I move—

Before explaining in detail the various provisions of this intricate and highly technical measure, I should, first of all, like to make a few remarks of a general nature. In broad outline and with the exception of several rather important innovations, the Bill is a non-contentious measure, and is the outcome of consultation and of the common thought of Parliament. As older members of the House will remember, there was very deep dissatisfaction displayed with the working of the existing electoral law for quite a considerable time. This was especially the case after the experience gained in two successive general elections which followed each other very closely. I refer to those of 1920 and 1921. During the latter year we had long debates in this House in which a great variety of complaints were voiced. These resulted in the appointment of a Select Committee, which made a thorough enquiry, and also made a number of very important recommendations. Without a division, the report of this Select Committee was adopted, and the Minister concerned was charged with the introduction of legislation accordingly. In general the present Bill follows the lines of those recommendations, that is to say as far as they go. In the second place, I think it is necessary at this stage to emphasize that the Bill is an electoral and not a franchise Bill. It has everything to do with the exercise, and the correct exercise, and the protection of the vote, which has been conferred under other laws, but it has nothing, or really very little, to do with the right to vote. In the popular mind and, I am afraid, in the minds of many hon. gentlemen, these two are not always clearly distinguished. I have, therefore, been continually asked such questions as whether I am going to make provision for the enfranchisement of students, trekboere, diggers and even that embarrassing and hardy annual, the enfranchisement of women. I have been asked whether the Bill is to embrace such a far-reaching measure as the consolidation of the franchise laws of the four Provinces, or the re-adjustment of the native and coloured franchise. To people in whose minds there exists this evident confusion, and who consequently have this wide conception of my legislative responsibility in this particular respect, the Bill must appear very restricted in its scope, very undersized, and very disappointing, but there is a wide difference between a franchise bill and an electoral bill, and both must be dealt with by this House separately. As I intimated before, a franchise bill has to do with the qualification to vote; an electoral bill has to do with the enrolment of a voter, and the exercise of his acquired right, the protection of the voter and of the public generally. The time will come for the revision of our franchise laws, but the Bill before the House is purely electoral. In the third place I wish to state at this stage that in my opinion the Bill is par excellence, one which after the second reading should go to a Select Committee. Where the subject-matter is so very involved, and where in the interests of public morality and public confidence it is so necessary that at every stage the electoral machine shall work without a hitch or a flaw, it would be dangerous to leave the Bill for amendment merely to the Committee of the whole House. After the second reading has been taken I shall therefore move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. Coming to the Bill itself I may say that, broadly speaking, it falls into three divisions. The first proposes to improve the machinery of registration so as to ensure a more correct enrolment of voters. The second deals with the conduct of elections in which some rather radical alterations are proposed. And the third proposes a tightening-up of the provisions dealing with illegal practices and the closing up of loopholes, which the ingenuity of eager aspirants to parliamentary honours or their too ardent followers have dug through the ramparts of pure politics and the law. In the machinery of registration the Bill proposes four rather important alterations: The first is the appointment of a chief electoral officer for the whole Union with assistant electoral officers for the Union or any part thereof. It must be evident to everyone who looks at our existing law that our registration and electoral work lack unity and co-ordination. Registration work has quite correctly been done locally and Under local supervision, and will continue to be so done, but there has certainly been too great a disregard for that central control which alone can ensure uniformity and efficiently. There is undoubtedly a great need for some person or persons to gather the reins into their hands, who can make inspections and give advice and instructions, if needs be on the spot, and who are in general responsible under the law for the proper working of the whole machine. I may add here that there is no intention of any increase of the existing staff. Just as the Secretary for Public Health is, under the Public Health Act, also the Chief Health Officer of the Union; so it is intended that the Secretary for the Interior shall also be the chief electoral officer for the Union. The second improvement in the machinery of registration consists in the better division of responsibility in each separate electoral division. Under the existing Act there is only one registering officer for a whole division, and divisions like Namaqualand, Gordonia, Calvinia and others may comprise several magisterial districts and cover many hundreds of square miles. This registering officer may, it is true, have assistant registering officers, but their powers are limited, and they are responsible to the chief registering officer though he may never have visited their section and may know nothing of it. Under the Bill an electoral division may be sub-divided for registration purposes, and polling districts may be grouped together under registering officers, who are all co-equal in status and powers. The third improvement is the abolition of the registering officer’s objection court. According to the existing law two separate objection courts must be held, the first by the registering officer after the completion of his provisional roll, when persons left off may object and apply to be put on again, and persons put on may be objected against. The second objection court is held by the revising officer. Now experience has clearly shown that the first objection court serves no useful purpose and merely leads to unnecessary delay and expense. As a rule all claims and objections not upheld at the first objection court go, as a matter of course, to the second, and the whole process is simply repeated over again. The Bill now proposes to do away with the registering officer’s objection court, and in substitution therefor to lay on the registering officer the obligation to lay before the revising officer to be finally dealt with (a) his original provisional list, (b) the list of claims he has thereafter allowed, and (c) the list of removals and of disallowed claims. The falling away of the revising officer’s objection court will undoubtedly very much simplify the existing machinery. The fourth alteration of importance in the existing machinery is the institution of a supplementary registration every three months. Or, to be more correct, in the year in which there is a biennial registration there will be supplementary registrations in September and December, and during the following year one in March, one in June, one in September, and one in December. I fully realize that the institution of what I would call a quarterly supplementary registration is a point about which there may be great difference of opinion. If one considers the migratory habits of our young and fast-developing country and especially the migratory habits of the urban population, there is much to be said in favour of it. On the other hand, there is no doubt about it that a quarterly supplementary registration may, under certain circumstances, entail a great deal of trouble and expense, especially in the Cape Province with franchise qualifications which do not exist in the other Provinces. And there is no doubt that without proper safeguards it may be abused in such a way that it may directly play into the hands of the money-power. I have included this provision in the Bill because it was a recommendation of the Select Committee of 1921, but I must say that I have done so with more or less an open mind. In any case if this provision is adopted by the Select Committee I shall insist upon the necessary safeguards against the dumping of claims on registration officers which have only shortly before been refused and disposed of. Apart from the machinery of registration, there are in the existing law certain anomalies which the Bill seeks to remove, and certain improvements which it seeks to effect so as to ensure a more correct enrolment. Under the existing law a person can become a voter in the cape Province, either on an occupation qualification, or on a salary or wage qualification. But this qualification, which must cover the whole year previous to registration, must be acquired, as the law now stands, within the Province. This is distinctly in contradiction to the principle of consolidation resulting from Union, and it is a hardship in the case of persons otherwise qualified who change their domicile from the other Provinces to the Cape. The Bill removes this anomaly and makes it possible for persons registering in the Cape Province to acquire their qualification anywhere in the Union or South-West Africa. As far as franchise privileges are concerned, in case they should remove the Union, the inhabitants of South-West Africa, are therefore treated, as hon. gentlemen will see, as if they were inhabitants of the Union. Under the existing law, registration is dependent upon a residential qualification covering a fixed period really only in one province, that is in the Cape. In the Cape Province, a claimant must have actually resided in the electoral division for at least three months before he can be registered. In the Transvaal and the Free State he is merely required to satisfy the registering officer that he is actually living there, and even if he had arrived only the previous day he is entitled to be enrolled on the voters’ list. In Natal, as usual, they go to two opposite extremes at the Same time. A man in Natal who wishes to become a voter on account of income must have resided in a particular constituency for at least six months, but a man merely owning or renting property in a constituency may become a voter without living in the constituency at all. In fact, he may live anywhere, even in Great Britain or Holland or Siberia. It needs no explanation or argument to show to what abuses this may lead, and how easy it is under this System to manipulate the registration of voters for party political purposes, especially in urban areas. In this connection it must not be forgotten that the Transvaal and Free State laws in contrast to that of the Cape Province, do not require any period of residence in the electoral division generally as a necessary preliminary to registration. The Bill now lays down a three months’ residential qualification in the electoral division for registration any-where within the Union. Under the existing law in the Cape it is quite possible for a claimant to occupy premises in one division and earn salary or wages in another, and thus be registered in either division. As a matter of tact he is often registered in both.

He does not exercise two

According to the law, however, he has the right to choose, and he must do so; otherwise the registering officer must choose for him. It is easy to see to what abuse this choice which exists may lead, and has actually led, I am afraid, oh a very extensive scale. Duplication of names is very difficult to avoid, and the manipulation of registration in the interests of a particular political party by means of a carefully thought-out scheme of distribution, becomes an easy matter, and I am afraid an irresistible temptation. The Bill now proposes to abolish the choice and lays down that in all cases of dual qualifications a claimant must be registered where he resides. There are several more or less important improvements which the Bill proposes, to ensure correct enrolment. One is, the requirement that forms of claim must be signed, not by one witness, as hitherto, but by two. This makes evasion of the education test a little more difficult. Experience, especially in the Cape Province, shows that it is not beyond human powers and political ingenuity to testify that a man who cannot distinguish between an “A” and a “B” has written correctly, without his hand being guided in any way, his name in full, as well as his occupation and address. The presence and the testimony of two witnesses is, I admit, no absolute safeguard, but, any way, it is a general rule that declarations and documents are signed not by one, but by two witnesses, and there is such a psychological effect as the re-inforcement of one weak conscience by another. The Bill further empowers the registering officer to require, at a biennial registration, any one who is a possible claimant to complete a form of claim so as to make sure that he is qualified, or is still qualified, or has not been assisted to evade the meagre educational test which the law lays down. Hitherto the registering officer at a biennial registration required the completion of such a form of claim from new claimants, but could not require it from any person on the existing voters’ roll. From these he could only require information on a specified form. The Bill also makes it possible for the canvasser in future to be one of the two competent witnesses to complete the form of claim. This means, in practice, that forms of claim will as a rule be completed in the presence of the canvasser, and as his conscience is supposed to be the official conscience which is responsible to the Government and to Parliament, it means that the conscience of the unofficial and mostly party-political witness is reinforced ultimately by the national conscience. On one other point the Bill seeks to ensure correct registration. That is where it proposes to safeguard the public against mistakes of a technical nature, sometimes committed, not by claimants but by officials. Everybody will remember the disenfranchisement at Bloemfontein, some years ago, of a large number of qualified persons for no other reason than that wrong forms of claim had been issued to them by responsible officials and filled in by them, and therefore disallowed. The Bill now lays down that a claimant of whose eligibility for registration the revising officer is satisfied, shall not be disqualified merely on account of the prescribed form of claim not having been used 0f on account of it not having been properly filled in, signed and witnessed. A repetition of the Bloemfontein incident which may turn the scale in an election, and would be most unjust, is therefore impossible in future. Coming now to the conduct of elections I may explain that the improvements which the Bill proposes fall under three heads. The first is the granting of greater facilities to the enfranchised voters to exercise their vote; the second is the better prevention of double voting and personation and the provision of better means of detection in cases that occur, and better safeguards against their possible influence on the result of an election. The third consists in the better safeguarding of the secrecy of the ballot. The improvement of the facilities in the exercise of the vote is first in regard to the extension of the hours for polling. Instead of being from 8 o’clock in the morning until 8 in the evening, polling will take place between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. The extension will be an advantage especially to the working classes, and the necessity for it will be the more apparent when it is considered that under another clause of the Bill voters with a double qualification will have to be registered and vote not where they earn their salary or wages but where they reside. Between 7 o’clock and 8 in the morning and between 7 and 8 in the evening it is presumed that everyone, wherever he earns his wages or salary, will be in his native constituency. The chief provision for better facilities consists in the extension of the method of voting by post in the case of absent voters. Everyone will agree with me when I say that if it can be worked with safety this expedient will be found to be of immense advantage from the point of view of both convenience and expense. As I said before, in a new and fast developing country like ours there is a good deal of migration going on; besides which large numbers of voters are often found to be absent even in rural areas on account of natural conditions, as for instance farmers trekking with their sheep during periods of drought, in which cases under the existing law it is impossible for them to vote, or they only do so at great expense to themselves, or, what I fear is more often the case, as the result of a flagrant or thinly-veiled breach of the law. Their travelling and other expenses are often liberally paid for them, and as a rule the dishonest candidate or party is not prosecuted. The money power in these circumstances has an enormous advantage, and the poor and honest candidate is penalized. I may say here that the expedient of voting by post is not a new one, and in Great Britain and also Australia and New Zealand it has already stood the test of experience. In the Bill we have not slavishly followed the system of any one of these countries I have mentioned. We have taken the best features in all, and adapted them to our own needs. As far as I can judge, our scheme is safer than any of the models we have had before us, but in any case I hope our provision in the Bill will be keenly scrutinized by all hon. members, and especially by the Select Committee, and that all will co-operate to devise the best system possible. Double voting and personation the Bill seeks to prevent more effectively than before in three ways. The first is by the abolition of the right of the voter in municipal areas to vote in another polling district than his own if such other polling district also falls within the same or a contiguous municipal area. Double voting and personation chiefly occur in large and populous centres where the individual is as a rule not personally known at the polling booths, and where polling stations are within walking distance of each other. In rural areas polling stations are miles apart, and the voter is expected to make considerable sacrifice to record his vote; and if he happens to be in another polling district it is only right that he should be granted the facility of voting on declaration. But it is difficult to see why in an urban area a man should vote on declaration within that area when his own polling district is only a couple of hundred yards away.

A further provision of the Bill is to make it possible to detect double voting at a stage where its influence on the result can still be prevented or otherwise properly dealt with. It is provided that declaration votes shall be in future dealt with in a way analogous to tendered votes; that is to say up to a certain stage. They are not to be directly dropped into the ballot-box but kept apart until the ballot-paper account has been verified by the returning officer, and the marked copies of the voters’ lists have been compared. This comparison, which under the existing law either took place after the counting of the votes or, as was more often the case, did not take place at all, will now take place before the counting begins; in this way double votes will be eliminated. But, thirdly, the returning officer will be obliged to bring all cases of double voting to the notice of the Attorney-General. Under the existing law nobody seemed to have taken upon himself the responsibility to give this information, which might lead to further enquiry and prosecution. Under this Bill personation would cease to be merely a game of ingenuity and will become a highly dangerous venture. The secrecy of the ballot, which has not been quite effective in the past, is assured in two respects. The first is that the official mark, which had to be stamped on the face as well as on the back of the ballot paper, will in future be stamped only on the back. This means that in checking it would be unnecessary to unfold the ballot paper and thus enable the person who handles it to see both the number on the back and the cross made by the voter on the face.

Suppose he turns it over?

The second is that the presiding officer will now get the power effectively to prevent a chain being set up by the use of one false ballot-paper so as to make corruption effective. I may explain that, under existing circumstances, it would be quite possible to corrupt a number of voters. Let the first one vote on a false ballot-paper, which he drops undetected in the ballot-box, and make him bring out the genuine one which was handed to him; make Voter No. 2 draw his cross on it in the presence of his corrupter or his agent, and then send him in to drop it in the box and bring out his own genuine ballot-paper blank and so forth.

Whose suggestion is that?

The presiding officer will be empowered to break such a possible chain at any time by checking the number on the back of the ballot-paper before it is dropped in, and comparing it with his counterfoil. In connection with the requirements to make a true and faithful statement of election expenses the Bill proposes some alterations which are absolutely necessary, unless the whole requirements of the existing law shall remain a mere farce. Candidates are now required under oath and at their peril to render a detailed and accurate account of all items of electoral expenditure. That, as a rule, I believe they do, but sometimes they don’t. Candidates at the same time, are obliged to state whether any other person or group of persons have, to their knowledge, expended money on their behalf, and if so, how much, and in what way. On this point candidates are more often than not in profound ignorance. Even if they are not and the onus rests on them, they have no means of compelling such persons to make a statement of their expenditure, nor are these good friends of the candidates’ cause compelled to make an account to the returning officer on their own behalf. The result is that though a candidate himself is severely restricted, the expenditure by his party in connection with the organization, speakers, travelling expenses and the printing of tons of flap-doodle and misrepresentations goes on merrily and without any restriction whatsoever. The Bill does not go so far as to require that political parties, or persons, or groups of persons, shall disclose the origin of their election funds. That might be highly inconvenient to some of the contributors, and it might kill some party or other straight away—and we do need an opposition. The Bill does require, quite correctly, that parties, companies and associations expending money on an election in a particular constituency, or an election in general, shall keep proper books and vouchers and render a specified statement of all their election expenses, just as the candidate must do. This the Minister Publish for general information, and though no maximum is fixed—which would be difficult to do the publicity will certainly serve as a wholesome check on excessive expenditure, and on the ardour of moneyed interest. The books and vouchers, as hon. members will notice, can only be inspected in case of a prima facie contravention of the law, and by order of the court. To assist the authorities and the interested public, newspapers and printers will have to state what particular literature, including articles, have been paid for and how much, and by whom. For the preservation of the purity of elections and the protection of the public against exploitation by means of misleading and false statements, the Bill proposes several amendments to the existing law. There is a very marked tendency on the part of certain political organizations, to engage in philanthropic work so as to increase their influence. They give monetary assistance to the poor, and even maintain nurses to work on their behalf, and at election times quote their good deeds to gain the votes of those who have benefitted for their party candidates. This is evidently a new form of corruption. It is, therefore, proposed that political organizations may devote none of their funds to philanthropic purposes, and that societies established for philanthropic work may not devote money for political purposes. I acknowledge that there is some danger of hitting an association like the Temperance Alliance, which is really neither philanthropic in the ordinary sense, nor political, though they might devote funds to gain a certain end through Parliament, but I think that in Select Committee it will be possible to draw the dividing line clear and definite enough to be safe. Further, in the existing law it is laid down that the payment of a candidate so as to procure his withdrawal from the contest, is a corrupt and illegal practice. But it is not illegal to pay or to hold out a monetary inducement to a person to come forward as a candidate in order to split the vote. It is difficult to see any good reason for this discrimination. The Bill, therefore, proposes to declare the one as much as the other, an illegal practice. And now we come to the last, and to my mind, one of the best and most wholesome innovations of the Bill, namely, the provision that all electoral matter in newspapers and pamphlets, etc., must bear the name and address of the writer or responsible person. The principle involved here is not new. It is already in the existing Act, which requires posters, pamphlets and other printed electoral matter, to bear the names and addresses of printers and publishers, and which lays down that the spreading of certain false reports for the purpose of unduly influencing the result of the election, is an illegal and a corrupt practice. The Bill does not seek to extend this principle, but to apply it in such a way that it may have the desired effect, and raise the whole tone and level of our elections. Newspapers are undoubtedly a blessing as long as they are the interpreters and educators of public opinion, and for the general good, or even for their own party’s advancement, discuss public affairs. But they become a positive danger when, for party ends, they try to manipulate public opinion, by purposely giving partial or misleading or false information. This is especially the case at a time when the nation is called upon to make the most momentous decisions. The new journalism, which culls out of an opponent’s speech only that part which it can use for its own purpose, or which reports only the weakest or most insignificant portions, studiously excluding the most essential and forceful passages, so as to give the impression of weakness and insignificance, or which intensely distorts and falsifies, is unfortunately, not unknown in South Africa. I am very glad to see that this provision will have the general support of both sides of the House. We think it our duty to protect the physical health of the nation by protecting its food and drink against adulteration. What objection, therefore, can there be against the protection against the adulteration of the people’s intellectual and spiritual food, especially at a time when by correct information the people must be assisted to determine their own destiny. The Bill does not propose to set up a censorship. It does not propose to muzzle the Press as it has been represented, and I must say that this objection has lately been boiled down to the objection that the anonymity of the Press is in danger. The sacred anonymity of the Press, which is the same as the sacred right of a man to discharge his muzzle at any passer-by and then hide his head behind a rock. Newspapers will in future be as free as before to publish whatever they like. What the Bill requires is that before the bar of Public Opinion they and their contributors shall bear the full responsibility for what they publish. If they are allowed the fullest freedom to criticize and attack or to distort and misrepresent, the public cannot be denied the same liberty to fasten the blame, if there is blame, to whoever may be responsible for misleading reports or evident and wilful distortion or vile and unworthy attacks. I have never expected that this provision of the Bill would be popular with a certain section of the Press. “Die Burger” supports it. In some quarters there will, undoubtedly, be some more squealing. Well let them. But I certainly expect as a result of this provision much more fair play and truthfulness, a marked and general improvement in the whole tone of our elections, and in the standard of our public life, and much satisfaction on the part of the general public at the protection they will enjoy against being duped and exploited by those who are supposed to inform and guide them.

I thank the Minister for publishing the Bill in time to enable us to study it. Then I wish to compliment the Minister on his profound knowledge of the several methods by which the law can be and usually are evaded. I also compliment him on his sense of humour. Those gracefully thoughtout “impromptues” of his delighted us immensely. The Bill though published in ample time for us to study, unfortunately differs very considerably from the original publication in the “Gazette,” and some of us who studied it from the “Gazette” found it difficult to go back and get the real sense of the Bill as it stands to-day. However, I am thankful to the Minister for giving, us the opportunity of knowing what we are to discuss. It is a measure of great importance and bristles with complications. It must be read in conjunction with the 1918 Act, itself a complex measure requiring careful study. I feel there are few people in the country who thoroughly understand that Act, and this present Bill, though designed to simplify matters, complicates them. There are several new principles introduced into the Bill. It is impossible in the time at our disposal to consider them all. Let me consider a few of the chief, changes from our old principles, The most, complicated change is that of voting by post. This change has been copied from the Australian Act. The Minister tells us he has also taken into consideration the provisions of other Acts. I wish to show that the provision contains many undesirable features. The success or non-success of the principle in Australia is no criterion for South Africa. The registration and qualifications of voters, the methods of compiling the voters’ lists, and the method of conducting polls all have a bearing on the subject. Whilst voting in Australia is comparatively a simple matter, and a logical outcome of their electoral Acts, it presents in South Africa many grave difficulties which cannot easily be overcome. The Australian Act provides for one months’ residence to qualify the voter, it provides for compulsory registration and the compulsory transfers of removal to a new division it provides also for voting at any polling station, for the keeping of voters’ lists in a liquid state and for the counting of votes several days after the voting. The list is not printed but is always left there for the addition of names, and the printing is only done when an election is to take place. Then therefore few persons are likely to be absent on polling day, and certainly few persons will have their names on the roll in districts in which they no longer reside. Our laws are totally different. Our rolls are compiled biennially, and voters therefore may be on the roll for two years after leaving a district. There is no compulsion on him to transfer his vote; he may vote in a district where he has no interest whatever. The movements of the population in urban areas is so great that within a month of the completion of the roll there may be fifty per cent. removals. It takes some months to print the roll, and very often in that period there are forty to fifty per cent. of removals. The right to vote by post will discourage the transfer of names. The only remedy therefore is the compulsion to register and the compulsion to transfer. These are a few of the objections I see in regard to the principle of voting by post. Then we come to the regulations themselves, and these give rise to numerous objections. For example, there is no distance fixed as to how far a person must be from the nearest booth before he can vote by post. Though he may be twenty-five miles from the polling booth, he must, if he is within that division, vote in person, on the other hand if he is only one mile from the booth but outside his division he may vote by post. Then there is the provision that he must be able to sign an application form. We know there are many illiterate persons who to-day are entitled to be, and are, on the voters’ roll. Under no circumstances can these people vote by post, because they will not be able to sign the application form. We also have the provision in regard to competent witnesses. A “competent witness” may know a Mr. X, but cannot know that that Mr. X is the Mr. X who appears on the voters’ roll, and when he signs that application as Mr. X, he may really be disfranchising a man who is entitled to vote. On the application by an absentee to vote by post, his name is crossed off the roll as having received a ballot paper. In the hands of an unscrupulous person the provision for applications to vote by post may lead to the real person being deprived of the right of voting. Let me give an example; I am not referring to any particular body of men, but I merely use this as an example. A political agent can instruct hundreds of men on a mine, on diggings, and on relief works, where it is known there are large numbers of absentee voters, to appear before a person in order to mark their ballot papers. Witnesses are very easily provided. There is nothing to prevent trades union officials or any other person or persons similarly placed from becoming presiding officers, nor prevent them from becoming collectors of votes for delivery to the returning officer. Just imagine what might happen! The Minister was careful to say that the secrecy of the ballot should be maintained, but I can appreciate no position where the secrecy of the ballot will not be maintained so well, as in the case of voting by post, as provided for in this Bill. The grounds of objection to voting by post may be broadly summarised as follows. Candidates will be able to gauge the state of their progress since the absentee voter will in elections always be an unknown quantity. The personality of candidates will count for nothing, as the voter will merely be guided by the party label. In case of a by-election the contest in most cases is purely local and the absentee voter will be unable to record his vote with any knowledge of the issues at stake. Voting at elections prior to the day of polling cannot possibly be in the public interest. There are no means of recalling a vote posted ten days prior to any election. That must be undesirable because during the last ten days of an election so many things may occur, and the voter may not be in the position or of the same mind he was in when he voted. If voting by post is justified then a person who leaves his residence for another part of the Union within fourteen days of polling should be allowed to vote. Under this Bill if he leaves his residence within fourteen days he will not be allowed to cast his vote. If voting by post is desirable I think we should have a provision that a person who is not, less than 15 miles from the nearest polling area should be allowed to vote by post. Before receiving his ballot paper he should prove that he still, is resident in the district in which he wishes to vote and only persons who are temporarily away from the division on holiday or on business, or through illness, should be allowed to vote. Then again the ballot paper should be marked, not as suggested by this Bill, but should be marked before a magistrate, a returning officer, or an electoral officer. This paper should not be delivered as now suggested. The Minister will understand that that may lead to all sorts of intrigue and trouble. It should be delivered to a magistrate, a returning officer, or an electoral officer, who alone will be allowed to post that ballot paper to the returning officer. A person who is unable, through infirmity or illness to record his vote, is not now allowed to vote by post. Such a Person if he is proved to be unable to go to the polling booth, should be allowed to vote by post. I think the notification to the returning officer should be any time within seven days of the polling day. It would appear, but the Bill on this point is somewhat obscure, that there is now going to be compulsory registration. The Minister did not tell us whether his intention is that there should be compulsory registration; this point is not clear in the Bill. What also is not clear is whether it is intended to include the name of every resident even though not requested to sign the requisite form or whether only those residents whose addresses are known to the returning officer are to be called on so to sign. If compulsory registration is desired the only system on which you can proceed is to compel every person living in a district and who is qualified to fill in a form before a certain fixed day and if that person leaves that district for another district he must within a certain fixed period fill in a transfer form. Unless you have that your voting by post is going to be very cumbersome, it will have an evil effect and it will lead to all sorts of abuses. I feel that there is very little to be gained by compulsory registration, unless we also go in for compulsory voting. I cannot see the object of compulsory registration otherwise. While on the Australian Acts, I would like to commend this to the Minister. The Australian Acts are drawn in very simple terms so that they can be easily understood by the ordinary man, and I would suggest to the Minister that in an electoral act especially he should adopt the form of the Australian Acts. Then I want to remind the hon. Minister that in Australia the voters’ rolls are not printed at odd times, but are left in a liquid state, and further voters there are required to be resident only one month before registration. The principal Act provides for two supplementary registrations. It is now proposed to have four supplementary registrations per annum or one every three months. Supplementary registrations differ from biennial registrations in that they are not compiled by the registration officer as a result of a canvas but on a request for registration. I feel the more opportunity we can give to people to register the better for the country. There is, however, in this new system a further bearing on the question of compulsion. If compulsion is adopted it must also be extended to supplementary rolls. It is also of very little use to compel them to register by annual registration when you do not keep the rolls in liquid form, and you do not make them register their transfers as well. I notice the hon. Minister referred to one day’s residence in Australia. According to the principal Act a person at a biennial registration could have his name placed on the roll after one day’s residence. This evidently is a drafting error, since three months’ qualification is laid down under the section dealing with supplementary rolls. The three months’ residential qualification now suggested will affect the registration of voters in the Cape Province very materially. At present the Cape voter may register where he earns his livelihood or where he resides. By this Bill he has no choice, but must register where he resides. The Cape voter therefore on the first change over will be in a parlous position. He will lose his right to register where he earns his salary and may not have qualified to register where he lives. That is an important point. It seems to me that no person—I know of course that several hon. members will not agree with me—is entitled to register where he earns his livelihood any more than a landlord is justified in registering where he collects his rent. The residential qualification will create a more uniform system of registration. I cannot agree with the hon. Minister in regard to his remarks about philanthropic work. Our present Act makes full provision in regard to gifts, loans, etc., and I do not see that we can improve the position in any way. I would like to know if he is prepared to give a definition of philanthropic work and of political work, and I would also like to know where the one begins and the other ends. Let us take for example the Native Welfare Society. It does philanthropic work in so far as it seeks the welfare of the natives, but it does political work when it seeks legislation for the welfare of the native. The trades union is philanthropic when it seeks better pay and better conditions for its members, and when it deals with strike pay, or unemployment pay, or sick benefit; but it is political when it seeks legislation for the benefit of its members.

That is philanthropic.

Take those trades unions for example which support the Labour party, and which spend much of their revenue for the benefit of that party.

Nothing doing.

Are they no longer allowed to do philanthropic work, or must they be wholly philanthropical and ignore any necessity for industrial legislation? It is required now that all organizations must make returns of their expenses. This is taken from the Australian Act, and what I want to impress upon the hon. Minister is that it must read in conjunction with clause 67 of the principal Act. Nothing can be wider than that. If you will read this clause in conjunction with clause 67 of the principal Act you will find the provisions become so wide that it is impossible to say what it does and what it does not embrace, and we must remember we have had no definite judgment in regard to this clause from any of our superior courts. The change serves no purpose except to gratify curiosity. The question of making all expenditure by political parties part of the personal expenses of the candidate is one which must be carefully considered. If it is meant to make them part of the expenses of the candidate then several difficulties arise. How much of the general expenditure by a political party can be claimed to influence the candidature of a particular candidate? Is the candidate responsible for expenses incurred—even against his wish—by any organization which seeks to support him? Take the case of the Temperance Party supporting local optionists. If that party seeks to support a candidate, what part of the expenses incurred by it is to be claimed as part of the candidate’s election expenses? Newspaper proprietors are now required to furnish returns This, again, is copied from the Australian Act. On the face of it, it would appear perfectly harmless, but here again, when you read the provisions in conjunction with clause 67 of our present Act, you find the matter becomes one of very great importance. Again, in how far is the candidate responsible for the expenditure by outside bodies which choose to support him? One newspaper owned by a political party may publish political matters free, whereas another paper will require you to pay. Again, a newspaper may be subsidized by a political party, and may publish electoral matter of very great value to candidates without making any charge, or a company owning a newspaper may be a branch of a political party and may give thousands of pounds’ worth of publicity. There will then be no return to be made, because they have made no charge. The position will thus be that the richer the political party or company, the more will be the gain to the followers of that party, and such gain, of course, will be against the poorer candidate. Then it is required that every newspaper article must contain the full name and address of the person writing it, and any infringement renders the person liable to the pains and penalties for an illegal practice. This is claimed to be adopted from another Act, but it is difficult to believe that any country could have introduced a clause so crudely drafted or so nicely calculated to produce the maximum of irritation and the minimum of beneficial result. There is no limitation to the time placed on the period during which the proposed restrictions are to hold good, and there is nothing to show whether that clause will apply to past, present on future elections. It may be claimed that from the moment this Bill is published everything appearing in a newspaper must come under the provisions of the Bill straight away. It must not be forgotten that the words in this clause 44 (b) are absolute. There is no way of getting out of it at all. It is very difficult to imagine any subject under the sun which might not conceivably be held to have some bearing on an election, past, present or future. The clause might also be turned to the most oppressive and even pestilent use, and the prospect is not improved by the Minister of Justice taking unto himself the power to institute or stop prosecutions. The restrictions are merely vexatious. I would like to put a few cases to the Minister. What is going to happen to a newspaper, say after a nomination for a general election? Every little bit of news from the country districts distributed throughout the whole paper will have to be signed by the contributors. The Minister, who has been an editor of a paper, will know that the paper guards against its organization being known to its rivals. This is going to disclose the entire organization of a paper. Anyone can know from these disclosures in the paper, exactly how it conducts its business throughout the whole country.

Why not?

Does the Minister publish every bit of information he gets, and does he state who supplied that information?

If I were the press I would.

Correspondents are going to suffer by this provision. You can imagine, in a small country district, that a correspondent is going to be a marked man, no matter how true his statements may be. Then the personal relationship between the journalist and the critic is going to be very seriously interfered with. Why should the responsibility be thrown on a subordinate? The editor or proprietor is responsible for what appears in the paper. He may receive certain reports, and may decide to put them in, or leave them out. If he puts them in, why should the subordinate be responsible? Why should the editor not be responsible for all that appears in the paper, as is the case at present? We know that the Minister of Railways, and the Minister of the Interior are going to suffer under this section. Imagine the Minister of the Interior making one of his splendid orations in the country, and finding it next day in “Die Burger” with his full name and address at the foot.

Why not?

It has happened. Ministers have been known very carefully to supply newspapers with speeches.

That has happened on both sides.

I know of none on this side. Newspapers and editors are now by law responsible for every article appearing in their paper. You cannot make the responsibility greater than it is now, and the disclosure of the writer’s name cannot be of very much consequence. Who worries, for example, whether the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) or the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) is the South African correspondent of “The Spectator,” for we know that their views are so different from the views of “The Spectator” itself.

Why worry?

We are not worrying; we are showing the fallacy of it. If the object of this clause is not the extension of a principle which has become the very bad principle in this country, then I do not know what it is. It seems to me the object of the clause is to carry further the smelling-out principle. It is not enough that the political views of every civil servant are to be noted, tabulated, and carefully recorded, but it is now sought to do the same in regard to every person in the country who does not agree with certain persons politically. If such a person writes an article or a report to a newspaper, he is also to have his name tabulated and carefully noted down for future reference.

Why not? You do not like it.

I feel there are many other points in this Bill which require careful attention, but they are not points of principle, and could be discussed in Select Committee, and as the Minister has promised to send the Bill to a Select Committee, I feel nothing is to be gained by going into the minute of the Bill at present.

I must congratulate the Minister in bringing forward this measure. We have a great deal of criticism from the South African party, together with the newspapers which they practically own, in regard to articles being signed by reporters. I do not think there is anything wrong with this so long as the reporter gives an honest report. I would like to draw the attention of this House to one or two instances. During the last election reports appeared in the newspapers of this and other countries of a mass meeting of natives which passed a resolution pledging its support to the South African party. Enquiries were made, and it was found that the meeting was never held, and the resolution never put. The reporter, a native by the way, is in gaol at the present time. The fact of the matter is that the press of this country will print any report if it is attacking the Labour party or the Nationalist party. Reuter investigated whether this meeting was held, and put a paragraph in the papers two days afterwards. But the position was that the report had ben cabled all over the world—

If we had the reporter’s signature the country would have known whether they could rely on the report or otherwise. Not only in regard to that meeting, but during the election we had a number of very funny reports in the paper, and I believe it is in the interests of all honest men that the reports should have signatures when they deal with political matters. I should like to deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) in regard to the residential qualification. There are about 2,190 natives registered in the Cape division. The South African party —the so-called friends of the natives—have arranged a scheme by which they are split up among the different constituencies where they are of the greatest service to that party. I believe hon. members will believe facts rather than the word of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour). The majority of these natives live in N’dabeni location. We have nearly 300 natives residing there who vote in Cape Town (Central). We have also a number of natives voting for the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) who do not live in his area, and that applies to a large number of the non-European population. In fact, I make bold to say that if it were not for the dual qualification very few of the Unionists would be representing Cape Town at the present time. That party is very keen on having uniformity in the Transvaal when it suits them; as for instance at Parktown, where, I believe, all the voters are well blessed with this world’s goods. If it is right that all these people should be brought together it is also right that the native and coloured people should be brought together and have their direct representative in Parliament. The South African party, as a heritage from the old Unionist party, have a system whereby they are able to judge as regards the political beliefs of about 80 per cent. of the electorate. They go round at the same time as the Government official registering voters and at the same time they find out the political views of the voters.

That is not correct.

I do not take any notice of what the hon. member says. These people go about and try to have voters registered in the area which best suits the interests of the South African party. If a voter objects he is told to lay his objection before a court at 10 o’clock on a particular day. As it would mean losing a day’s pay to appear there, the man allows it to go by default, and the result is that he is registered in a constituency which suits the South African party. In fact, five members of my election committee were not registered in my area, although one of them has lived there for 19 years, and has repeatedly asked to be transferred, but objection was taken by the representative of the South African party. Under this Bill this danger to democracy will be removed. When I represented Cape Town (Central) in the Provincial Council there were only 391 persons residing in that constituency, and the rest were residing all over the Peninsula. I believe that in the present Liesbeek constituency there are nearly 1,000 voters who vote in Cape Town (Central). I contend that it is better to let persons vote in the constituencies where they reside and where their municipal and other interests lie. Therefore I think this Bill is beneficial to all concerned. Another matter in regard to which I am pleased with this Bill is in respect of election finances. We know in the Cape, as in the Trasnvaal, the power of money. I believe that the South African party directly and indirectly are financing A.P.O., and I believe I am also correct in saying that during the last election a large amount was spent, for the benefit of South African party candidates, out of the interest on a sum invested by the late Cecil John Rhodes to be used for political purposes, especially among the non-European voters in the Cape Peninsula. In fact, one of my committeemen, a coloured man, received £25 from the A.P.O. during the last election. I told him that if he liked he could go to the office of the A.P.O. as long as he worked for me. He received his £25 at the office of the African Political Organization, which is financed, in season and out of season, by the supporters of the South African party. I would like to see a full return made of all money spent, not only during the elections, but during the time the work of organization is being carried out. There are a large number of officials—Europeans, natives and coloured—who are kept in season and out of season by the South African party, and I would like to see a clause to compel a return of all money spent in organization work. We have instances, where large employers of labour, have, in their employ, one or two particular men who are classified as ordinary workmen, but who are doing nothing else but working politically for the advantage of their employers. I can give instances and names. I am sorry the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is not present, or I would mention a particular instance he knows of. We all know politics are corrupt in this country, although the newspapers made a great outcry when one of my colleagues called politics a dirty game. This Bill will do a great deal towards making politics cleaner, and in any case we can do our best to purify politics, and it certainly needs a great deal of purifying. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) made a remark about the Native Welfare Organization being on a par with trades unions. A person does not join his trades union with the object of political action. On the other hand, while there are a number of honest men and women who are out to uplift the natives, yet there are a large number of men who have allied themselves with the Native Welfare Organization for the sole purpose of utilizing it during elections. Not only that, but when I go to N’dabeni Location I find two natives there who are kept by the South African party to do nothing else but to instil into the minds of the natives bitterness against the Labourites and the Nationalists. This shows it is time that political parties were not allowed to give grants to philanthropic organizations. The Bill will do a great deal towards putting things right, especially in the Cape Province, where, owing to the dual qualification the individual has not had the opportunity to vote and organize or be registered where he wishes. We know full well that in the Cape Province men have been put on the voters’ roll, not as Government wished, but owing to the great organization of the Unionist South African party, they have been compelled to vote in areas where they did not wish to vote. In conclusion, I would like to state that not only do I congratulate the Minister on the introduction of this useful measure, but that in the past it has only been the party with the wealth that has been able to pay railway fares and hire motor cars which has been able to bring voters to the poll. When an election is on—and I have had 14 of them—I have realized that in numerous instances 50 and 60 men have been brought to the poll from all parts of the Union at tremendous expense, the Labour party has not been able to bring one voter from outside the district. There are certain points to the Bill which can be criticized in committee, but by bringing about uniformity of registration the Bill will remove a great deal of in justice to the Cape.

Debates of this kind usually furnish the occasion for hon. members in indulge in a certain amount of recrimination and to throw across the floor of the House statements that particular clauses designed to prevent corruption are aimed at the other fellow and not at oneself. We have listened to a number of statements made by the previous speaker with which personally I have nothing to do. If all the hon. member can do is to make general statements of the character he has brought forward without supporting them in any way by any jot or tittle of evidence, then it is open to the House to treat these statements with the very gravest suspicion. The Minister in his admirable, but somewhat portentous statement, so far forgot himself as to insinuate that certain provisions of this Bill were directed against one particular party, and that not his own. It would be quite easy for me to mention the names or certain large interests and titled individuals who are popularly supposed, with a great deal of credence, to have contributed to the election funds of the Government. It would be easy for me to ask the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) at whose expense he made a memorable election journey some weeks ago, but I do not know whether any real profit will be derived from continuing the discussion on those lines. Speaking for myself and for my party, I say we welcome this measure in its main details We support entirely and whole-heartedly the principle of a pure and clean election contest. We will support every measure that can be reasonably expected to bring about that end the end being that money, power and corruption shall not win elections but the free choice of the electors. Anything we can do in Select Committee to make some of the somewhat alarming provisions of this Bill workable we shall be prepared to do. This Bill, after all, is only going one step further than the Act our own Government passed in 1918, which was intended to promote the purity of election contests. As I read this Bill, and listened to the speech of the hon. Minister this afternoon, I asked myself if the hon. Minister is not entirely impracticable, and entirely a dreamer, in some of the measures he proposes. He has neglected one factor in introducing some measures, namely, the factor of human nature. You may legislate, but you cannot control the conduct of political parties, the conduct of organizations in so effective a manner as he thinks he can do in some of these laws. Take, for instance, the provision that if any organization spends money on an election it shall make a return of its expenditure. Does he think he has a hope of enforcing that? I know a very large and influential organization in the Transvaal which spent a considerable sum of money, and made no secret of it, in trying to prevent my return to the House. I refer to the liquor trade, the Licensed Victuallers’ Association. Do you think any provisions in this Act will stop them? If they want to do it secretly, do you think the provision will stop it? They won’t issue crossed cheques signed with the name of the chairman of the Association. They will send the money to a nominee. The hon. Minister has got a clause that “it shall not be lawful for any political organization to carry on philanthropic work nor for any philanthropic society or body to devote any of its funds for political purposes.” What is a philanthropic society? I can see many a fat brief being paid for in trying to decide it.

The Chamber of Mines.

The South African Mine Workers’ Union also. All the trades unions have benefit clauses in their constitutions, and as long as they have them they can be described as philanthropic institutions. They also provide a few jobs for pals, and I don’t know whether the Government would not come under the philanthropic clause if it goes on as it is doing at the moment. What is a philanthropic institution? Supposing a church, deeply stirred on the point, devoted some of its funds to a fight on the local option question.

That is too farfetched.

Is it? “It shall not be lawful for any philanthropic society or body to devote its funds for political purposes.” So, if a church puts forward its funds to fight before a licensing body, then it puts aside some of its money for political purposes. The Copybook ideal embodied in the section has much to be said for it, but it won’t work. I want to deal with the point dealt with by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). That is the point of signing articles which appear in the newspapers. The section says—

I do not know the distinction between writing and producing an article. The whole thing is absurd and unworkable. Take a single instance, the instance of that small paper “The Cape,” published each week with a column on “What ’the Cape’ would like to know.” Would the hon. Minister suggest that each one of those little paragraphs should have the full name and address of the particular contributor who wrote the paragraph? The hon. members for Ceres (Mr. Roux) and Piquetburg (Mr. de Waal) are no doubt regular contributors to that journal. Would you like to see at the end of one of those paragraphs “Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr de Waal, Post Office Box 1231, Post Office, Cape Town”? The whole idea is laughable. And who is going to be the judge of whether an article has reference to an election or not? I take it that every leading article which appears in the daily press, unless it refers to the flowers that bloom in the spring, has reference to an election. Are you going to suggest, therefore, that every leading article appearing in the press has to be signed? I see that the hon. Minister for Posts and Telegraphs shakes his head and says “No,” and the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) says “Hear, hear.”

It is only at election time.

When does election time commence? Who is going to define it? Supposing the two elements which make up the Government opposite continue to live and exist in harmony, then at the end of five years Parliament will be approaching the dissolution, and the nearer its gets the faster the fun will become. The papers will write articles six or nine months before the election comes off. At which moment are you going to tell the editor that the election has commenced and he must sign the articles?

The day of nomination.

Does the deputy Minister of the Interior say that an election is to commence from the day of nomination? Leaving aside the technical points, let me deal with the proposal on its merits. I have always understood—I have done a certain amount of journalistic work, though I have never been a journalist in the sense that the Minister of the Interior has been— that a great deal of the force of the Press is derived from the anonymity of the leading article. It is known that it emanates from the editor, or from one of his leader writers, and I do believe that an editorial article derives a great deal of its dignity and force from the fact that it is anonymous. Surely there has always been a great deal of force in the editorial “we” because the opinions expressed are not the opinions necessarily only of the writer. I know—and the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) will bear me out in this—that when an editor writes an editorial he is not only expressing his views as an individual, but he is trying to express the views and policy of that paper. Within reasonable limits, an editor must express the policy of the paper. I would not expect the “Cape Times” editor to survive a day after writing a violent pro-Bolshevik article, nor would I expect the editor of “Die Burger” to survive a day if he wrote an extremely eulogistic article about the merits of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). A leading article stands on an entirely different plane from a special article on a particular subject. It does not derive its force with the public from the name of the editor of the paper, so much as from the fact of the paper itself and its associations. I do not know to-day the name of the editor of “Die Burger.” I am not interested in it. I might be interested in reading leading articles in “Die Burger”—I do read them— but I am not interested one bit in the name of the editor. Leaving aside leading articles, when you come to ordinary news items, if you say that every item of news has to have appended to its full name and address of the contributor, then surely our newspaper in future is going to look something like a cross-word puzzle, and not like an ordinary newspaper. I want now to deal with the clause which makes it a criminal offence for a person who corruptly induces or procures any other person to become a candidate at an election, in consideration of any payment or promise of any nature. Now the intention behind that is, no doubt, excellent. No doubt it is an excellent thing that the putting up of “dud” candidates at elections should be stopped, but does the Minister think for one minute that he is going to effect that by this particular clause? Does he think it is practical politics to try and make a criminal offence of that? However is it to be known? Are these things done on the hilltops, if they are done? If a payment is made is it made by a crossed cheque, which can be traced? The whole thing is ridiculous. I say this solemnly to the Minister, that it is a foolish thing to put measures on to the statute book which you can never enforce. I am with him in condemning the practice but I say that the best judge of this and the best sanction to prevent it is public opinion. The public have a pretty good idea whether a candidate is a genuine one or a “dud” candidate, and they are quick to show their resentment if a candidate who is put up is not a genuine one. There is a strong Nationalist vote in my constituency, and frequently suggestions have been made to me that I should sanction or help the running of a Nationalist candidate, who had no hope of getting in, but who might take away votes that would otherwise go to labour. But my view is that tactics of that sort re-act against the candidate who sanctions or permits them. The public know whether a candidate is a genuine one or not, and if they suspect that a candidate is permitting or conniving in tactics of that sort there will inevitably be a reaction against him. Can you suggest, for one moment, that it is possible to prosecute a man on a charge of this kind? You may think that a particular candidate is not a genuine candidate, but how are you to know?

The clause says “corruptly.”

There is no virtue in the word “corruptly.” You might as well say “who dishonestly steals.” Wherein lies the corruption? If the Minister for the Interior went along to a friend and said: “Stand for this constituency and we will make you one of our ‘pals’ and give you a job,” then he would be liable to a prosecution. It is certainly proper and legitimate for the manager of a political party to go to a candidate and say: “Will you stand and we’ll pay your expenses.” And yet, as I read this clause, that practice is to be made illegal in future. I feel that as the Minister said this is going to a select committee we should not discuss the details at too great length. Therefore I confine myself to outstanding points. I share the desire of hon. members that our elections should be fought on square, honest and pure lines, unhampered by money considerations, that the man with the long purse should not have any advantage over the man with the short purse. At the same time, I warn this House and the hon. Minister not to put anything in the Bill which will make it a laughing-stock in the country.

We are following a will-o-the wisp if we think we are going to get elections on a dead-level in this country simply by passing a Bill of this character. We must have a big improvement in the morality of politicians in this country before we can get that. In regard to press anonymity I think the press in this country and other countries has too much power to pervert the minds of the people. I know of an instance when an editor, who is greatly followed by the people of Johannesburg, was asked to stand aside while another person took his place when an election was on. Then have we not heard much of those columns and columns written by the “working men’s friend”—all with the intention of confusing the public mind. Do not we consult the name of the author of a book before we buy it? I think a very good case is to be made out for the change. As to the difficulty of stating when an election begins, why not start right now and make them sign all their own articles? I see nothing wrong in the fact that writers of articles in Australian papers sign their names to them. I think, however, the best provision is the one in regard to absentee voters. We all know that in urban areas no more than 70 per cent. go to the poll. I know of men who have been on the roll in my constituency for a good many years but because they are generally away at the time of year when the election is held or on the particular day, they have been unable to vote. Then what about the train crews? You cannot expect a man to stop his engine in order that he may go and vote. You must make provision for such Government servants. I want to bring forward a new point which I hope will be also considered in Select Committee I think provision should be made that no member can be elected to this House on a minority vote. Cases might occur where five candidates stand and the successful candidate has only a little over 20 per cent. of the total votes polled. I think consideration should be given to the desirability of introducing the transferable vote in single-member constituencies. I do not think the country should be confined in the representation to the old orthodox parties. If you look at Europe, for instance, you will find at some election candidates representing as many as 20 political parties or groups standing.

You will never get that here.

There will be people who will seek separate representation, on such subjects as temperance for instance. Another method of preventing minority representation is by means of the second ballot, but this is more cumbersome. I do not suppose there is a country outside of Great Britain where proportional representation or the second ballot has not been introduced. Then I think there is a detect in the law in regard to the posting of divisional lists at magistrate’s courts or other public buildings that are only open for a portion of the day and not during the hours when working men can visit them. I think the lists should be posted in some more conspicuous open place, and that the hours of availability should be extended. Then I do not see why political parties should not be supplied with copies of this list and they will go round and see that people are on the roll. There seems to be a tendency to keep these in water-tight compartments and it is difficult to get one now without paying for it; yet in disseminating this information you are doing a service to the public. I welcome the proposal that there should be an extension of the polling hours. On the Reef we have men working at great distances from their homes, sometimes as far as 60 miles. A man has to leave early in the morning—before he can vote—and returns in the evening too late to vote. We all know the difficulties in the way of course: It is claimed that it is unreasonable to keep polling officers for a long time waiting on people to vote; but we have seen people rushing from the train to the polling station at the last minute. Anything that extends the polling hours will lead to an increase of votes.

I consider that this Bill in many respects is deserving of great consideration. The hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) made an attack on the principle of voters being registered where they work. I was a registration officer on three different occasions, and one roll I made up had 1,000 names on it, so that I speak from experience, and I say that the double system is dangerous for double registration and the only true system, and the one which is in use in almost every other country, is the system of voting at your residence. The hon. member for Liesbeek in his remarks said the South African party wanted this and that but I am sure if he went round the ranks of the South African party he would find the great majority support registration at the residence. The hon. member seems to have got his geography limited to the Liesbeek constituency. Any person who listened to the speech of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) must have admitted that there was nothing in it to which exception could be taken. It was very critical, and one or two points were very telling, and some of the points I do not agree with. But it is criticism of that kind which we want applied. Then the hon. member for Liesbeek spoke about the newspapers publishing anything so long as it was against the Labour party, but I am sure he does not in his soul believe that the press do so—

At election times.

I took the words down at the time, but I think there are occasions when we say things for which we ought to apologise. I believe the hon. member has apologised before for what he has said in this House.

No, never.

Oh, I thought the hon. member had apologised; but the position is that talk of that kind is not warranted. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs came round to Port Elizabeth and delivered a speech of great merit, and I think the hon. Minister took the opportunity to thank the press the next day for the way in which they had reported that speech. The Minister nods his head, so I am correct. I submit with all deference that the Minister is quite as good a representative of the Labour party as the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce). I think a statement of that kind, coming from the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, and given to a South African party paper, is of some value. I am glad that another question was raised by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson), namely, the minority vote. If my memory serves me correctly, there were in one constituency in the 1915 election five candidates, and the votes of any two of these together were more than those polled for the successful candidate. It is only by the transferable vote or proportional representation that you can have a just system, but our present party system will not allow of its adoption, and so we cannot expect to get it. As regards fighting money, there have been three different occasions on which I have had to fight money, but that can be done successfully if your principles are right.

That is why the Pact won.

They got the majority of votes, but I think the hon. member would own that under the system of proportional representation the majority would be very small indeed. I wish to draw attention to the need for an act of justice to a class. Why cannot this opportunity be taken advantage of to bring in the women’s vote? I may mention that an effort will be made to have it brought in, and that there will be an opportunity during this Bill of testing whether members are really in earnest as to giving the franchise to those women who are fit to exercise it. I wish to emphasize that while there might well be some restrictions in regard to letters and that kind of thing, the average editor is very careful not to allow any personal matter in his columns at election times. Elections would not be worth having unless they were fought hard. Is not the law of libel strong enough? Is not an editor afraid of the law of libel, not from the financial point of view, but because the appearance in his paper of anything libellous shows a want of judgment? I think the country correspondent is the greatert danger, but of what value will it be if it turns out that a contribution was sent in by Jack Johnson, the ex-policeman, who is the correspondent of the paper? The value is not in knowing who the correspondent is, but whether the information is correct. That is the whole thing to be considered. Another statement made here was that a voter was put on the roll in a certain constitution contrary to his wish. There must be some misunderstanding, because no registration officer would act contrary to the wish of an elector if he wrote a letter to him. Before I left Port Elizabeth I took the opportunity of seeing the system in operation there, and I must say from long experience that if this same system has been applied throughout South Africa, you will get a most efficient roll. Every house on the map had to be visited by the canvassing officer. But I care not how careful you are, there will be hundreds of people left off the roll; and that is an argument in favour of continuous registration. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is responsible for the system in force in Port Elizabeth, but his department is to be congratulated on the efforts to get a perfect roll. The Minister was very hard on some evasions of the law. I have taken part sometimes as agent and candidate in over 40 elections, but I wish I had the “heathen Chinee’s” knowledge of elections that the Minister has. I thought I knew some tricks, but I have to sit at the feet of the hon. Minister, although the Minister himself is not so very smart, because he got himself caught out under the election law. I was sorry that proceedings were taken, but sorry above all that he should have been caught in a public-house. I think he must have some sympathy with others who are caught out, and I hope he will be a little more generous. He has not had a very long experience of journalism, but he has had long enough to know the value of anonymity at elections. Nothing would rejoice me more than to pull his leg at an election, but it would be of no value if my name was disclosed. Let us take the Bill on its merits, and trust the select committee will take care that while everything is done to protect the public against articles which are libellous, mischievous and animated by ill-feeling, the greatest publicity possible should be allowed. I congratulate the Minister on the Bill, which, like the curate’s egg, is bad in parts. I hope he will carry it, but in select committee some of the stuff that forms a blot on it will be washed out, and that in its final form it will help to purify elections, so that this House will represent the real political views of the electors.

The Minister seems to be congratulated from all sides of the House on the Bill, but I cannot understand this great insistence—particularly by the Journalists’ Society, and hon. members opposite—against the signing of leading articles during an election campaign. In the old Transvaal days I remember, for I was connected with the Press then, if a political leading article appeared in the “Standard and Diggers News,” or “The Star” it had to be signed. That law was brought in by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), and no agitation was made against it. The signing of political articles is done to-day in Australia and France, and there is no suggestion of an attack on the liberty of the Press in such a provision. Why this exception to the placing of initials at the foot of political articles—it is in our Press today, In going through the “Cape Times” I find articles signed by “Progress,” and everybody knows who “Progress” is. Then there are articles in the “Argus” signed by L.E.N., a well-known writer in the gallery; W.E.F. and others. This however, does not stop editorial responsibility. What we want to stop is this. During the last election—I don’t want to say anything which is going to hurt any political party—the South African party bureau at Pretoria sent articles to different newspapers, which published them, and it was pretended that these articles had been written in the offices of the newspaper which printed them. But had these articles been signed by Mr. Poutsma, the public would have known what value to attach to them. Other articles were written by Mr. Miller and Mr. Enslin. One of these articles was sent to a newspaper I was connected with, and it was shown me by my partner. I am not blaming these people for doing this, for they had every right to do it. During the election at Ladybrand, the South African party bought a newspaper there, but nobody knew at the time of the change in the proprietorship. Mr. Poutsma made the purchase, and he brought out a big newspaper for three or four days. But if the articles had been signed by him the electors would have taken no notice of them.

You could get a local man to sign these articles.

They would cut less ice then. If the people saw that my hon. friend had signed an article, they would attach less importance to it than if it was cloaked in anonymity. There are very few men who will sign other men’s articles. I ask the hon. members for Natal if it is not a fact that in the last election letters appeared in the newspapers signed by “A Nationalist who has turned,” and “A Converted Labour Man,” these letters having been sent out by the South African part?

How do you know that-

I state that it is so. These letters were returned to the senders by certain newspapers, the editors of which said they were surprised at the letters being sent to them.

Have the other parties not done this sort of thing?

It has not been done by the Labour party. If these letters had been signed by the men who actually wrote them, the public would have attached no value to them. We know that the editorial “We” means a lot to the man in the street. I have heard men say, “This must be absolutely true because I have seen it in the newspapers.” What we want to do is to stop this anonymous “we”, this gentle dew which falls from heaven. If the people of Cape Town saw leading articles day by day signed “B. K. Long,” they would get very sick of them, and say, “It is only his opinion, and we know he is a strong member of the South African party.” If there was an article written anonymously by one of the ablest journalists in this country—Mr. Wilson—they would say, “It is a capital article.” But if they saw his name attached continually to political articles, they would say, “He is a strong supporter of the late Government, and we take no interest in him or his articles.” My hon. friend opposite (Mr. Blackwell) signs articles, but there are times when he does not sign them, and he has every right to do this. He writes some of the best political leaders in South Africa, and they are excellent articles from his point of view, but if they were signed, people would not take so much notice of them, because the public would know his identity. But if you can hide yourself behind the editorial “we,” people think there is something in what you say. This is strange, but it is so. Then the hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider) writes political leading articles. If I were an editor taking the view of these hon. members, I would welcome their stuff and pay them well for it but the point is that if they sign their political articles the public will take no notice of them.

Although they are excellent articles—is not that nonsense?

It is strange, but it is true. My hon. friend, the hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider), writes skilled articles, and I read them with pleasure, but if the people of Port Elizabeth knew that he was writing them they would not read them, for they know he is a biassed political hack. We newspaper men know it is so. We know that by this you destroy at once that sort of thing that comes down to the newspapers from heaven, this garb which nobody knows, this wonderful editorial “we.” I am not ashamed of signing my articles. I admit freely I cannot write as good an article as my friends. If articles are signed at election times in the newspapers the public will take very little notice of those newspapers—

That is your object.

We have an extraordinary press in South Africa. The English daily press in South Africa, with one or two exceptions, practically belongs to the same people, and it is time we clipped their wings.

That is your object in this Bill.

I am prepared to say it is time we clipped their wings. Let us take it. First, you have Reuter’s Agency sending news from England. It is a subsidiary company, and the South African company is headed by an old journalist, Sir Roderick Jones, and one of their biggest South African shareholders, Mr. Malcolm, is a director of the chartered company, the others are the “Rand Daily Mail,” the “Cape Times” and the “Argus” group. The “Argus” group is a strong, rich group, with seven daily newspapers, and this group is hostile to “Die Burger.” If “Die Burger” wants Reuters, it must get it through Reuters’ South African company. Its opponents have got control of Reuters. You see a telegram coming from Singapore, Milan or Berlin, but it does not do so, it comes from London. They have got the source of the news. The shares of the newspapers, who are the dominating partners in Reuters, are controlled by the rich Joel, Syfret, and people of that kind. We say “Die Burger” has had its news poisoned at the source, and if it wants to put news out amongst the people it has to go to the Central News Agency, which belongs to Mr. Davis and Mr. Linburgh, the “Cape Times” and the “Argus” company; the same people who own Reuters own the South African party daily press.

What has this to do with the signing of articles?

I am showing you that your Press is not like a lot of small papers in South Africa. These papers are a big combination of newspapers supporting the South African party particularly, and we want to let the public know it is so, and make the writers sign their articles. They control the source of the Press, they display it in their own way, and they distribute it. Writers have to write what they are told by their shareholders. Mr. Moneypenny didn’t last when he wrote articles against Chinese labour.

What would happen to “Die Burger” if it wrote an article supporting the South African party?

I admit it. The papers are supposed to be public papers, but they are not. The Central News Agency could kill a paper. If the Labour party started a paper in Cape Town they could kill it by holding up the circulation. When it comes to advertising, if I want to get an advertisement to-morrow and I go to a big advertising firm and ask for it they won’t give it to me, because the big newspaper says: “If you give them that advertisement we will not allow you the ten per cent. in our paper.”

Absolutely wrong!

My hon. friend knows nothing about it. He happens to be a draper, although he is one of the directors of the “Cape Times.” You see, they are all on your side, and it is only right that we should have these things altered. In the case where three or four reporters go to a meeting and have different “takes” the difficulty can be got over by making the chief reporter responsible. I have been told that a leading article may be written by four or five men. Well, one man can sign it. We shall also stop these anonymous letters written in the “Star” about the Labour party. We have not got a daily Press. A letter is written in Cape Town, signed by an anonymous correspondent attacking labour, and is then telegraphed to Durban and Bloemfontein, and there they say: “Oh, that’s the position, is it?” If the letter was signed they would take no notice of it. They say there is a split in the Labour party in Johannesburg and that everything is going wrong—

Now you have Mr. Andrews it will all go right.

I suppose it will; nobody is more pleased than myself now we have Mr. Andrews in. He was one of the best members of Parliament we had in this House, and I welcome him back. This signing of these articles is going to do more harm to our friends on the other side than anything I know. We have got to bind down the great financial interests. This system is adopted in Australia. My hon. friend (Mr. Blackwell) is Australian born. Is he going to tell me that his country has less liberty than mine? It is done in France. There would be no harm done by these articles being signed, and I trust that the Minister will stick to this provision and we will clip the wings of the press a little bit. We are in the grip of a great capitalistic press, and we have got to save the voter. The Dutch press are not worrying about it. I am prepared to sign any leading article I write, and I write quite a lot. We are prepared to sign these things. Why are our friends on the other side not prepared to sign? The press of South Africa is getting in the hands of the big men, like it is in England. They have now got the “Diamond Fields Advertiser” in Kimberley, and they have got all these big newspapers, and they are dictating how their journalists shall write. The journalists have to write according to the shareholders of the paper, and the shareholders are not the public, but the big financial group. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) used to make us sign our articles before the Boer War. If I wrote an article it had to be signed, and it was quite a good idea, too. In this matter we are following in the footsteps of the right hon. gentleman.

This Bill is largely non-contentious and largely non-party, in fact the only member who has introduced a note of acrimony into the debate so far is, as usual, the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). As far as this Bill aims at tightening up the electoral laws, I am quite sure it will have the support of every man in this House. I think it will be agreed that the ideal electoral law is one that is not too complicated in its operation, and which inspires the public with confidence. I am afraid that the present electoral law does not do that. One hears from various sides that the present Electoral Act is being abused. The Minister who introduced this Bill struck me as appearing in the rôle of a reformed poacher, for he seems to know more about abuses of the electoral system than I do. I think, in so far as this Bill aims at doing away with those abuses, it should have the support of every member of the House. There is one particular direction in which there is a very considerable amount of suspicion in the country and that is in connection with the voters’ forms. Both parties have complained to me that they send in registration forms to the revising officer, and either he is accused of being Nationalist in proclivity, or South African party in proclivity, and they complain that these forms never figure on the roll. If that is so—I do not say it is—then the Bill should be tightened up.

It is provided for in the Bill.

I agree with you that it is provided for in the Bill. There is another point, however, which the Minister mentioned, but which he did not enlarge upon, and that is the functions and duties of the electoral officers. We are asked to agree to the creation of a new class of officials, but it is not clear to me what their duties are, and I hope the Minister will explain this proviso to us. I am very glad that the Bill is being sent to Select Committee. The most important innovation in this Bill is one that has been dealt with very largely already, and that is the attempt at suppressing the liberty of the press. In every country in the world where the liberty of the press has been infringed, it is a sign of reaction. Whenever a Government starts tampering with the liberty of the press it is sure proof of reaction. It has always been a sign of tyranny and a sign of decadence, and I am sorry to see this system of gagging the press introduced into South Africa. Apart from the wrong principle, it will be quite ineffective in operation. I agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that it is a pity to vitiate an otherwise good Bill with clauses which are badly drafted, which are wrong in principle and which cannot be carried out in practice. Clause 39 (1), dealing with newspapers and printed matter, does not define what is an election. Take the case of a constituency where we happen to know that a year hence there is going to be vacancy, that a sitting member is going to be translated to some superior sphere. It is quite possible, and is often done in this country, that a year ahead the public know there is going to be a vacancy. At once steps are taken, articles appear in the press and speeches are made. Are all these references going to be a criminal offence under this Bill? The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs said, “Oh, no, it is only from nomination day to the actual election.” I think the hon. Minister will see that the clause—a very important clause—has been very loosely drawn up. As it stands it is inoperative, it cannot be carried into effect, and it will never work. Then we have another clause, No. 40, I think, calling upon companies to make a return of all moneys expended. What is the principle behind it? There is nothing to prevent a company spending as much as it likes upon an election. That being the case, why introduce these penal clauses? There is a gloomy array of penal clauses which can never be enforced. I think the hon. Minister ought to have given us in the schedule some idea of the return that is going to be called for. The public ought to know what this return is going to look like, because it may possibly be very inquisitorial in its effect. I hope when it comes to the Select Committee that they will insist that this form of return will be included in the schedule of the Bill. Then we come to the question of voting by post. I do not think that there is a single member of this House who is opposed to the principle of this. It is merely a question of carrying it out in detail, but if anything goes wrong with this system it will open the door to widespread abuse. We all agree that unless this system can be made absolutely proof against abuse it should not figure on the statute book. Will the hon. Minister look at clauses 9 and 10 of the schedule? It says that ballot papers will be issued before nomination day in the presence of the candidate or his agent. Now this Bill does not err on the side of simplicity, and I may have misunderstood the wording, but it is not clear how there can be a candidate or his agent before nomination day. If I am right, it seems to vitiate the whole system of voting by post. Take the case of applicants applying long before nomination day for the right to vote by post. His ballot paper can be sent him long before nomination day. I think the hon. Minister will find something wrong in the drawing up of this section. However, that can be remedied in committee. The most important defect, in my mind, against the postal system is this: At present we have a very important safeguard in the official secret seal on the ballot. At the present moment no voter knows until he has received his ballot paper what the official mark looks like. Under this postal system that safeguard goes by the board.

It will be a different mark.

If the hon. member will be patient I can prove to the hon. Minister where the danger will lie. It is the same mark for all postal voters. On the polling day there are very elaborate arrangements to prevent anything going wrong with a particular ballot paper, and I must admit that nothing can go wrong with it because it is put into a separate box, and at the end of the poll the returning officer opens the special postal ballot box and the papers are checked. But the schedule says that as soon as this is done they are thrown into the common pool and mixed with the other voting papers so that no one can identify them. We know that in the Transvaal on one occasion more voters were cast than were on the roll, so that there must have been a number of forged papers in the ballot box. Take the case of a man with evil intent or driven by extreme party spirit. He takes the secret ballot paper and he has as many copies forged as he likes. It is a simple matter, any printing machine could turn them out in hundreds. On voting day he himself or his confederates, assuming they are registered voters in their district, register their legitimate vote and at the same time drop these forged papers into the box. I do not see what is to prevent that. I hope I am wrong, because it is the vital defect in the system. At the end of the polling day all the ballot papers are mixed up and there is no possible way of identifying them.

What about the counterfoils?

No one checks the counterfoils I have never seen anyone look at them. It is not done. I am not trying to disparage this system, but I would undertake to work this trick on the ballot; it seems so simple, and I do not see what is to prevent widespread abuse. Another great objection is that so long as the public think there is an opening to defraud the returning officer, so long will there be a lack of confidence in this particular system. I do, therefore, emphasize the danger.

A statement of the counterfoils has to be drawn up.

No one checks them; only the counterfoils of the postal ballots.

What about the declaration of identity.

With regard to the few bona fide ballots in the postal box no human ingenuity can get round that as far as I can see. These ballots are accompanied by the identity papers, and there can be no fraud with them, but a man may drop forged ballots into the common box. Once the returning officer and the candidate, or his agent, are satisfied with the postal ballots, only the ballots go into the common box and not the indentity papers, so that there may be only twenty postal ballots in that box, but there may be 200 in the common box, and no one will check them. My remedy is that the postal ballots should not be mixed with the common ones.

It is not done before the counting.

Yes, it is, according to section 23. Before the counting starts the postal ballots are all mixed with the other ballots, so that no man can identify them.

No, that is not so.

Well, I read it so. I emphasize this because it goes further than a mere matter which could be dealt with in select committee. It is vital to the whole system of the postal ballot. As regards the other important change in the Bill, with regard to the domiciliary qualification, I think the bulk of the members on this side of the House are in favour of it. It strikes one that very often it is of more importance to a man where his business interests are than where he sleeps, but most of us are in favour of this clause, because it will tend to stabilize our electoral rolls. As it is we are in a pretty fluid nomadic community, and anything that tends to stabilize our voters’ roll should be encouraged. There are a few minor points which have not been explained by the Minister. Clause 4 of the principal Act, sub-section 3, has been repealed. This clause enabled a citizen on active service to vote. I think the Minister should have told us why this particular clause has been cancelled. We have heard a great deal about Australia, but if there is one point on which the Australians are firm it is on this point of allowing a soldier on active service in foreign lands to vote. I hope the Minister will tell us why that clause is being repealed. The time may come—we hope it will not—when men on active service may be called on to vote, and it is difficult to see why they should not do so. Then there is another matter I would ask the Minister to explain, and that is his inclusion of the South-West territory in paragraph 4 (8) of the principal Act. I understand it will apply chiefly to the Cape Province.

Yes, only to the Cape Province.

I am not opposed to it as I do not understand its effect, but I hope the Minister will tell us what the result of the alteration will be. I welcome the Bill, and I sincerely hope it will emerge from the Select Committee in a more practical form, in some respects, than it is at present.

I suppose it is generally admitted that we all desire to have as perfect a voters’ roll as is possible. Well, for the purposes of getting that roll, canvassers are appointed, and we expect that these canvassers will be impartial. With the view of ascertaining what the attitude of the Government has been with regard to the present roll that is being framed, I tabled a question. I did not, for a moment, doubt the honesty of purpose of the Minister. But I made enquiries with regard to my particular division, as I wanted to know in general whether the political feelings and views of canvassers are ascertained before they are appointed as such, and the answer I got from the Minister was a most emphatic denial. I had been informed that the contrary was the case. Taking that as it is, when one refers to the people appointed to the Von Brandis division, which I represent in Parliament, I find six names were supplied. Opposite the names of the three mentioned at the head of the list I see that these gentlemen appointed belong to the Labour party.

What are their names?

E. R. Kemble, J. F. Gray and F. W. Liffy. Does the hon. gentleman know them?

No, I don’t.

They are given as members of the Labour party or persons with labour leanings. As regards the remaining three—J. Carson, J. Kerr and C. Lemon—I see nothing opposite their names indicating them as belonging to any political party. The idea was, I understand, to get impartial men, or if that was not possible, that the work should be shared amongst supporters of the different parties. Well, neither of these ideas has apparently been carried out by the Government, and the position is most unsatisfactory.

It seems to me the hon. member is discussing the administration of the present Act, and not the principle of the Bill.

This Bill is to amend the Act of 1918, which is a very comprehensive measure, consisting of 145 clauses and several schedules covering about 20 pages, and dealing with the question of getting a full voters’ roll. This Bill is supplementary to that Act, and provides for the appointment of a chief electoral officer, and gives the Minister power to appoint one or more electoral officers and returning officers for each division. So the powers of the Minister are very wide, and the whole object is to get people on the roll who are entitled to it, and to get those who are so enrolled to vote. The initial stages, of getting people’s names registered, are very important. The line adopted by the Government recently is not a fair one, though I know the Minister’s intention is to get an honest roll, but I claim that it should be shown to the public that they are not, in connection with the framing of the voters’ rolls, being treated in a proper way. The last three names, as I have already mentioned, are not known to those who are in charge of the registration work of the South African party, and the whole thing savours of favouritism.

I really fail to see what this has to do with the Bill. How does the hon. member bring this in with the principle of the Bill?

Despite the unjustifiable interruptions opposite, I have been trying to explain that it is our object to see that we have a perfectly unprejudiced roll, and I maintain that the attitude adopted has not been in the right direction, and not in the interests of the public. This information should be made public so as to avoid similar mistakes in future. When I asked the Minister of the Interior who made these appointments, the answer was given that the appointments were made by the Registration Officer in Johannesburg. I ask the Minister to enquire whether some high official had not come over from Pretoria to Johannesburg to dictate to the Registration Officer there who should be appointed. The answer given to me was not a correct one. The appointments were made in Johannesburg, but whom were they influenced by? My question was evaded by the circumlocutory statement which was made by the Minister. The Minister, I see, is astonished that such a thing should exist. As regards the Bill itself, I hope the clause will disappear which makes it compulsory for articles in the press to be signed, because it will serve no purpose. It has been said by the member for Bloemfontein (North) that if an article has been signed nobody would read it, so therefore if that statement is correct no object is gained in having political articles signed. The Minister, in addressing the House, did not tell us why he wanted articles to be signed, and only made a cursory reference to the matter. Why should people not be allowed to preserve their anonymity? People have the right to write anonymously to the papers, and that right should not be taken away. Would it come within the scope of this Bill, supposing anybody said the Prime Minister was a “ladylike and timid Prime Minister?” as was said recently by one of the members of this House and reported in one of the newspapers. Would that have to be signed? Whilst discussing that subject, seeing that the hon. Minister of Justice expressed his opinion about the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay), it would be interesting to know the opinion of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) of the hon. Minister of Justice. I should also like to know whether a statement by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan), that he was not going to vote for women’s franchise because it would embarrass the Government, would also have to be signed. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has been very frank and taken us into his confidence, but that makes us rather nervous. I think he told us something about the hon. member on my right. It seems that conversations which take place in the lobby are being freely made known on the floor of the House. This is decidedly wrong.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.8 p.m.

In connection with this Bill we have had a great many speeches this afternoon in which, although the general principle is approved, all kinds of small criticisms have been made. As for the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) one could not well make out whether he was in favour of or against the Bill. But I am glad to see that this Bill meets with approval on all sides of the House. There are a few very important points in the Bill. One of them was not touched upon and that is the new provision in connection with the secret mark. It is provided that in the future the secret mark shall not be put on both sides, but only on one side of the ballot paper. Besides the reason which the hon. Minister gave for the change I should like to give another reason. I do not know if hon. members have had the same experience as I have had with regard to this. But I know from experience that many of the people come and, instead of making the cross, they carefully make the secret mark. Some of my voters even drew a heart (which in that instance was the secret mark) opposite my name, so much did my electors love me.

Do they still love you so much?

Yes, still. At the recent elections no less than 20 votes were given in this way in my constituency by not making the crosses, but carefully drawing the secret mark which is given in front opposite the name. Hon. members will possibly say that I have very stupid voters in my constituency, but that is not the case. Everywhere one finds even prominent people making that mistake. I only wish to assure the hon. Minister that I know of many cases where people have carefully copied the secret mark. There is another matter in connection with the secret mark. I do not know what can be done to prevent it, but perhaps this can also be dealt with in the Select Committee. It happened in connection with Bloemfontein (South) a few years ago. The hon. Minister will remember that at the election of 1920 in Bloemfontein (South) a ballot box was entirely rejected. The polling officer used the seal which should have been used on the wax for sealing the ballot boxes, instead of using the stamp intended for the purpose and so the whole ballot box was rejected. The result was that the hon. member who now sits for Bloemfontein (South) in the House (Dr. Steyn) did not get in, but the member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) was declared elected. Fortunately, he saw the mistake and resigned. This was a serious case which happened once, but could easily happen again. Perhaps provision can be made in Select Committee to find some remedy for this, so that a whole ballot box shall not be thrown out through a fault of the polling officer. I am glad that provision is made for technical mistakes. The hon. Minister has mentioned the other matter which also has reference to Bloemfontein. It was really a scandal. I do not wish to blame any party, but it is a fact that the largest number of votes which were declared void, because a wrong form had been sent there, were Nationalists and Labour votes. The South African party were cleverer, they saw that the form was wrong and they gave their people typed forms which were filled in and were valid. I wish to impute no blame. I only mention it as a fact. The forms were issued by the official registering officer. He was a South African party man, but as I have already said, I wish to cast no blame. Then I am glad to see that precautions are being taken against plural voting. It has been said to-day that actually so much malpractice does not take place at elections. It has been said that the hon. Minister seems to have “inside knowledge,” but double voting happens often. I again refer to the case in Bloemfontein. A few years ago a prominent person there, an advocate of the Supreme Court, voted twice. We found it out and he was prosecuted, but the magistrate discharged him on some technical point or another. The point was that, although it appeared that he received two voting papers and that two votes were given, it had not been proved, in the opinion of the magistrate, that he had made two crosses. The decision was, however, fortunately reversed by the Supreme Court. If this Bill comes into force then such a thing would be made impossible. In Bloemfontein there was an instance I know about where a man boasted that he had voted three times at an election. Twice in his own name and the other time in the name of a deceased uncle. The hon. Minister has said that there is much more danger of double voting in the urban constituencies than in the country, but under these new provisions the giving of extra votes is excluded. Then I am glad the provision has been made that the responsible polling officer will be held responsible for names left out of the voters’ list. I know of many cases; but I have personally handed in names of voters which never appeared on the voters’ list without any notice to the person concerned. The Minister has said this afternoon that certain difficulties are connected with quarterly registration, but I hope that in select committee he will not alter this. We find at every election that the lists are so stale that many difficulties arise in this connection. We find names of people who have been dead for years still appearing on the lists. As under this provision the registration officer gets all the names of deceased persons, he can delete the names and the instances which I have just mentioned cannot occur again. In connection with the difficulties which have been mentioned this afternoon it seems to me that the most important are in connection with the press. I do not know what value should be attached to the newspaper cutting that I have here. It deals with an interview with a certain Capt. Frank Joubert, organizing secretary of the South African party. He says that he welcomes the Bill, because it will hit the Pact parties more than them. He says, further, that it is actually one of the good things which the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) left lying on the table when the new Government took over. I do not know if this is so. About the press he is not so much concerned. He says that our press will be the worst hit by it. If this is so, why are hon. members so much concerned about the press? How can they object if the organizing secretary, Capt. Frank Joubert, is convinced of it that the newspapers who support this side will be hit the worse by it? He supports this provision with regard to the press. No, I think it is a good provision. I think that no actual objection can exist against a man signing his name. In America it is the practice, the custom to sign the name of the writer of any article of any value.

But it is not obligatory.

No, but they think that it is a very good practice. If correspondents in Washington send a political or official notice they sign the document with their name in the newspaper. Experience shows that the people outside, when they see the name and read an article, then decide if it is worth reading, and articles of a writer they will read again, or not find it worth while to read. It is thus in the interest of the writers themselves. The writers who write good articles will not be afraid to sign their names. If our Afrikaans journalists write a good article, then they need not be afraid to have their name mentioned, only those who twist things and ought to feel ashamed will feel ashamed to mention their names. I say that if there is a general compulsory law whereby even the reporters of the proceedings of Parliament—I do not mean the speeches, but who discuss the proceedings—are compelled to sign their names, there will be very many fewer misrepresentations. I am speaking generally. I do not throw blame on any side. The fact that a man who writes a political article is forced during an election to put his name as guarantee that he will make no twisted and false representations is a good thing. It is in his interest, in the interest of the paper and in the interest of the public generally. As to anonymous letters in newspapers, hon. members opposite pretend they know nothing about such things. I only wish to mention one instance. It was a fairly stupid piece of work. During the recent elections the present Prime Minister made his first speech at Smithfield on Saturday afternoon. He then issued his manifesto. It was on Saturday afternoon. The speech and the manifesto appeared for the first time in the local newspaper at Bloemfontein, “The Friend,” on the following Monday afternoon, but in the same issue of Monday a letter was published from a so-called “Disappointed Nationalist”—I think he was so styled—who stated his disappointment at the manifesto. Now it was impossible for any one of the public to have seen the manifesto in time. He said he had read it and was disappointed. It is very clear that it was somebody belonging to the office of the newspaper, who looked at the thing on Sunday and then, under the name of a “Disappointed Nationalist,” criticized the manifesto in the same issue of the paper in which the speech and the manifesto appeared. The consequence of these provisions will be that during elections the newspapers will be less full of misrepresentations, because the reporters will have to put their name to what they write. I only wish to call to recollection the speech (which has become notorious) of the Minister of Agriculture about canons and machine guns. If the person who made that report had been obliged to sign his name, then he would have been much more careful. I know of many cases. Reports are made of speeches that members have never made. The reporter shields himself behind the newspaper. If in future he is compelled to sign his name he will be more careful. Then also the secretive Reuters will not be so loose in his statements and representations. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has quoted something in connection with my constituency. Yes, I was very much surprised when the small local newspaper at Ladybrand turned suddenly round during the election. The paper had always been impartial, but one day it came out with long articles wherein I was abused and also our party, and an attack made upon us in long articles, not only in advertisements. I was surprised, but when I found out that Messrs. Poutsma and Esselin had bought up columns of the paper on behalf of the South African party to put in these articles, the matter was plain. If Mr. Poutsma had had to put his name under those articles, then he would not have started the affair. Hon. members say that our newspapers also accuse them of making misrepresentations. Good, then they will have to be just as frightened of making wrong representations. There is another point about which I want to say something. It is a matter of principle, and something that I hope will be taken into consideration in Select Committee. It is compulsory registration. We try year after year to improve the legislation regarding registration, but in view of all the existing difficulties, it will surely be worth the trouble to Consider the matter of compulsory registration. I understand that such a system exists in Holland. I have unfortunately not had an opportunity of enquiring into the system in order to see how it works. But this, I think, can be easily done by, e.g., making it compulsory by law for every person to register as soon as he attains the age of 21 years. It can, e.g., be taught at the school as civics that not merely certain obligations are not laid upon them when they attain 21 years of age, but certain privileges are granted which are connected with their majority. I am certain that the system will remove quite a number of difficulties in connection with registration. If someone goes from one district to another, he can be compelled within three or six months to go to the magistrate and say: Here I am, I come from this or that place, and then he is put on the list. Hon. members will say that I propose to create new crimes and to impose fresh obligations. If anyone obtains a form under the provisions of this Bill and does not return it within a certain time, then he is punished. Such an obligation of compulsory registration will create no new offence. If such a system is accepted, then it is no new obligation, no new punishment, but our children must be so educated as to regard them as rights which they do not have so long as they are minors, but the day that they become 21 years of age they will receive certain rights which they must go and claim. This will, I think, ultimately become such a general practice amongst the people that it will be a very natural thing. I hope the Select Committee will go into the matter very carefully. If such a system is adopted, then we can scrap all the small sections in this Bill with regard to registration and we shall get a general system.

What about the Cape Province?

Yes, for the Cape Province as well. There people will have to have certain qualifications. We know the psychology of people. When they know that they can obtain something, they go to fetch it, but if it is proposed that they shall fetch it, then they do not trouble. I do not wish to say any more. I wish to congratulate the hon. Minister, and I hope that if opposition arises on the point of the obligations of the press he will firmly stand to his guns. There are a few small points which may be altered and improved, but those the Select Committee can go into.

I think it has been shown on all sides of the House that there is a general desire for the law to be made so as to improve registration. In all efforts to improve the machinery under which elections are conducted I am sure that members on this side of the House are ready to do all they can to promote as high a standard of efficiency as possible. I am not quite clear, however, why the hon. Minister should have chosen this moment to bring forward this Bill. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has rather let the cat out of the bag. He discarded the idea of purity in elections and frankly admitted that what he wanted to do was to clip the wings of newspapers and others. Some of the clauses of the Bill are apparently considered by supporters of the hon. Minister as being likely to assist their party when an election takes place and to operate against those on this side of the House, but I think they will operate just as much in favour of members on this side as those opposite. In regard to the clause which seems to take away the option of voters in the Cape Province of being registered in the place where they live or earn their living, I quite think there is a good deal to be said for the present system, and no doubt an alteration will inflict considerable hardship in some cases. At the same time, as a matter of general principle, I am inclined to think it is right, and I personally have no objection to it. For the sake of example, the constituency which is represented by my hon. friend the member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will be denuded of a good many of its voters. Some constituencies will have a good many more than the quote and some many less. Unless some provision is made before the next census we are likely to be faced with very considerable difficulties.

The census is next year.

With reference to the position of newspapers, I do not think it would do anyone any good to compel them to have signed any contribution, news or leading article published at the time of an election. It really appears a futile proposition. After all, I do not suppose anyone would subsidize the “Cape Times” or the “Argus” or “Die Burger” to put in a particular thing at a particular time. A party paper has a perfect right to be a party paper. I do not suppose there is any appreciable amount of election matter included in the newspapers which is paid for. It makes very little difference what a paper in a little dorp says; the larger papers will remain unaffected. If it is desired to control the papers, a good deal could be said about that. It is a bad thing for everybody, but of course it would apply also to the papers run in the interests of the party opposite. I have been unmoved by the statement made that in other countries newspapers’ articles are signed. We have been told that it is the practice in America, but I have yet to learn that the press in America is a model of what an upright press should be. But here is an American paper. It is the “Christian Science Monitor.” I may say that I am not a Christian scientist.

It is a very good paper.

That is my point. There is not a single article signed. They are not compelled to sign them. There are plenty of people there and elsewhere who write under an assumed name. Therefore I do not see, really, that anything is to be made out of this point. We are told this system must be good because it comes from Australia. With all due deference to the hon. member (Mr. Blackwell) I have yet to learn that everything in Australia is of the best kind. I believe they have a lot of legislation dealing with industrial disputes. I believe they specialize in that, but they lose more time in strikes in Australia than in any other country.

Nonsense.

I have been looking at the report of the Select Committee appointed in 1921 to go into the Electoral Act of 1918. The committee went into all these matters, and the two people who gave most evidence on the questions of expenditure by organizations, and the position of the newspapers, were the Minister of Railways and a gentleman named Forsyth. They put forward these suggestions almost word for word in the form in which they appear in this Bill. The committee stated that much attention had been directed to the provisions of the Act in regard to expenses of candidates, and that the committee appreciated the need for the control of such expenditure, but at the same time if the provisions of the law were made so strict as to offend the public, the law would become a dead letter. The committee were not satisfied that any of the suggestions made would achieve the object in view, and considered that a study should be made of the law in other countries, with a view to bringing our laws into line with the most practicable modern suggestions. The committee considered that the question of control of expenditure should be very carefully investigated by the department with a view to such legislation as might be necessary. One point mentioned was that the limit of expenditure fixed by the Act was too low, but I do not see any reference to that in the present Bill. However, what appears to have been the general result is that these ideas have been resuscitated from the tomb. Whether there has been any minute investigation by the department, the Minister has not told us. We have not even been told about other countries, except that there is legislation like this in Australia. Generally, the Bill appears to have been brought forward at the desire of some of the members on the opposite side. I do not see any particular harm in these things. In select committee they will probably be modified a good deal, and if it is the general opinion of this House that the Bill will lead to the curbing of abuses at elections, and will not restrict legitimate enterprise, then I see no harm in it. As already stated, I do not think the more, responsible papers and the papers of the greatest influence will be touched, and I believe it will be a good thing that that should be so. But that we should legislate in this way and annoy the responsible papers, for the sake of removing small grievances in country dorps, does not seem to me to be worth while. In regard to matters of detail, I am unable to see that there is any justification for keeping the poll open for thirteen hours. It seems to me that twelve hours is a very long day for the officials concerned. It will certainly be a very long day for the candidates, and if the suggestion of voting by post is approved of, there would be less need for altering the present law in this respect.

The Minister has received so many congratulations that I must here and there assist hon. members opposite, so far as opposition is concerned. My opposition, however, will be that I think the Minister has not gone far enough. I would like to say to the hon. member who has just spoken that as far as the position of newspapers is concerned we are not against fair comment, provided the newspaper does not go so far as to publish untruths in order to mislead people. What responsibility are they taking on themselves? The newspapers publish the greatest untruths, and the Minister ought to have gone further and placed a criminal responsibility upon them for such untruths. In connection with the administratorship of the Transvaal, a report appeared some time ago in a Cape Town newspaper—

The newspaper was careful, and the words ascribed to the Minister of Justice were placed between inverted commas. In the Transvaal and also in Klerksdorp at the time of the bye-election this was spread about, and there was this—

The “reported” was then no longer there. It is quite right that we allow them to comment freely, but where they go out of their way to publish untruths there we should hold them criminally responsible therefor. In this respect the Minister does not go far enough. One-half of the Bill deals with the registration of voters, and I am entirely opposed to that object. Our whole existing system is circumlocutory, expensive and untrustworthy, and I say that as the Minister is making a commencement, he should at once start to call a good system into life. The existing system is useless, and the only remedy is to keep a registry of the people. The officials will then have to go round every three months and they will always be doing patch work, with the result that the matter will never be put right and the lists will always be unreliable. The report of the Delimitation Commission has shown most clearly that the voters’ lists are extremely faulty. It is very expensive, and it is not the only registration which is made. There is the registration of marriages, of deaths and births, military registration, the census, etc., etc. This costs thousands, and all of them are incomplete; why not then have one which will be complete? The necessary figures and data can then be given to all the various departments, and we shall have a proper registration for election purposes. The Minister intends to refer the matter to a Select Committee, and I hope that he will give the committee the power to take evidence from the census officials and the police, because if there are officials who are aware of the defects of registration, then it is the police. If the lists are prepared giving addresses, it can be of much assistance to them as well. The committee can also take evidence from business people, and I hope therefore that we shall get such a register of the people. In it is comprised compulsory registration. It was the law in the Transvaal 80 years ago that a person upon leaving one Field Cornetcy must report to that Field Cornet and also give his arrival and place of residence in the new ward to which he went. The people are therefore accustomed to it. I just wish shortly to add: I need not go into the advantage of such a register further. The Minister has not gone far enough in this connection in my opinion. There is still another point. No proper provisions about the voting under a declaration are included in the Bill, and that is where the most difficulty, or let me say, the most fraud, takes place. One does not know all the people in a large constituency. It happens, perhaps, that 400 voters are absent from it, possibly Frans du Plessis is absent, and a certain Hendrik Coetzee comes and says that he is Frans du Plessis, and votes in his name because no one knows him. He goes away and escapes punishment, even if the duplication is noticed, subsequently because no one knows who it was that impersonated Frans du Plessis. That is one of the difficulties. The danger of this is increased by this Bill. Suppose that there are 400 people away from a constituency, then I do not know which of them will vote if I want to vote in the name of one or other of them. According to this Bill the position will arise, however, that a hundred, say, of the absent voters will apply for ballot papers. Then there are still 300 who have not applied. I know, therefore, that they are not going to vote, and I consequently can get people to vote in their name. We went so far at the time in Wakkerstroom that we got a description of the voters who were absent. This description was sent to all the other polling stations and, notwithstanding all this, there were still eight of our opponents who voted in the names of other people.

What about the other side?

I do not know about the other side. We thus give in this Bill a larger opening for that abuse. We will remedy the matter in the easiest way by stating that a person who wants to vote under a declaration if he lives near polling station No. 10, and he should properly go and vote at polling station No. 8, then we must compel him to go to a responsible person, say a Justice of the Peace, for a certificate that he is the person intended. This justice of the peace knows him. We then have two declarations, and we can trace the person if he came to vote in another person’s name. I hope that this point also will be brought to the notice of a Select Committee. In connection with charitable organizations, the Minister has also not gone far enough. I, like some other members, feel that not many will be brought to justice. I only wish to add that it is necessary to state that a candidate in times of election may not make gifts to charitable organizations. During the former election a kind of shop was opened where people could buy food. They had first to go to a charitable organization and then they got a ticket and thereupon food. They were told that it was the intention to keep the shop open the whole of the winter, but if a certain member was not reelected it would certainly have to be closed, because he made the greatest contributions to it. The voters therefore knew that they would have food during the winter if a certain member was re-elected. The Minister has not touched this matter at all. Then I come to the question of motor cars. In this connection there was a provision in the old law that a candidate might not hire motor cars. Only the person with rich friends who own motors would have the benefit of them. The poor man who has no friends with motors can get no motors for his work. The Minister ought to take that provision out of the law and give people the right to hire motor cars for this service. The Bill provides, anyhow, that the expenses must be kept down under a certain amount, and consequently the provision mentioned can be taken out. I conclude with the hope that the Select Committee will have the power of taking evidence with reference to these matters.

I cannot entirely congratulate the Minister. I think that when we sat here the last time the Minister promised to introduce an electoral Bill at the next session.

Here it is.

Yes, but it is a piece of patchwork and nothing else.

Why do you not assist us in improving it?

I shall assist in making the electoral law as honest and clear and easy as possible, but it seems to me that the hon. Minister is afraid to bring in an electoral law. When our party was in power I was also against the proposals that they made. The misfortune is that the Government is afraid to tackle the matter in a proper manner. Why, in the first place, does not the hon. Minister have the practice that prevailed under the old republic? They talk so much about the old days. But nowadays it is still difficult to study laws. If in the old days a new Bill was introduced the old law was printed in one column and the new one parallel to it. This was much better for members to understand. To-day the Bills are very complicated. Reference is made to different sections, and it seems to me that the laws are so made that they can only be understood by attorneys and advocates. I want to ask the Minister in the first place to make the thing clear. Many difficulties exist in connection with the existing electoral law. Every candidate who has had experience in the past has felt the difficulty. Why cannot the people who have a vote be compelled to exercise it? I think that if a man has a vote then it should also be worth the trouble to him of exercising it. Otherwise he does not deserve the franchise. And as to the qualifications let him bring his taxation papers and prove that he has paid all his taxes in whatever province it may happen to be.

That is only a good thing for the rich man.

Every man ought to do something for the governing of the country, be the tax ever so small in some instances. There are those who have to pay 10s. or £1 poll tax, others on the other hand must pay hundreds and hundreds of pounds. In this manner we can get rid of a great many frauds. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. B. J. Pienaar) is quite right. I go a long way with him. In the old republican times a man had to go and see about his registration. As soon as he was 14 days in a ward he had to go to the registration office and declare where he came from, etc. I hope that in the Select Committee the suggestion of the hon. member for Wonderboom will be very carefully considered. We must have a proper registration office in our country. Now a taxpayer in this country has to pay out each year a large sum of money for all the registering officers who go round from house to house. How many hundreds are there not appointed in Johannesburg alone. It is, perhaps, very lucky that a party is in the position of giving out work in this way, but it is unnecessary if everyone has to see after his own registration. Then it is not necessary every year to spend so much money for the purpose. Why has the Minister not come here this afternoon with a new electoral law? Why has he not come with provisions for voters’ qualifications? He feels that something must be done in the matter. Why does he not go into the matter and introduce legislation? He has a large majority behind him. Why does he not put this matter on a proper footing? The Minister has this afternoon called attention to the injustice of the relation of the Cape to the Transvaal. I am entirely in favour of this being put right. If the people in the colony must have more members then they should get them. I am for justice. Why did not the Minister rather come with a proposal to also give the women the franchise? The hon. Minister is afraid. The Labour party is in favour of the women’s franchise, but they have made a pact, and one of the members of the Labour party has openly stated that they have now made an agreement and have to go back on the women’s franchise. Why is such legislation not introduced so that we can now once and for all get finished with the difficulties? I hope that the Select Committee will consider my proposal to include a section whereby the franchise will be given to women.

How does the hon. member come with this suggestion now?

The hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) need not be afraid that women will not vote for him, but I gladly acknowledge that many women helped me during the election. I am sorry that the provision for the women’s franchise is absent. I think that the Labour party is unanimously in favour of it, but now they have made the Pact! I further take the case of all the motor cars which are hired during the election. If people are compelled to vote then all the motor cars will not be necessary, they will take care to go to the ballot box and exercise their vote. This is a point where the rich have an advantage as the hon. members opposite say. Well, it can be wiped out in this way. I know the proposal that I make is a little bit strong, but it is necessary for justice and fairness. Let us and let the Government which is responsible for the administration of the country have the courage to properly deal with the matter.

I am very pleased that the Minister has introduced this Bill, because it is certain that the existing law has many defects. Even in the House years ago and year by year complaints have been made, and a select committee was appointed in this connection which has made recommendations. I welcome the new Bill in many respects, and I think that the departures from the old law are an improvement, although I do not agree with everything. There is in the first place the three monthly registration. Some hon. members welcome this, and I think that it will lead in extended constituencies to much trouble. The congress of the National party unanimously decided against it, because there were such great distances that the people had to go. The people do not live in a heap within a half hour of each other as in some constituencies where the lists can quickly be checked. This means travelling for days for them, and to prepare lists every three months will represent days for the people concerned in seeing to the due preparation of the lists. For this reason such an intermediate registration appears to me to be impracticable in the country. We already have trouble with the six monthly interim registration, because we find that all who have not succeeded in getting on to the list at the general registration tries to get there at the intrim registration as it were by a back door. I welcome the voting by post, because a person is forbidden to give money for the travelling expenses of persons who want to vote. It happens, however, and it goes without saying that the people who have money for the transport of the voters have an advantage over others who have not got any. But what frightens me a bit is that the person may vote before any Justice of the Peace. I hope the Select Committee will go into the matter to get more safety. The provision of 14 days is very long. A person may possibly go away ten days before. We to-day have better postal communication, and the time can thus be made shorter. Hon. members have said that the Bill does not go far enough and have pleaded for compulsory registration. If this was practical, then I would support it. They think about the Free State and the Transvaal. They forget the Cape Province. In the first mentioned two provinces there is manhood suffrage. But in the Cape Province we have qualifications, monetary, etc., and occupation of a building of the value of £75. How can We here apply compulsory registration. The person here must first find out if he is qualified. If he is told that he is not qualified then it is, perhaps, an injustice to him and yet the law lays the obligation on him that he must register. Take the case of a son who lives with his five brothers in a house of £500. If another one there attains majority will he be entitled to registration? Will he be prosecuted if he does not register? The difficulties in the Cape Province are insuperable with regard to providing for a general compulsory registration. I am, therefore, against it.

Then the objection will never stop.

The Cape has not got the same qualifications as the Transvaal.

Yes.

Will you agree to the coloured vote? If we can make differences let the other provinces have compulsory registration. I want to comment upon these two points and for the rest I welcome the Bill. The provisions regarding the newspapers were welcomed this afternoon on the other side, but subsequently hon. members objected to articles having to be signed. If there is one thing that is necessary it is that. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) has said that it is meant for the newspapers along the country side. It is just those that do the harm. We remember the case where a dodger was distributed that the Nationalist press had insulted the railwaymen, because it had said that the railwaymen enriched themselves by thefts, etc. It appeared that the “Friend” of Prince Albert, a South African party newspaper, wrote that. All those sort of things do a terrible amount of harm, and it is that which we should put a stop to. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. B. J. Pienaar) said that we must compel newspapers to tell the truth. What is truth? Pilate asked this and it remains a difficult question.

I think that the reception that was accorded to the Minister’s speech in moving the second reading of this Bill was due largely to the fact that in that speech he apparently gave expression to the principle which is embodied in the Act of Union, that in dealing with the franchise and any electoral law, which is naturally complementary to the franchise, he should endeavour, if possible, to depart from the practice which had prevailed at least in one of the colonies before Union of manipulating the electoral law in the supposed interests of some particular party. That principle was at the time of the amendment of the Electoral Law in 1918 rigorously observed, and no doubt, from the speech of the Minister, one can conclude that he is desirous of bringing forward a Bill which would not be in any way partisan. But, after we had listened to what fell from the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), we find that that is not the real purpose of the Bill.

He is not the Minister.

He may not be the Minister, but for the time being he is a representative of an important section in this House, and it seems quite clear that he and his friends are in this Bill manufacturing an instrument which they hope to utilize for party advantage. I think that is a very dangerous principle, and I do hope that, because of the indications of that kind which have fallen from the other side of the House, the members of the Select Committee to be appointed will scrutinize the Bill very carefully indeed. Coming to the detailed principles of this Bill, I would like to say to the Minister that I am not able to understand why he should seek to bring about in clause 4 (4), a section depriving the voter of his option to register, either where he may work or where he may reside. I am speaking now more particularly of the Cape Province, where we have had the practical application of that option for many years. The Minister gives two reasons for that change. He says, first of all, that there has been a certain amount of double voting, and also that in some cases constituencies have been loaded by the exercise of the option in the interests of a particular party.

Duplicate registration.

Of course, and followed by double voting. So far as that is concerned, it is certainly rather remarkable that in the last four or five years we have not had a prosecution, at any rate that I can remember, in the Western Province, where duplicate voting has been alleged to have taken place. I know there was one case recently in the Barkly West division, but in that particular case, I believe, the Minister of Justice for some occult reason released the offenders after they had been convicted. If double voting had been so prevalent as to call for an alteration of the law, why is it that there are no prosecutions on record? We are told by the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) that a number of irregularities occurred in a recent election in the Cape Peninsula. It struck one as very peculiar, if the facts were as he stated them in the course of his speech, that he did not initiate a prosecution, which was clearly his duty. Putting aside general statements of that kind, I ask the Minister where is the evidence derived from the experience of his department, which goes to show that there has been any appreciable amount of double voting? There are many instances in the Cape Peninsula of people being registered in two constituencies, but I can say from my own observation (so far as it goes) that people in that situation are generally perfectly honourable in the way in which they exercise their vote. Coming to the second ground based on the “loading” a constituency, that is, the practice of inducing voters who may be supposed to belong to a political party to register in one division in preference to another, for the purposes of that party, the Minister assumes too lightly that these things can be done easily. As a matter of fact, it is not an easy matter to accomplish. The real point seems to me to be this: Does this practice (which may exist) counterbalance the inconvenience which results in a large area, such as the Cape Peninsula, when you compel voters to abandon the option which they hold at present, and register their votes exclusively in the district in which they may reside? I think the hon. Minister, in an area such as this, should hesitate to make any alteration in the law which might cause a great deal of inconvenience to a large number of people. One would be interested to hear upon what solid grounds he thinks such an alteration is necessary. The practical effect of this alteration will be to break down the basis of representation laid down in the Act of Union. The next quinquennial census under that Act will be taken in 1926, and the Delimitation Commission’s report would be completed probably in the middle of 1928, judged by the time occupied in presenting the 1922 report. Within the two years’ interval it may be you will have an electoral roll under which members will be returned to this House not sufficiently representative of the voters of the Union. Let me give a practical example of what might happen in a constituency in this peninsula and perhaps elsewhere. A member might be returned to this House—I do not suppose the hon. Minister will feel it altogether impossible to have an election between now and 1928—by voters who actually do not number more than 2,000, whereas the average Peninsula quota is 4,500. Is that reasonable? It seems rather significant that in the latest electoral law in England it was not thought necessary to introduce these particular alterations. In 1918, when it came under the consideration of the legislature, the two qualifications, i.e., the residential and business qualifications, were retained. I would suggest for the consideration of the Minister that where you have different divisions situated in one municipality, such as we have in Cape Town, voters residing in that municipality should have the right to record their votes where they live or work. Such a voter has a claim on the House to consult his convenience. That must be the principle upon which the hon. Minister must work if he desires to create machinery whereby the greatest number of people may vote with the greatest freedom. I believe that to be his object, but it would be a misfortune and contrary to the principles of the franchise to be found in the Act of Union to restrict these existing qualifications. On the ground of practical inconvenience, I feel one can make a very strong appeal to the Minister to consider this particular question. In regard to clause 5. I find here something which I do not think has been attempted in the past in any amendment of our electoral law. The Minister here gives power to any registering officer to require that any person should complete a claim in a prescribed form, and he requires that it should be signed by that claimant in the way called for by the law of the province concerned. When, in 1892, we amended our franchise laws we made an exception in regard to those who might not be able to write at all. If the Minister refers to section 3 of the Act of 1892 he will find that the education test, which first found its expression in the 1892 Act in the Cape Province, was not applied to those who might be on the roll, provided they retained their residence in the division in which they might be registered, and that, I imagine, applied to a number of Europeans as well as non-Europeans. That right was not interfered with by any Act of the Cape Parliament, but the Minister now takes power to strike such persons off the roll.

No.

Under section 5 (b), any registering officer may require any person to complete a claim on the prescribed form. Does not that amount to the same thing?

The sub-section states the registering officer “may” require.

He would have the power to deprive the person of his right to vote, whereas if the voter has the right, there should be no power on the part of a registering officer to take it from him. I am informed that today the instructions given to registering officers is that claim forms must be completed and signed. It can be doubted whether it was given in the interests of the non-European voter. I do not think the Minister intended it in that way, but it is just possible that this point has not been brought to his attention, and I should like him to say whether he intends this right to be interfered with in this way. I should like also to refer to section 44 (b), in connection with the signing of newspaper articles. This section as drafted is bound to be ineffective, not only ineffective in practice but capable of great misuse. If this Bill becomes law, in the event of an election the first difficulty the Minister will be confronted with is the question as to when an election “commences.” It was suggested that it might be on the date of the proclamation or of nomination, but in point of fact it would be quite possible up to those dates to do things that would influence an election and yet stop short of the given date. I should like to tell the Minister that this phrase “having reference to an election” occurs in the Act of 1918 and is language taken from the English Act upon which a considerable body of case law has been founded. There was a case where a candidate went into a constituency 18 months before an election and commenced operations in furtherance of his return by inviting the people of the neighbourhood to a garden party, at which some gifts were distributed. When eventually he, hale fellow, was elected he was unseated because 18 months before he did something having reference to an election which brought him within the electoral law. If that were the interpretation put by our courts upon these words “having reference to an election” will it not be the case that every newspaper will have to act upon it, on the assumption that an election may always be imminent? What then would be the limit of the liability of newspaper proprietors? To take a further point under this clause any candidate or his agent may pass on a newspaper containing ah article, not necessarily an initial publication, which infringed this section, and so be guilty of an illegal practice. That is not by any means a strained interpretation. The Minister might, for instance, pass on to one of his constituents an issue of “Die Burger” containing an unsigned leading article and he might thereby by publishing something which might be used as evidence to unseat him before a court of law. This very question of the date of the commencement of an election was raised last year when a candidate at a particular election who had spent some money on a party selection meeting, found himself in jeopardy and had seriously to consider his position, because he had in a particular wholly unconcerned with the public interest, spent money which might come within the term “having reference to an election.” Although the Minister might say this is a point for a Select Committee and might be amended by suitable phraseology, I am using an illustration to show that this section should not appear in this Bill, for the reason that it would be found in practice to be ineffectual. The Minister requires, in this section, that the full name and address of a person “writing or producing” an article shall be disclosed. What does he mean by these words? In the event of matter being received by a newspaper from a country correspondent, by the sub-editing of a minor portion of that matter, it might fairly be described as “produced” by the sub-editor, and if it were desired to screen any contributor, the name of the sub-editor might be placed above the published matter. If the Minister is desirous of getting to the back of things and knowing who contributes articles to a newspaper he can easily be prevented from achieving his object by judicious sub-editing. If that is so what is the use of the section? In the event of a prosecution how can the Minister make the law effective? No doubt the Minister has tried to devise a means of fixing the responsibility, but I think he has not been very successful. What did the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) mean when he said that the name of the local man would under this section be published “and we would then know how to deal with him”? I asked him this question across the floor of the House, but he did not appear to follow me. I should like him to explain. Did he mean by taking away the right of an individual to express his views anonymously that he intended if that individual was bound to disclose his identity to deal with him in a certain way if it were found that his views did not coincide with a particular party or section? You might have an employee who desired to criticize his employer. To-day he makes his views known by means of an anonymous letter to the world or to his fellow-workmen, but if this clause is passed he exposes himself to retaliation at the hands of his employer. A similar case might arise in regard to a member of a trade union. If you are going to take away the right of giving expression even anonymously to honest views you compel him to undergo the chance of retaliation or to hold his peace. The necessary result of this proposal is, that the Minister will have to give some protection to a man who is threatened because he expresses his views. The Minister’s desire appears to be to make opinion freer and more honest, but to do that he must introduce some provision to assure the expression of opinion that shall not be punished by retaliation. I venture to suggest that this section is not worth the trouble of extended debate. I think the Minister is attempting something wholly impracticable, and which he cannot hope will ever be successful in practice. I suggest, after he has heard the criticisms of this section, he should eliminate it and thus improve this Bill. I should like to say a few words in regard to the new system of absentee voting. Several hon. members have referred to the fact that in the law as it stands at present it will be possible for an application to be made for a ballot-paper by someone professing to be an absentee voter but impersonating someone on the roll. This voter impersonated, if he tenders his vote, will not be entitled to do so, although he is innocent of any offence in the matter. If this schedule is examined it will be seen that an application can be made by “A.B.” on the ground that he is an absentee voter. “A.B.” may not in fact be an absentee, and someone may be impersonating him. Once a ballot-paper is issued it is not competent for the registration officer to accept the vote of “A.B.” in person at that election. Surely that opens the door to personation of a novel kind! How does the Minister propose to provide for that? Surely he does not intend to take away the right of an innocent person who is prevented from voting because someone else has perpetrated a fraud? And yet that is the particular system which the Minister asks us to adopt. Then although the Minister has spoken a great deal about the evils of duplicated voting, the system of absentee voting will make it easier for persons who have duplicate votes to cast them either in the place where they live, in person (for they may vote at one booth) and vote by post in another constituency. In the Transvaal I believe the percentage of registered voters to the actual male adult population, is as 106 to 100. In other words there are more voters than there are male adults in the Transvaal

Some years ago.

The system of absentee voting will add very much to the burden of candidates, for if they wish to protect themselves against personation they must keep a vigilant watch on all applications made to the returning officer for absentee ballot-papers, and he must also have an agent in other districts to verify the applications made for ballot-papers to see that they are not made by persons who are endeavouring to personate others. The final point to which I would like to direct attention is contained in the second schedule. I am dealing now with the case of non-European voters. The Minister seems to me to be infringing the rights of non-European voters. There must be a very considerable number who, in the ordinary course, are absent from the electoral divisions in which they are registered, and the handicaps the Minister imposes are such as to make it quite clear that they will be practically disentitled to take advantage of the schedule relating to voting by post. It will be found from section 2, that before any application can be made by a voter, for the issue of a ballot paper, he must be identified either by a returning officer, or a magistrate, electoral officer, registering officer, officer and non-commissioned officer of the police force, postmaster, railway station master, or justices of the peace, commissioner of oaths or notaries public, who are all included in the classification of a “competent witness.” What are the duties of an official who is a competent witness? He shall not witness the signature of any applicant until he has satisfied himself as to the identity of that applicant. Let us take the case of Liesbeek. I should imagine that the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) is grateful for the fact that at election time a large number of his constituents is usually absent in the Transkei.

There are more voters than appear on the roll.

Quite a number of voters seem to be registered who are absentees. If such a voter happens to be in the Transkei he must find a competent witness who is prepared to identify him, and that witness must satisfy himself as to the identity of the applicant; further he then must impose on him an education test which exceeds the statutory test of merely signing his name and address. Power is given to the Minister to prescribe the form of application for a ballot paper. It may exceed the mere signing of the applicant’s name and address, and the competent witness must certify that he has seen the application written out. The Minister may impose on the native voter a greater educational test than the law now imposes. What is the object of that educational test in the case of absentee voters? Is it reasonable or fair? The Minister carries it further. One can see the inherent repugnance which hon. members opposite have to the recognition of the rights of non-Europeans. When the non-European goes to prove he must be identified by two Europeans. Imagine the case of the unfortunate native who must find a European prepared to identify him in a large native district where there may not be more than 40 Europeans altogether. Supposing he gets over that difficulty and has procured the issue of the ballot paper, then before he marks it, he must find two other witnesses, European male adult people, known to the presiding officer to identify him. If a native has the right to vote surely you must respect his rights and let him exercise it under conditions equivalent to the Europeans. I should like to draw the attention of the hon. Minister to these points, because they seem to me important points. In the light of the unrest created by the policy of the Government, it is regrettable that a provision of this kind should have been inserted in the schedule. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) suggested that we, on this side, might derive some party advantage from this particular bill, and that that was one of the reasons why we would vote for it. I am of opinion that the party I belong to will derive some advantage from this particular measure, and that is one of the reasons why I am prepared to vote for it. I do not pose as one prepared to vote against everything that comes forward if it is in the interest of one’s own political party. If it is in the public interest as well as the party interest I think it is a good thing. This is not a Bill to create advantages for the Labour Party or the National Party, but a Bill that will have the effect of remedying to some extent the considerable advantages possessed by the South. African Party at the present time. There are one or two points I must mention. The member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) suggested that a member of the House might be returned by a constituency of 2,000 or less. There are members of this House returned by a constituency of less than 2,000 to-day. Therefore that pertains to-day, and a temporary addition for two years at the outside will not be very hard to bear. We are told that it will create considerable difficulties in the Cape. This is actually in force in the other three provinces of the Union. It has worked satisfactorily in the Transvaal it works in Natal, and it works in the Free State. Then why pick out the Cape as a special place in which it will not work satisfactorily? In the last election in the Transvaal, with a residential vote only, there were 11,000 potential Pact voters who had gone from the divisions in which they were registered. The great bulk of them were brought back and were enabled to vote on polling day Another thing on which the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) attacked my colleague was a remark stating how when any one knew the identity of a particular writer in the Press they would know how to deal with hum, and he suggested that what was going to happen would be that labour organizations and other organizations would victimize that particular man. For any one man who has been victimized by trades union organizations in this country, hundreds have been victimized by the employers of this country. There are men on these benches who have lost job after job because of their political opinions, and they have been deliberately victimized by the friends or colleagues of the hon. member for Gardens. A remark of this kind comes very ill indeed from a member belonging to that party. We hear a great deal of the word “non-European.” I think it is about time that members opposite dropped that sham and said that when they spoke of non-European they are actually talking about the native, and that they are speaking about the native vote. What is going to happen under this Bill is that the present manipulation of the native vote by the S.A.P. is going to be put a check to. It is well known by those who have been associated with the electoral system in the Cape that the native employee has no choice as to where his vote shall go. His employer does that for him. I would suggest that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger,) would tell us his experience in that respect. I will leave the other little difficulties, some of them possibly real difficulties, which have been mentioned by the hon. member for Gardens and others and suggest to them that if they have at heart the welfare of this country, regarding clean elections, purity of the franchise, etc., instead of raising all these difficulties now, they should put their heads together and send their members to the Select Committee to give us what help they can to obviate these difficulties. I want to refer to the question of the Press. It has been suggested that it is unnecessary to have signed articles on the ground that the editor is responsible for everything that appears in the paper. That is so at the present time, I believe, and yet there are signed articles in the papers of to-day. We have, for instance, one of the papers which reports the proceedings of this House by an article every day that is signed at least by initials. If it is unnecessary to have any signature whatever, why is it that a leading paper in Cape Town at the foot of these articles prints the initials of that particular writer? Is it possibly becomes the opinions of that writer do not always agree with the opinions of the editor? For instance, on the 19th of March, in the Notes in the House, “L.E.N.”, the Parliamentary writer said that the counter attack of the Minister of the Interior “obviously disconcerted” General Smuts. His reply was “clever but unconvincing,” and “the Government forces were left in possession of the field in happy spirits.” But the same day in the same paper the editor himself says that the reply of the Government to the powerful attack of the S.A.P. is weak and unconvincing.” Is that a case of editorial responsibility?

The hon. member must avoid referring to previous debates and news-paper reports of such debates.

With the profoundest respect, sir, is it not pertinent to refer as an illustration to something which has been reported?

The hon. member may refer to it, but the question of newspaper reports of debates is not under discussion.

One thing that rather amuses me is the alleged reasons why there should be anonymity in newspapers to-day. I remember an article in a paper called the “Guardian,” which is not liked by some members on the other side of the House. That particular article dealt with a subject which some members on the other side of the House took up, and they took the trouble to tear away the cloak of anonymity. They circulated the names of the owners of the “Guardian” right through South Africa. We have letters written by “Working man,” “Working man’s wife,” “Father of seven,” all signed in that particular way. I know one particular gentleman who makes a habit of writing this kind of letter. A doctor, called Dr. Campbell, who was a chairman of the S.A.P. in Durban. He wrote, and almost openly admits writing, anonymous letters over these signatures. We want to put a stop to that. It is not in the interests of clean journalism, or anything else, that that sort of thing should go on. It may be that in times past the press has been the sacred repository of public opinion. I doubt it, but there is a tradition to that effect. I find in studying history that the most powerful organs of the press, such as the “Weekly Register” were signed publications. But let us take the tradition that the press was run for the public benefit, to enable the public to understand what was going on. I suggest that this is not the case to-day, and that to-day the newspapers of this country are run for one of two things, either purely as propagandist sheets by persons holding certain opinions, or as huge commercial institutions to enable their owners to obtain money. They are simply business machines run for profit by mercantile people. Why should they be allowed special privileges over any other concern?

What privileges?

Papers asking to be allowed to publish articles anonymously are asking for such privileges. Let us examine this sacred altar, the press of this country. Let us examine who they are that they should get any particular privileges over any other commercial institutions. The “Rand Daily Mail” is owned by a private company, the Rand Daily Mail, Limited, registered in March, 1905, with a capital of fifty thousand shares, forty thousand of which were immediately issued, and ten thousand held in reserve. The capital was taken up as follows:—Sir Abe Bailey, 39,479 shares; J. A. Cohen, 100 shares; L. Cohen, 100 shares; R. Ward Jackson, 100 shares; 21 others had one share each, and there were 200 unappropriated shares. This company is being run for one shareholder, Sir Abe Bailey. He has since parted with a number of his shares, and I believe Sir Lionel Phillips has got a number of them. But two years ago he remained the largest shareholder with twenty thousand shares. Possibly that is one reason why we always get a full page of the speeches of Sir Abe Bailey in the “Rand Daily Mail.” The names of the directors of the Rand Daily Mail, Limited, are also interesting. They comprise G. H. Kingswell, D. Southwell, A. V. Lindbergh, managing director of the Central News Agency, E. M. Hind, M. Honnet, Sir J. Jeppe, and W. H. S. Bell. Of the directors of the company five are directors of big mining companies, and although Mr. Honnet is dead, I am certain that another nominee of the mining companies has taken his place. I am told there is an interlocking news arrangement between the “Rand Daily Mail,” the “Cape Times” and the “Natal Mercury.” The “Argus” Company own seven daily newspapers, among which are the “Star” and the “Cape Argus.” This company will doubtless claim that it has the right as a public interest to demand that the sacred veil of anonymity shall be left upon it. The “Argus” Company was registered in 1889 with a nominal capital of £70,000 in £1 shares, of which 61,144 were issued at the time. A list of the original shareholders is extremely interesting, especially as showing the mining companies which held and still hold shares: J. F. Dormer held 14,495 shares; H. Eckstein, 5,714; J. B. Robinson, 5,464; R. Kann, 3,428; Goldfields of South Africa, 2,286; M. Marcus, 2,286; W. P. Taylor, 2,285; and C. Hanau, 1,143. Messrs. Dormer, Eckstein, Robinson and Hanau and the Goldfields of South Africa were all mining company representatives. Some of these shares were transferred to other well-known persons including S. B. Joel, S. Neumann, and C. J. Rhodes. In 1922 the Central Mining and Investment Corporation, which is Sir Lionel Philips’ company, held in the “Argus” Company 64,000 shares; the Johannesburg Consolidated Investment Co., 40,000; Sir Otto Beit, 20,000; and the Consolidated Exploration Syndicate, 17,000 shares. To drive the point home let us see who are the actual directors of this company; they are J. Munro, of Consolidated Building, and J. H. Crosby, of Consolidated Building, both of them Barnato men; W. T. Graham and F. R. Phillips, who are both Lionel Phillips’ men. We are told that it is in the interests of this country and of public opinion that these men should be enabled, through their paid staffs, to foist their opinions on the people. We are told that it is difficult for a reporter or an editor to affix his initials to his handiwork, because the opinions they express are the opinions of the paper. As far as I know a paper has no opinions—it is the shareholders and the owners of the paper who have opinions, and when we realize that the press of this country—the S.A.P. daily press—is owned and controlled by the mining houses, and when we can drive that point home to the people of the country then we shall have a much better chance to get the people to accept these opinions at their own particular value. I do not know who the directors of “Die Burger” are and I do not care. It is just as fair to ask the editor of “Die Burger” to sign his articles as to ask the editor of “The Argus.” I will speak for “The Guardian,” which was established to further the cause of labour, and it deliberately sets out to do that. It is always prepared to sign. If one gets a letter from a business house it is always signed with a signature.

It is signed with the firm’s name.

The initials of the writer are also used. I think this Bill is a perfectly fair Bill. It is curious that the proposal is not objected to by the Nationalist or the Labour press. If it is fair for organs representing opinions on this side of the House to sign their articles it is fair that organs representing views on the other side of the House should come into line.

I am sure the House has listened with great gratification to the extremely logical and able speech which the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) has just delivered. I ask him about “Die Burger” because I would like to know when it comes to the question of finding funds for party elections for newspaper purposes, whether section 40 is wide enough—perhaps the Minister of the Interior would be the most excellent person to tell us—to cover every instance of the financing of such a paper as “Die Burger.” What is a trust? Section 40 refers to returns of expenses made by companies, associations, societies, trades unions, organizations, leagues, or bodies of persons, But a trust is not mentioned. I am quite sure that the Minister will see that the definition is so altered as to include a trust, political or otherwise. The Minister appears in many capacities, editorial, religious, political, and many others, and I appeal to him in one of those capacities to give the House the news it is thirsting for. I want to know if clause 40 is wide enough to cover a trust. I am reminded by an hon. friend that it might be necessary to consider how far the financing of such a newspaper as that which represents the nationalist, directly or indirectly from De Beers, would be affected by this clause. I should like to deal with the two logical points made by the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn). He said it was a Bill to remedy the advantages the S.A. party possessed over the advantages of other parties. That is the second time this afternoon that a very large cat has been let out of the bag. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) let out some things which to use a vulgar slang gave the whole thing away. There are many people to-morrow who will ponder over the veiled and direct threats used this afternoon in connection with this Bill. When I heard the hon. Minister of the Interior this afternoon uttering those beautiful sentiments about the purity of public life and politics everyone in the House agreed entirely, and the more he read his speech the more we drank in deeply the beauty of those sentiments which some people have been rude enough to call platitudes. I do not join in the chorus of praise which they say has come from this side of the House. I want to deal with some of the more important points. The first thing I wish to deal with is the new points he spoke of under clauses like clauses 40, 41, 43, and 44, which the Minister rather prides himself upon, but which are clauses that great exception should be taken to either because of the way they are drafted, or for the principles they embody. Take clause 41 dealing with the prohibition of political organizations carrying on philanthropic work. Who is going to interpret that in a reasonable way? What is the meaning of philanthropic work? What is devoting funds for political purposes? The words are so widely drawn as to rope into the net many people who would not consider they came within the net. My objection is that they are so widely worded as to be unjust in operation, so vaguely worded as to enable people who are unscrupulous to drive, not only the proverbial coach and four, but a couple of dozen omnibuses and a train through it. Some of these clauses, I quite agree with the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter), are absolutely futile and ineffective. We will take the definition of “philanthropical.” The Minister will have to consider putting into this Act more definition both as to the nature of the things which are prohibited, and as to the time during which the prohibition is to last. We will take, as an illustration, clause 44 (a), which in lines 34 and 35 says that “the words electoral matter used in this section include all matters intended or calculated to affect the result of the election.” Where are we going to draw the line in the definition of such a clause as that? It does not say from what time, and it does not say under what circumstances. You have the most extraordinarily wide prohibition here, and everything roped in that can be roped in. What is the meaning of “intended or calculated”? Take the clause about the returns of expenditure. If one was certain that you had any likelihood of these returns being made properly and effectively by people, there might be a good deal to be said for this clause, but we know the difficulty there is going to be to find out all those people who contribute directly or indirectly to the expenses of an election. The result will be that the scrupulous man will be very much handicapped in carrying on an election. I come now to the clause about the press, clause 44 (b). I do hope that the Minister, after the discussion which has taken place in this House, will agree to scrap that clause altogether. I do wish to point out to the Minister that not only is that clause vague, but you can drive a coach and four through it over and over again. The Minister made certain revelations this afternoon which must have shocked the House as betraying a knowledge of election matters which, at all events, shocked those of us on this side who never imagined that such a thing could be. I refer to the hon. gentleman’s knowledge of the underworld of elections.

The experience of victims.

Really, I think I must leave the Minister of Mines to that little joke of his. It is quite a good one. What I wish to point out is this, that the hon. Minister is adding that clause to section 91. In section 91 you have a clause dealing with all matters outside publication in newspapers. It provides that every Bill and pamphlet, etc., relating to elections, shall bear the name of the printer and publisher. With that clause no objection can be felt. But when it comes to matter inside a newspaper, I think the hon. Minister has completely lost sight of the right of the average member of the public to express his opinion freely without fear of victimization. That is what is largely meant by the privilege of the press, the freedom of the press, the privilege of free speech. As to the hon. member who said “secret anonymity amuses me,” I would like to ask him what is the reason for the secret ballot box? It is to allow any member of the public to record his vote without fear of consequences. The only way he can do this is by preserving his anonymity. What is voting? It is nothing but an expression of opinion. When you give your vote you are expressing your opinion that the man for whom you are voting is the best man for the purpose of carrying out the views you hold. The very same principle which protects a man in the ballot box is the same principle to which we should adhere in allowing a man to express his opinion in the free press of the country. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) threw a red herring across the whole thing. It is not a question of the importance of the article; it is a question of every member of the community having free expression of his opinion in this country.

Under his own name.

That is begging the question entirely. I cannot help thinking of the enthusiasm for publicity shown by hon. members on the opposite side at meetings of their congresses.

You are quite wrong.

The hon. member must not discuss another Bill.

I will just say this that when the hon. member went up there, so great was the desire for publicity that the doors were closed, and the only man who objected, I understand, was a Mr. Hicks.

It was not a party conference.

Well then, what about the conference at Durban when the way was being prepared for the Pact which resulted a few months afterwards. What about the closed doors then?

You told us the way was not prepared for the Pact.

I only ask: Was that a party conference, and was it held behind closed doors?

Yes.

Again we see the great desire for publicity which characterized the Labour party in those days. The Labour party frankly admit that this Bill is one where they can get something of their own back and can make the other man give up his secrets. We know when the Labour party came into power in England, under Ramsay McDonald, the desire for open diplomacy faded away and the Labour Government took the same old lines as every previous Government had had to do, for the obvious reason that open diplomacy does not work in this workaday world. You may have to do things in the old, old way, and a man is entitled to the privilege of expressing his opinion in his own way and in his own time. The hon. member for Bloemfontein let the “cat out of the bag” by saying that this Bill was designed to “clip the wings” of the S.A.P. press. I wonder what the leaders of his party sitting there thought of his speech. It is all very well for members sitting on the Treasury benches to repudiate the responsibility for the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North), but that hon. member has been sent about as a trusted emissary.

Business interrupted by Mr. Speaker at 10.55 p.m., and debate adjourned; to be resumed to-morrow.