ago, it is not long since, the matter of certain alleged malpractice in lunatic asylums were brought to the notice of the House and some one of especial ability and trust had to be appointed to make an enquiry as to what should be done, the person appointed by my predecessor was the new Secretary for the Interior. And when recently a case came on in Johannesburg in connection with the Town Council which was of a very delicate nature, I refer to the purchase by the municipality of Johannesburg of the farm Syferfontein, whereby an accusation was made against town councillors that they had not acted honourable in the matter when someone had to be appointed to investigate this charge of bribery then that important and delicate task was given to Mr. Pienaar. I say that homage has been done by that side to the capacity of the new secretary for the Interior. But there are more particular reasons why I much desire a man of the type of Mr. Pienaar as Secretary for the Interior. As I wrote to the commission during the previous short sitting of Parliament in Cape Town, I wanted someone for the post of Secretary for the Interior who was not alone capable but also thoroughly bilingual. One who would be able to act in a sympathetic relation with the general public. That is the requirement that I laid down in my letter to the commission. I ask of my predecessor if these requirements are not in the public interests? The late Minister acknowledges this.

What about the qualifications of Col. Williams?

I come to that point also. The post of Secretary of the Interior is not an ordinary appointment which comes in the ordinary run of promotion of officials. He is head of a department and as such he stands not alone in a certain relation to the civil service and to the Minister, but also in a certain relation to the public. Members of the public are granted an interview by the Minister or by the Secretary for the Interior. It cannot be an ordinary official. The one who occupies the post must be someone who understands both sections of the people. Anyone who cannot do that is, in my opinion, not fitted for the post. Where could I find anyone better suited for that appointment than one who has for years been himself a magistrate, and as such done administrative work and had experience of it? And where will you find anyone who comes into more intimate contact with the general public than a magistrate? Besides those important qualities Mr. Pienaar was also an inspector in the public service and he is therefore acquainted with the questions of the civil service which is also of great importance. Now various persons who have spoken this afternoon have made various charges or objections against my action. One of them is that I should have followed the recommendations of the Public Service Commission or, at any rate, should have consulted with them in connection with the appointment, but that I did not do it was because in my own mind I had already intended a person for the appointment. One of the members, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has said that the proof of this is that I wrote a letter from Cape Town to the commission in Pretoria that I could not at that time judge about the qualifications of Mr. Venn, but that I would subsequently decide that matter and that I subsequently said that I had met Mr. Pienaar and that I then could decide within a few minutes as to his qualifications. The House will only be able to understand the position if I tell it what actually happened. Shortly after the present Government came into office I had an interview with the Public Service Commission because that commission comes under the Department of the Interior. The commission informed me that Col. Shawe was retiring in December and that I should then have to make an appointment to the post of secretary to the department. They then mentioned the name of Mr. Venn. I answered that there were still months of time, that I had only just come into office and that I must have time to consider, and therefore I said that we must postpone the matter. But I further then asked the commission what the usual procedure was in making such appointments. The answer was that the commission before it made a recommendation for the appointment of ordinary officials consulted the permanent heads of the department and his recommendation was taken into consideration before the commission made a recommendation to the Minister. Thereupon I asked the commission: But where the appointment has reference to the permanent head of the department with which the Minister is constantly coming into touch, and has to do, to whom he must give his orders, upon whom he depends for the execution of his policy, and whom he consults, is the Minister not consulted in regard thereto? The hon. member for Yeoville now wants us to believe that Ministers never exercise influence on the Public Service Commission. The commission assures me that they always recognized the Ministers in such cases. I will now come to my first interview with the commission. I said that I Would consult them, or rather they gave me the assurance. When the commission was in Cape Town I had not yet had the opportunity of considering the qualifications of Mr. Venn because Parliament met three weeks after we came into office and the Ministers had to get into the work of their departments. What chance did I have of considering the career of Mr. Venn? I thus properly wrote from Cape Town that I had had no opportunity of going into the matter. But is this not a proof that I wanted to give Mr. Venn a chance? If the matter was cut and dried with me who I should appoint, would I then have kept the way open for him? In Pretoria I was then consulted by the commission. The commission came with its candidate to me, and I pointed out to them that it admitted that Mr. Venn did not know Dutch, and that I insisted upon the requirement that the person to be appointed should be fully bilingual, and therefore we put Mr. Venn on one side. Then the commission asked me: Have you thought of anybody else? I then said to the commission that a person had come under my notice, but that I wanted to know more of him. “You may know more of him because he worked under you in the public service.” Then the chairman replied that Mr. Pienaar was in every respect equal to Mr. Venn. Now I leave the explanation to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). He will see that I wrote a letter wherein the following words occur—

I had an interview with Mr. Pienaar. At the end of my interview with the commission I asked the chairman if I could send for Mr. Pienaar to convince myself if he was a suitable person, and the chairman said that I could do so. I therefore summoned Mr. Pienaar to Pretoria with the approval of the commission, and I say, therefore, “In pursuance of our conversation” I have convinced myself that he is a suitable person. Thereafter the other letters came where they say that bilingualism is not necessary for that appointment and that Mr. Venn should be appointed. I do not know whether the commission in the meantime got orders from “Irene.”

The hon. Minister will have to withdraw the insinuation against the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts).

Then I will say under unknown influences.

Order, order.

The hon. Minister has already withdrawn.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself. It is a good thing you have left the pulpit.

I now come to another difficulty. The objection has been advanced by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) that I acted wrongly in brushing aside the recommendations of the commission. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has already acknowledged here this afternoon that the Act was intentionally so drawn, and I can give the further explanation that the law of 1912 was so amended in 1913 or 1914 to give the Government of the day the right to act in conflict, if such were thought necessary, with the recommendations of the Public Service Commission. The law was so altered in order to give the Government the right to act contrary to the recommendations of the commission. The commission recommends and the Minister appoints, it I understand hon. members opposite correctly, then they regard the words recommendation and appointment as equivalent. But if they are the same sort of thing why is it not then provided in the law that the Public Service Commission should appoint the official. Why is there the circumlocution that the Minister should make the appointment, but only in name. The hon. members who have spoken pretend that this is the first time that a Minister has ever dared to reject the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. It is, however, not so; I ask hon. members to read almost any report of the commission and they will find therein that the Government has rejected recommendations of the commission and the reasons why that has been done.

The Government always gave good reasons.

I will answer the hon. member on that point. In 1918 the commission recommended a certain Mr. Garthy for a post in the office of the High Commissioner in London. The then Government then rejected the recommendation and appointed Mr. Sergeant. What do the Public Service Commission say thereon? They say about Mr. Garthy: “His knowledge of languages is exceptional.” This is perhaps the reason why the then Government did not appoint him; and what do the commission say about Mr. Sergeant? “The commission do not know whether he possesses any special competency for the appointment.” This is from a report Let us now take the next report, namely, that for 1919. Then an inspector of factories had to be appointed for the Eastern Province. Here also the recommendation of the commission was rejected. A certain Mr. Felling was nominated for the appointment, and what do the commission say thereon? “The recommendation of the commission is rejected because the person recommended is not bilingual.” The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) has stated here that it is wrong to demand bilingualism, but the Government of which he was a member insisted in this instance on bilingualism. And what does the commission say about it? “Because he is not able to speak the two official languages he has not been appointed, but he is fitted for his work and he is prepared to learn the second language.” This is more than Mr. Venn is prepared to do. About Mr. Felling the commission says: “He has no knowledge of factories and does not possess the necessary competence.” These are instances of rejection of the recommendations of the Public Service Commission. Now I come to the second weighty objection raised by hon. members opposite, and that is that in appointing Mr. Pienaar an officer has been advanced who is junior to Mr. Venn and who, over the heads of several seniors, has been appointed to a higher post. I ask is this anything new in the history of the public service, in the history of any Government? The accusation is brought against me that I appointed Mr. Pienaar to a post for which 11 officers who are his senior have beer, considered. Of these 11 two are unilingual and these I strike out immediately as unsuited. But what did the Public Service Commission do in its own department, in its own personnel? As recently as 1922 the Commission promoted Mr. Halifax and appointed him in their own department over the head of 15 senior officials. That the commission did itself. But let me mention another instance which is more striking. I would be glad if the leader of the Opposition and other members would listen carefully. This not the first time in the Department of the Interior that someone has been promoted over the head of another. It also happened in 1913. The then Minister for the Interior did two things. The first was the following. He wanted to create a new post in his department. He wanted a regrading and to be able to do this he had to have the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. The commission went into the matter and said that they could not approve of the creation of the post. What did the Minister of the Interior do then? He simply brushed the commission aside. He got two officers from the Department of Finance to make a report. They instituted an enquiry, recommended the creation of the new post and thereupon the appointment was created against the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. The post had naturally to be filled up and an official was appointed thereto over the heads of 200 of his seniors. The name of the officer is Pring. The name of the Minister of the Interior is J. C. Smuts. The then Parliament regarded the brushing aside of the Public Service Commission as a serious matter. A select committee was appointed and said in its report that the Minister acted contrary to law. And the hon. the Prime Minister had to come to Parliament and obtain an indemnity for the illegal act.

That was the first indemnity law.

Now I come more particularly to the case of Mr. Venn and Mr. Pienaar. And I want to mention a few facts which will perhaps be new to some hon. members. I want to point out that if the Public Service Commission had always had the passion for justice to all officials, Mr. Pienaar would never have been junior of Mr. Venn. Mr. Venn was appointed to the service in 1903 and Mr. Pienaar 13 months before him in 1902. Thus, in length of service, Mr. Pienaar is senior to Mr. Venn. But what do we find after the year 1912, that is after the Public Service Act came into force? In 1912, so far as salary and post were concerned, Mr. Pienaar was still noticeably the senior of Mr. Venn. Mr. Pienaar then had a salary of £800 and Mr. Venn of £650, thus Mr. Pienaar was £150 ahead of Mr. Venn. And Mr. Williams, who is also held out here as another senior of Mr. Pienaar, was still more his junior. But what happened then? What did the Government Service Commission, which has such an especial passion for equal treatment of all officials, do at that time? Mr. Venn was pushed forward, specially advanced over the heads of his seniors, although they knew that he was not deserving. I now take the minutes of the commission since 20th November, 1919, and hon. members must please notice what is said. It is said that in the case of Mr. Venn he has been promoted to a higher salary over the heads of his seniors only because he had fulfilled the duties of the post for some years, and they say further that it is very doubtful whether Mr. Venn under ordinary circumstances would have attained in three years the status that he then finally reached. They acknowledge that they pushed Mr. Venn forward more than he deserved and what happened to Mr. Pienaar? Nine years long he remained on the same rung in the civil service without promotion or increase of salary. This is the position so far as Messrs Venn and Pienaar are concerned in comparison with each other. Now let us come back to the Public Service Commission, which is constantly engaged in making history. After they had fought out the battle with me, or I with them, about the appointment of the Secretary of the Interior, they go and nominate shortly afterwards a secretary for the Department of Public Works and who is suggested? Mr. Staten. They recommend Mr. Staten while he is a junior of Mr. Venn. They accuse me that I passed Mr. Venn by and appointed another as Secretary for the Interior. And immediately thereafter they go and pay me the compliment of following my example with reference to another department. Now hon. members opposite have another objection. They asked me what right I had of insisting that the Secretary for the Interior must have a bilingual qualification. I may answer in the first place by in turn enquiring what right the Minister of the Interior in 1913 had to fill up a post which was subsequently occupied by Mr. Pring with a person who was not recommended by the commission. I ask what right had Mr. F. S Malan in appointing an inspector of factories to demand that a man should be bilingual against the recommendation of the commission? I further wish to point out that the fixing of requirements for posts does not rest with the commission, but with the executive council, with the Government. The powers and functions of the commission are set out in the Act and amount to this, that their work begins when the Government says that it wants a man who can satisfy such and such a requirement to be fitted for a post. They come to the Government and recommend a man who, in their opinion, is suited for the appointment. This was made very clear to the commission in that instance and on this principle the Cabinet has acted with reference to what is being discussed to-day. The commission was notified what the requirements were which the person must satisfy to be nominated as Secretary for the Interior. If the commission wants to settle these requirements then it assumes to itself rights which it does not possess. I refer the commission further to Art. 137. What right has the commission in view of Art. 137 of our Constitution, with reference to bilingualism, to say that for such a post it is not necessary to have a person who is bilingual. If there is a duty which lies upon it, it is that the commission should make its recommendation not only with a view to the capacity of the official, but also in the interest of the treasury, and now I wish to say this: That if the commission continue along the lines it has recommended, it will amount to thousands of pounds per annum. The hon. member for Yeoville has himself had experience of the control of departments, and if he will take the trouble to go through the files in possession of Ministers he will find it so. Letters are addressed to the Minister in Dutch. The head of the department knows no Dutch and, therefore, they must go first to a translator. From the translator they go to a typist and the English version which, perhaps, does not reproduce the original, is laid before the head. When he answers the letter the same process must be gone through from the translator to the typist before the Dutch answer can be despatched. If an English letter is received, then only two officers are required to deal with it, namely, the head of the department and the typist who writes the letter. But in the case of Dutch it must go through the hands of five officials. This is a waste of money and a crying injustice. It is a position that has arisen with the concurrence of the previous Government, namely, that to-day 27 translators must be kept in the public service who do nothing else, and 499 bilingual officers who cannot do their ordinary work, but are employed in translations. That is 526 officials.

What are you going to do?

I want to see that an end comes to that undesirable state of things by not adding to the number of unilingual appointments. I wish further when I speak about such conditions in the service to point out that in accordance with the constitution every member of the public has the right when he deals with the Government to use his own language. If section 137 means anything it means that. And, therefore, it is necessary that the public service shall be bilingual. What is the actual position? There are 13,000 officials, and of them no less than 3,792 are unilingual. Of this number 12 are Dutch-speaking unilinguals. I find further that there are 1825 officials pre-Union who are unilingual and who are protected by section 145 of the constitution. But after Union, in spite of section 137, 2,000 officials have been appointed who are to-day still unilingual and many other unilingual officers have in the meantime become bilingual. Such persons we exclude. Excluding them, there are still 2,000 appointed who are still unilingual.

How many of them are English-speaking and how many are Dutch-speaking?

How many speak Chinese?

twelve are Dutch-speaking. As I said, the presumption of the constitution is that the people can speak what language they please. In the Government service, however, there must be bilingualism, and we should therefore expect that the Government service should be more bilingual than the people. Seventy-two per cent. of the white population is bilingual and 28 per cent. unilingual. That is in one of the two languages. In the service, which is supposed to be bilingual, 30 per cent. are unilingual. I say, therefore, in view of the intention of the constitution of the good relations between the races in the country, and in view of the policy of the previous Government, I had to support a bilingual man against a unilingual.

I am sorry, but the time of the hon. member has expired.

With the permission of the House, I would just like to finish. The hon. members for Yeoville and Dundee have both spoken about the spoils system and accused us that we are introducing it. I discard that charge with contempt. I only wish to add that if we do it then it does not lie in the mouth of the Opposition to say so. A challenge has been issued to prove that the previous Government did this. I shall confine myself to two instances. I did not go and look for them, but in the course of my work my attention was called to them. The first is of an officer who occupied a certain post in the Department of Public Health. The member for Yeoville was not then in office but the hon. member for Dundee, who issued the challenge. He had to do certain work under contract for a fixed number of years. An important portion of his work was taken away from him and given to another, and let me tell you what happened. The person to whom the work was subsequently given wrote the following letter to the Secretary for the Interior—

The Minister has seen the letter, and what has he done? Without further enquiry he took the portion of the work from that person and gave it to the person who wrote the letter.

Shame, shame.

The new arrangement cost between £80 and £100 per annum more and the expenditure which was caused for party political reasons would thus have amounted to a few hundred pounds for the stipulated number of years. I naturally put an end to the contract with that person and gave it to the Nationalist. Let me now come to the other instance, which I specially want to bring to the notice of the hon. member for Yeoville. There are in Ladysmith two brothers who have a family connection in the hospital for mental deficients. According to the judgment of the magistrate they (two members of the South African party) had to pay certain maintenance money. They did not wish to do it, although they were able to. The then member for Ladysmith (Mr. Jordaan) went to the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Duncan) and asked him to be merciful and not to press them for the money. The Minister took a serious view of the matter. He was of opinion that he could not allow the Treasury to suffer, and wrote the following letter—

Cape Town,

18th March, 1924.

Dear Mr. Jordaan,—I return the letter you handed me recently and have to inform you that I have personally investigated the circumstances of X’s case but regret I am unable to withdraw the claim for maintenance. Unless Mr. X. is prepared to adjust the matter forthwith, I am afraid there is no alternative but to allow the case against him in the court to proceed.

Yours sincerely,

PATRICK DUNCAN.

P. J. Jordaan, Esq., M.L.A.,

House of Assembly.

That was in March, 1924. Shortly thereafter the House of Assembly was dissolved, and Mr. Burton becomes the candidate in Ladysmith. Then this interesting correspondence took place. It goes on now between private secretaries. The Ministers were of course too busy with the elections. The first letter is from the secretary of Minister Burton to the secretary of Minister Duncan. It reads as follows—

Treasury, Cape Town, 6th May, 1924.

Dear Hind,—When Mr. Burton was at Barry dale last week, he was approached by several of the leading South African party men on behalf of the brothers who are being sued by your department for maintenance in respect of their father, who is in a lunatic asylum. They do not ask that the brothers should be let off entirely—many think they should be made to pay—but if proceedings could be stopped till after the election, it would be a very good thing. Mr. Burton wishes this matter to be brought to Mr. Duncan’s personal notice, and he will be glad to hear whether proceedings can be delayed as suggested.—Yours sincerely,

J. HURTER, Private Secretary.

O. C. Hind, Esq., Private Secretary to the Minister of the Interior.

There was a little delay, and Mr. Burton found out as far as he could see that the whole result of the election was dependent on a few votes. Accordingly there was a telegram from his secretary as follows—

TELEGRAM dated 9th May, 1924.

From Hurter, Findep, Cape Town, to Hind, Care Minister Interior, Pretoria.

My letter sixth re…. Mr. Burton will be glad of reply by telegram early possible.

The answer came immediately—

TELEGRAM dated 9th May, 1924.

Hind…. Hurter, Findep, Cape Town.

Re…. instructions issued to stay proceedings.

The case was then postponed. The challenge is made. Prove to us where we abused our position. What I have just read I leave hon. members to judge about. What I have done I am prepared to justify to Parliament and to the people.

The hon. the Minister has now for many months been going through the files in order to judge of the work and the deficiencies of his predecessors. I think that if nothing worse than this can be found out against us than the postponement of a case in the Court, there was not much seriously wrong. I think we are discussing however a much more serious business, and that we ought not to waste the time of the House with a question of that kind. This afternoon, when the hon. Minister introduced the second reading of this Bill, some surprise was expressed that we should have to sit here till the end of July. I am not surprised. I look on this Order Paper before us, and I find that we have now to deal with the second readings of twenty-five Bills. In all my parliamentary experience, and I think in the experience of all hon. members, such a state of affairs has never yet occurred. And these are Government measures; I am not taking into account the number of private measures. Not only have we this enormous number of Bills—some of them among the most important we have to deal with for a long time—but these are not all; a good deal has still to come. I do not really know how we are to progress with the business of this House. I have never seen such a congestion of work, such a state of muddle, as we are in, this Parliament. I agree with the hon. member that in estimating for the end of July he is making a very moderate estimate indeed. I do wish to enter a very serious complaint against the state into which public business has lapsed. From day to day we do not know what we are to deal with. The hon. Minister of Mines introduced his Diamond Control Bill some weeks ago. He began his speech and then two weeks elapsed before he resumed it. Again some time elapsed before the House again dealt with this matter. Take the case of the Mines and Works Bill. It has been before the House for some time. A debate took place and now the Bill has dropped on the Order Paper and we do not know when we shall reach it again. I think we have reason to complain. We want to get on with the work, and it is impossible to make any progress while the Order Paper is in this state of utter chaos and confusion. I see no policy, only muddle, which will waste a lot of time.

A red herring.

Nor is this all. I find looking at the Governor-General’s speech that the most important work for this Session has not yet been brought before us. I am going to mention some of the Bills referred to in the Governor-General’s speech. There is the Bill dealing with the constitution for South-West Africa—a matter which must necessarily be of very grave importance and lead to much discussion in this House. It has not yet been brought forward. There is the Financial Relations Bill, which will probably be one of the most important bills to be dealt with this session; there is a Bill adumbrated to render uniform all trade licences in the Union—a most contentious measure as anyone who has given the matter attention will admit. There is a Bill promised to render uniform the taxation of natives—also one of the most difficult and ticklish Bills that could be brought before this House. There is also a Railway Construction Bill promised; a Railway and Harbour Service Bill; and Irrigation Bill to deal with the whole question of irrigation in the Union, and the Budget which will take a lot of our time. I ask both sides of the House: Is it possible with this tremendous congestion of work before us—and all the first-class work still to come forward in the Bills I have mentioned, and which were mentioned in the Governor-General’s speech—are we likely to finish this year, in the way business is now being conducted?

That is obstruction.

There is no obstruction in this House. I have watched the proceedings very carefully and everybody knows the House has a natural pace and it goes at that pace. For years I have sat in this House and sometimes I have become impatient at the progress made, but it is impossible to accelerate the pace. Members wish to speak and the result is that business does not proceed beyond a certain pace. And we are face to face with this situation now. We have already 25 Bills, some of first-class importance, juddled with from day to day, which makes business unintelligible.

You know that is not true.

Every member knows it is true. We do not know from day to day what we are going to deal with. Every morning hon. members see for the first time the business for the day and it is altered from day to day. One day a Bill is in front and then its position is altered. I hope the hon. Prime Minister will give his attention to this matter. I know it is very difficult to regulate the business of the House, but the Prime Minister is leader of the House and he ought to take what steps he can to expedite the business. I implore him to give his serious attention to this subject in order that we may get on. I now come to the subject that has been the main topic of debate this afternoon. I listened with amazement to the speech that has been made by the Minister of the Interior. He is the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission. They are officials who are under him. He has to protect them and to speak for them in this House, and we have seen the chivalry with which he has done that to-night. The Minister withdrew the remarks in which he referred to me, but that did not trouble me. He has to apologize to the Public Service Commission. Let me say, just to answer that one point of the Minister’s, that I last saw or had communication with these three gentlemen who constitute the Public Service Commission a few days before I left the Government. On that occasion I sent for them, and if the Minister will ask them he will hear what I said to them. I said there was going to be a change of Government; that they had done their best in the public interest in the years behind, and I asked them to give my successors the same support in every way that they had given to me. That is the last communication I have had with the Public Service Commission, or with any of its members. Now the hon. Minister, who has to defend those gentlemen and speak for them, makes this gross attack upon them in this House. I have certain ideas of what is due to gentlemen and what chivalry means.

And what public decency means.

All I can say is that it is not the argument the hon. Minister used to-night that I am concerned with, but the spirit in which he spoke, the spirit of bitter hostility and want of appreciation of men who are doing their best for the country. I am very sorry. If these are to be the relations between the Minister and the Public Service Commission I fear what is going to happen in the public service of this country. The Minister is there to co-operate with those gentlemen, to defend them and guide them if he thinks they are wrong, but not to attack them; to besmirch them, or to take away their honour as he has done to-night. The hon. Minister has referred to two difficulties in the service. He referred to the difficulties of the translators, and to the expenses and difficulties there are in the service. We admit that. Every hon. member knows that that is the position. We have a bilingual country and it is a difficult system to work and you will continue to have these difficulties whilst you have people in the country who are not perfectly bilingual. For years we have tried to work out a fundamental compromise on which we can work the system. There are two languages and two peoples living and working together in the interest of the country. We have come to certain compromises and we ask that these compromises should be properly observed. They are embodied in the Acts of Parliament. We need not argue about the Acts of Union or about the A.B.C. of the case. We have finally passed certain Acts, and the language question and the question of civil service, English-speaking and Dutch-speaking, has been settled by compromise. We should in loyalty try to observe the compromise. That is all we ask. In all the debate this afternoon there has been no question of racialism. It should be a question of fair play between man and man. It is not a question of racialism at all. In the report which the commission has issued, I see no signs of racialism. They are doing their duty, and we ask in a spirit of fair play to both races, to people who speak English and Dutch in the country, that we shall administer the service of this country. We need not argue at large. If we were to try to make a compromise de novo it would take the whole session. We have done it in the laws of 1912 and 1923, and there we have said this, that the men who came in at Union, prior to 1912, are protected in all their existing and accruing rights. There is no question about that any more than there is about the men who came in before 1912—they are protected in their existing and accruing rights. That is the provision that is laid down in the South Africa Act, and it has never been touched by any later legislation. In regard to the men who came in after 1912, they obtained a certain time in which to qualify. Their entrance into the service, we said, will not be prevented on the ground that they are unilingaul, and their promotion will not be blocked on the ground that they are unilingual. A certain time has been given them, and we have given them this period of five years. That is the language compromise which we have worked out after all the trouble of the past, and we have embodied it in Acts of Parliament, and both sides have co-operated in passing those Acts. We should not now try to work out new terms and a new settlement.

What new terms are you complaining about?

I think the service and the country are entitled to know that these laws are being carried out in letter and in spirit. The Public Service Commission has recommended a number of cases. It is part of our law that the Government has the final say and the commission does not do more than recommend. If the Government departs from the recommendations of the commission that fact shall be reported to Parliament. I do not see why the Minister gets angry over this; he seems to get into a fury because these men have shown considerable courage in reporting these cases to Parliament. This is not the first time they have done so.

Why courage?

I think it requires a great deal of courage in the case of a Minister who shows such passion and prejudice. The Minister says they have reported me and other Ministers. He is quite right in blaming me in that way, but do not let him get angry and insult these commissioners in the grossest terms in this House.

At whose instigation?

When I was reported I left the case to Parliament and I am told an Indemnity Act was required. I certainly never insulted the commission, but submitted to the law of the land, and that is all we ask the present Government to do, and not to show this complete absence of sportsmanship. Let me say in passing that the Minister referred to a case that happened in 1913, when I was Minister of the Interior, and when we—in opposition to a recommendation of the commission—regraded a certain post. Well, I do not remember the particular facts, but I remember the general situation as it existed then. I was Minister of the Interior and of Finance. In those days the Act of 1912, while it gave the Public Service Commission this power of making recommendations in regard to the service, did not give them the power to regulate the grades of pay, that matter being settled by the treasury.

What about two hundred senior officers who were passed over?

I am dealing with this matter where the Minister blames me and there is a perfect answer to it. A select committee, I am reminded, went into the matter. I know that, whatever was done, was done bona fide, and if it was wrong I accepted the ruling of Parliament on the matter.

Is not this done bona fide?

Well, here the position seems to be re-opened by the acts of Ministers and that is what troubles me. These fundamental compromises relating to the public service and to the language question seem to me to be reopened in practice now by Ministers. Take the case of the lady typist, merely a trivial case in itself, but it is a case of the law. The Act of 1923 lays down that this lady, who had been appointed on probation in the service, and whose probation could be confirmed, if she was otherwise suitable and recommended at the end of twelve months, would then have five years to qualify in the other language. The Act gave her the right to be appointed and she gets five years in which she can qualify. The Minister of Agriculture, however, says: “No; the Act may give you that right, but I shall not give you that right, and you will not be confirmed.” I do not say that he acted with any evil intention in the matter, but it is a departure from the Act of 1923. Here we have come to a definite compromise. It is not a matter of dispute; it is a matter of clear law, to which all parties in this House consented. The Minister, in administering the Act, says: “No; I differ from that position, I don’t see why this lady should have another five years; I am not going to confirm.” We do not know whether that is not going to be done in many other cases. If the Minister were to proceed in this spirit in other cases, too, he nullifies the Act of 1923, and all we ask is this: That we should apply these Acts; that we should maintain the letter and the spirit of these Acts, and that, whether a case is important or whether it is trivial, we should stick to these Acts.

Did you always do that?

Supposing I didn’t; is that an argument? Supposing we may have erred here in particular cases, surely that is no reason why we should not point out and discuss the matter now that it comes before Parliament in the statutory way, and why we should not show the Government what, I think, they themselves must admit, that in a case like this they have gone wrong.

The case of the typist?

The case of the typist is a clear breach of that Act. I say that if the Minister proceeds or other Ministers proceed on these lines, the result will be that the unilingual person cannot be taken into the service. The unilinguals have the right to get into the service, if otherwise qualified, up to 1928. That is the provision of the law. But what the Minister has done is that, while the law says 1928, he says now that no further option and no further time will be given. It is impossible; you cannot work the service of this country on that basis. Take the other case, the case of Mr. Venn and Mr. Pienaar. I must admit I have a certain amount of sympathy for the conclusion to which the Minister has come in this case, and for this reason. I want to be fair because we are dealing with a matter which should not be one of party politics. There are some things which should be agreed upon by us all, and not come into party politics.

And what about your newspapers?

I do admit that in the case of a secretary to a department who comes into very close relations with the Minister that there is a case where the Minister has a very material say, even more so than in other cases. But even admitting that, the Minister will agree that the procedure he followed in this case is perfectly reprehensible.

Why?

He admits he does not know the service.

I knew Mr. Venn was not a suitable man.

He heard about Mr. Pienaar, and sent for him, and no sooner has he seen him than he offers him this post and suggests his appointment to the Public Service Commission.

That is not what he said.

They told me themselves he was a good man.

He writes to them that he had an interview with Mr. Pienaar, whom he had asked to come over from Louis Trichardt, and he says his personal acquaintance with him has fully confirmed the good reports he has had, and he considers him eminently suitable for the post of Secretary for the Interior. He continues: “He is quite willing to accept if the offer is definitely made to him.”

After discussion with the Public Service Commission.

All the commission had said on the question of his ability was that Mr. Pienaar was a good man. That the Minister may take as common cause. Mr. Pienaar is a very able man; he is a gentleman who has held very important posts, and who has always acquitted himself well. Nobody would object to him on the score of his ability, and I do not think a word has been said against his ability on this side of the House.

Why do you complain, then?

I will tell you. The Minister sends for this gentleman, whom he does not know, and after some private conversation with him, at once makes this offer, and Mr. Pienaar says he is willing to accept the post. I think this procedure is the essence of wrongness in this matter.

What is wrong in it?

It depends on the personal and arbitrary discretion of the Minister.

What should he have done?

He should have gone into the claims of others, too. Suppose in every case this sort of thing were followed? The result would be the hon. Minister, when he wanted to make an appointment, instead of acting on the recommendation of the commission would just hear of “X,” a good man, have a conversation, and appoint him. You see it departs from the whole security that the service has in the existence of the Public Service Commission.

You mean that he should have approached the commission?

The Public Service Commission is the regulator in the service. Here you have a vast service with thousands and tens of thousands of servants to all of whom justice has to be done. If a Minister were to use his very limited opportunity and knowledge of the persons in the service in order to make appointments, there would be absolutely no security in the service. My hon. friend will admit that, I think. I admit in the case of Pienaar as secretary of a department the Minister should have a very substantial say, but if this procedure were generally followed, that the Minister went into these cases, there would be no security, and nobody would know whether kissing would not go by favour, and whether it would not be a case of the Minister carrying on a personal policy; all security of promotion and of fair play and justice would disappear. It is the very object for which this commission was appointed. The commission may not be perfect; it must be very difficult for a body like that to do perfect justice to the thousands and tens of thousands of civil servants. You will have cases where an officer remains stationary for some time. The hon. Minister has pointed out that Mr. Pienaar remained stationary for nine years, but that was due to the fact that he was a magistrate, and that it is very difficult to promote magistrates, because there are not many magistracies in the country. And although Mr. Pienaar remained stationary for some years, it is not likely that he would wish to exchange his position if it was proposed to appoint him outside of a magistracy. Surely where you have to deal with very large bodies while there may be individual complaints I am sure that on the whole the Public Service Commission has tried its level best to give fair play to every man, and justice can only be done by a body like that. If Ministers interview candidates or make personal appointments what We contemplated when we instituted this Public Service Commission will be undone, and all the efforts we made to ensure security and efficiency in the public service will be useless.

Was Capt. Lane’s appointment at the instance of the Public Service Commission?

You mean as secretary to the Prime Minister?

Yes.

I followed the same procedure as the Prime Minister has followed when he sent for the Public Service Commission. It is a very difficult department. It is in control of all the other departments, and comes in touch with the others. I asked them to consider whether the reorganization on such and such lines would not be possible.

That is quite right.

Then they went into the question and made certain recommendations. I see the Prime Minister adopted the same course, which is perfectly correct. I think the Public Service Commission has the right to be advised by the Minister in regard to the general organization of his department. I am sure the hon. Minister of Labour when he came to institute his new department had his ideas as to the fundamental arrangements and, these I hope he imparted to the Public Service Commission.

It was wrong to do that, according to you.

This is the guarantee we have in this country for the public service, that all appointments should go through the Public Service Commission. If the Public Service Commission is to be pushed aside there would be absolutely no security and it would be an evil day for the public service of this country.

Are we pushing them aside?

The Prime Minister sat by without a word when hon. members opposite stated that they were in favour of the abolition of the Public Service Commission. The Minister of Justice stated that he was in favour of the abolition of this body, and the Prime Minister did not protest when the grossest attack I have ever heard in this House was made on that body. In these circumstances, I think the public service do not know where they are. The Government is taking away the very corner-stone of the whole security that has been afforded the public service in this country. I have discussed the cases of Messrs. Venn and Pienaar and now come to that of Dr. Geldenhuys. I do not wish to go into particulars; this may be done by others more conversant with the facts. But the Act of 1923 laid down that appointments shall be made from amongst members of the service and nobody will be appointed outside the service unless there is no suitable person in the service. That is the provision of the law which applies to Mr. Lamont and the appointment of Dr. Geldenhuys. The Minister has simply pushed that aside. I should like to ask the Minister what incentive men in the service have to give good service, to make themselves efficient, if they know that to-morrow a new Government may come in which will appoint their own friends from outside the service. It destroys the Act It is a flagrant contradiction not only of the Act, but destroys the whole spirit of the service and makes for inefficiency. These are the points we have to bear in mind. We have laid down fundamental compromises in our Acts. Let the Minister stick to them. Because the Minister has an individual fancy do not let us pass by good men in the service. There is no question of the ability of Mr. Lamont for the position for which he was recommended. On the merits he has superior competence to Dr. Geldenhuys. The Minister seems to have been impressed by the fact that the latter has a university degree. I do not know the gentleman. He may be a capable young fellow; but all we know in his favour is that he has a university degree in economics. On the other hand Mr. Lamont has spent years and years of first class work in the service qualifying for this position.

Was he promised that?

I am speaking of his qualifications. For years he has been doing this work. When Dr. Geldenhuys was at school in America Mr. Lamont was doing this work at the Elsenburg School. One might say here that so high was the opinion held of him that Mr. Spilhaus, when he was to retire recently from his appointment, considered that Mr. Lamont should be his successor. After looking round Mr. Spilhaus thought Mr. Lamont was the best man to succeed him. That shows not the opinion of the Government but what one of the highest experts in our economics, in the marketing of our products, thought of Mr. Lamont. He recommended Mr. Lamont to be his successor in Europe. I offered Mr. Lamont the post but he said “No.”

On the recommendation of the Public Service Commission?

No; the position is not in the public service. Mr. Lamont replied that he preferred to have this other post which had been promised him on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission.

Had it been premised to him?

He had been sent to Europe to qualify.

For what post?

This post of Director of Economics now filled by Dr. Geldenhuys. There can be no doubt about the competence of Mr. Lamont for this post. We know it from past experience. It is not a case of a university degree. The Minister attaches great importance to them. It is good to have university degrees; but in the marketing of our products, in the economic regulation of South Africa, I would far rather be guided by a person of Mr. Lamont’s qualifications and experience than by a gentleman who is fresh from an American university. That is my point. I do not wish to labour it. We are not trying to thrash out a new course. We are not trying to explore a new relationship in the service or between the races or in the language question of this country. It has all been laid down after years of debate and struggle by Acts of Parliament. We ask the Ministers—and the Service is also entitled to ask the Ministers—that these fundamentals should be carried out faithfully both in the letter and the spirit, but they are not carried out so long as the Public Service Commission is an object of attack from the Government, or so long as the Minister who is responsible for the Commission comes into this House, not only with taunts and insults, but with expressions so gross that I do not think they have been parallelled. With regard to the Commission and the language question, our whole course is embodied in Acts of Parliament. The Commission has reported that in this case those Acts are not being carried out by the Minister, and the Commission has done so rightly. All I would ask the Government to do is to stick to the letter and spirit of the law, for only in that way can you have a contented and an efficient Public Service.

The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) closed his speech by referring to Mr. Lamont. Mr. Lamont according to him went to America with the promise that when he returned he would get a post here. May I ask the hon. member who gave him the assurance?

The Public Service Commission.

Really, will the hon. member show me where the Public Service Commission get the right of doing so. Where do you find the right.

It is contained in the whole Act.

Do hon. members now see the nonsense which is here laid down by the late Prime Minister under whom the irregularity took place. He now wants to shuffle it off on to the Public Service Commission. But how can the Commission promise?

It happened after he came back.

Where is the recommendation of the Commission to be found? Where is it? And I ask again did he not tell the House that an appointment had been promised to Mr. Lamont before he went to America? Is that not what he said? Did he not say that Mr. Lamont went to America to get experience while he was at the same time promised an appointment when he came back? Then the hon. member says again that the promise was made after he came back. But who makes a promise after someone comes back? When he comes back the Government comes to him and asks him if he will accept the appointment. But let me assume that this is so, then the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) ought to be the last to complain that we have not acted according to the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. No, it is now very clear to me that the hon. member has again made a slip of the tongue. And now I understand quite clearly why the attack is made upon the hon. Minister for the Interior. I do not like to say anything personal. Mr. Lamont may be the most competent man, but I can quite understand why they on the other side of the House now make this attack. It is of course that they are in a difficult position having given the promise of appointment and the National Government not having appointed the person. Now they are disappointed. But what strikes me so much also is that during this session for the fifth time an attack is now made based on racial feeling or on language, always with the intention and object of arousing a feeling against the Government and against the Nationalist party in the country. Practically for no other reason than what I said the other day, namely, to be able to tell the country “there you have now what we said.” But yet in each instance they did not go far or they had to turn round, to retreat and run away and several times the flight had to be covered by a speech by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and if he rises then he stands there and talks as from a high moral platform and he can do that in such a way that one would think that it was absolutely his metier. All this time he is engaged in covering the flight and I must say that I cannot imagine a more disastrous defeat than what hon. members on the other side have suffered to-day by the speech of the Minister of the Interior. The speech of the hon. member for Standerton is quite easily understood. If an enemy retreats then he generally uses his batteries to fire on another point in order to distract attention. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) also considered it necessary to distract attention and so he directed his batteries upon a remark by the Minister for the Interior. A remark which was made without prior consideration. Everybody knows that it was not done with previous consideration. It is true that the Minister was guilty of the remark, namely, that he did not know from whom the instructions to the Public Service Commission had come. Possibly from the hon. member for Standerton. It was a momentary indiscretion. The Minister did not do it intentionally. But now it is represented by the hon. member for Standerton that it was done intentionally. And it is not so. It is only his way of distracting attention. There was no malice in it.

Let him make an apology then.

That is another matter. It is the misuse that the hon. member has made of it. Intentional misuse of which a man in his position should not be guilty. Well the attack has failed. We may perhaps have another small skirmish about Mr. Venn but that will be all. The hon. member for Standerton has called the conduct of the Minister “reprehensible,” namely, the way in which he went to work in appointment of Mr. Pienaar. He called it blameworthy. The hon. member thinks that after the Commission had recommended Mr. Venn and the Minister would not act on the recommendation that it was the duty of the Minister to consult the Commission about Mr. Pienaar notwithstanding that Mr. Pienaar is an extraordinarily competent man. But now I would like to ask the hon. member for Standerton a question. Would he have consulted the Commission for the second time if he had said in advance that he wanted a bilingual man and the Commission had replied that they thought that was not necessary. Would he do that? No, he would not do it either. That statement has shocked my confidence in the Commission entirely. It is the duty of the Commission to see that appointments in the Government service are made in accordance with the provision with the constitution. But if the Commission says that in the highest appointments in the land bilingualism is not necessary then they thereby give a great shock to the confidence which we ought to have in that Commission. They have given me the greatest shock which I have ever had from any responsible person or body. I would like to ask the hon. member for Standerton if he agrees with the view of the Commission. I have the greatest respect for the Commission. I was always one of the greatest protagonists of the Commission. We have, however, here to do with a Commission that is one sided. The former Government never saw to it that the other party was represented on it. The Commission so strongly inclines to the one side that I do not know if we can blame the Commission for its action. After the Commission had stated that a bilingual person was not necessary for the appointment of Secretary to the Interior we cannot require of the Minister that he should go for the second time to the Commission for a new recommendation. The Commission recommended a unilingual person and when the Minister would not approve could he then go again to the Commission to make another recommendation out of the 9 bilingual candidates that there were? Could he leave to the Commission the choice amongst them? After the statement of the Commission as it appears from the report the Minister could not do it. The Minister was entirely justified in not accepting the recommendation of the Commission and moreover the Commission has no claim to make a second recommendation. The law does not allow it. I go further and I say that a second recommendation was intentionally taken away from the Commission by the Act. The law provides that the Commission shall make recommendations. The Government, however; is not obliged to accept the recommendation. If it is rejected then the Commission must report the matter to Parliament. The Commission has; however, no right to make a second recommendation. It is so remarkable to me that the hon. member for Standerton who has followed the same practice in the past who has also rejected the recommendations of the Commission now comes with comments upon the action of the Minister. After the passing of the Act of 1912 the former Government proceeded to set aside the recommendation of the Commission and now they make it appear as if they were entirely innocent. Now they raise their hands and I would almost say they are like the man in the Bible who called out at the corners of the street “I thank the Lord that I am not like them.” They are not so innocent. It is the duty of the Opposition from time to time when the Government does not accept the recommendation of the Commission to ask the Government for an explanation that is their duty. The supervision of the Opposition is necessary. The Government must give an account. It is, however, a fact that the Government has been given the opening to reject the recommendations of the Commission, if it is considered in the interests of the State to do so. Where the Government think that a better man could be appointed to the post and recommended by the Commission then it is the duty of the Government to do so. The Commission is appointed to take off the shoulders of the Government the great work in connection with the Public Service and to see that no misuse is made of the power of appointment. The Legislature was, however, sufficiently sensible to give the Government the right to make appointments in conflict with the recommendations of the Commission.