laid upon the Table:

Statement, prepared in terms of section forty-nine of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1911, as amended by the Exchequer and Audit Amendment Act, No. 31 of 1916, of all Special Warrants issued during the period 13th March to 12th April, 1925, under section forty-eight of the Act.

Statement referred to Select Committee on Railways and Harbours.

laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Return prepared in terms of section twenty-six of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1911, showing particulars of Special Warrants issued by His Excellency the Governor-General during the period 13th March to 12th April, 1925.
2. (2) Comparative Classified Summary of Ordinary Expenditure from Revenue, excluding Railways and Harbours, for the period 1914-’15 to 1923-’24, and the Appropriation for 1924-’25. (Printed.)
3. (3) Thirteenth Yearly Report of the Central Board of the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa, together with financial statements, for the year ended 31st December, 1924. [U.G. 24—’25.]
4. (4) Financial Statements of the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa as at 31st December, 1924.

Documents referred to Select Committee on Public Accounts.

Is the hon. the Prime Minister possibly in a position to enlighten the House about the troubles which it is reported have arisen at Bloemfontein? According to the rumours in circulation certain casualties have taken place.

We have received the following telegram, which has been sent by the Commissioner of Police to the Department of Justice—

This is all the information that we have.

I do not know whether I am in order, but a large number of us think that the provisions of this Bill ought to be extended and I wish to move—

It seems to me that we ought to provide for a very much wider control being put into the hands of this board than the mere shipment of the stuff from the ports. I can foresee a grave possibility of congestion on the railways, and the fruit being sent to a port where shipping is not available, and this board, I consider, should have power to say to which port the stuff should be transported by the railways, as well as to control its actual shipment at the ports.

Before you put that perhaps the hon. Minister will be good enough to give the House an assurance with regard to the formation of this board. The other day when the question was under discussion, the hon. Minister said it was his intention to appoint a board of four members—with two advisory members—one of the Railway Department, and one of the Agricultural Department—that of these four members three should be the nominees of the Fruit Growers’ Exchange appointed by the Minister, and that the fourth member should be a grower representing the non-co-operative section of the fruit growers. I would like to ask the hon. Minister, to prevent the necessity of any amendment, if he would give the assurance that is indeed the manner in which he would appoint his board, that the three members representing the exchange would be recommended to the Minister by the exchange, and that he would in the ordinary way appoint them. I would further like to suggest that when the citrus season is on and the deciduous season is off, he might really have two boards, not acting at the same, but so that one board would represent the deciduous growers and the other board the citrus growers. If this were done, the citrus growers in the north, whom I and others are anxious to meet, would then realize that there was no intention in any way of thrusting upon them the views of the deciduous growers. If the hon. Minister would agree to the formation of such a board as I suggest then he would be meeting all views by having at one time the fruit exchange members simply representing the citrus people and at another time simply representing the deciduous growers. I merely throw it out as a suggestion. I simply want the assurance of the hon. Minister that he will allow the responsible people to nominate representatives and submit the names to him. It would simplify matters very much. I think my hon. friend is extremely anxious to remove any suspicion of any sort, and unfortunately in the past there has been an idea that things have been run in the interests of the deciduous growers. We should do everything we possibly can to get unanimity and co-operation among all sections. I would like to strongly urge upon the hon. Minister with regard to the non-co-operative member of the board, that he should also be a fruit grower himself.

I shall be very glad if the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) will remember that we on this side of the House should also hear what he says and not only the Minister. We cannot hear a word. I should like to know from the Minister what the policy will be regarding the constitution of this board of control. Is the board only going to be concerned with the shipping of fruit? That is to say, is it going to come only under the Minister of Railways or will it also be under the Minister of Agriculture? It seems to me that important agricultural questions are concerned in this matter, and how far will the Minister meet the fruit growers in the appointment of the board and not only a particular company? I will later bring certain things to the notice of the Minister which I think should be altered, but here I would like to know in connection with the board on what principles it will be constituted. Are the interests of the provinces from an agricultural point of view to be entrusted to them? I should like to know what principles will be applied in constituting the board?

I would like to make a suggestion to the hon. Minister. I support what has been said by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt); but I want to make a further suggestion in regard to the advisory committee. The hon. Minister is prepared to appoint two advisory members, one representing the railways and the other representing the agricultural department. I want to suggest a third. I strongly think that there should be a representative of the shipping agents or representatives on this side, of the fruit salesmen on the other side should also be appointed. They have an organization and could easily select a man. Their claim is based on several points. In the first place they are of very material assistance in handling the stuff. They pay a large portion of the railway carriage and the freight. They also pay charges and freight to the other side to the extent of 60 per cent. Simply allow them to nominate one member to be on the board in an advisory capacity. Such a representative would be extremely useful to fruit growers, and seeing that they have an organization which would undoubtedly select a good representative, their advice and experience could not fail to be useful.

If I correctly understood the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) then he asks the hon. Minister of Railways and Harbours to state now how the board of control will be constituted. I hope that the hon. Minister will not do so.

Why not?

I hope that the hon. Minister will consider the matter carefully before he makes a statement. He said the other day that 70 per cent. of the fruit export was now controlled by the fruit exchange. This may be true regarding the people who export to-day, but I can give him the assurance that there are companies and other persons in the Transvaal who will shortly be exporting much more than they are doing to-day, and are in a position to do so. They do not yet belong to the fruit exchange, and the Minister should therefore go into the matter carefully from the point of view also of what the position in a short time will be. Many people are not so very much in love with the fruit exchange. In the past the fruit exchange did not carry on its business successfully, and many people in the Transvaal left it. With the greatest difficulty they were induced to join up again, and great dissatisfaction still exists to-day. I hope that the export will not be placed entirely in the hands of the fruit exchange, but that the people who remain out of the fruit exchange will also be represented on the board. I hope therefore that the Minister will make no statement to-day about the step he is going to take in the near future.

I would like to support the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), in what he said in connection with the position of the fruit shippers, who I think are justly entitled to representation on the board in an advisory capacity. In case the Minister may not be acquainted with the position of the fruit shippers, I may say that most growers find it difficult to finance themselves from their own resources, and are in the habit of placing orders in advance for packing material, etc., usually these orders are financed by their London principals, on condition of repayment out of the sale proceeds of the fruit. After the packing material has been purchased, in many cases cash advances are required by the growers, and, when the fruit is ready for shipment, it becomes necessary to disburse railage and other charges. In some cases the sea carriage is disbursed by the London salesman, and in others this is done by the agent here. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) stated that these agents were interested to the extent of 60 per cent. of the export trade for advances and payments they so make. I would like the Minister to realize that for these advances the fruit shippers have a lien, and it is perfectly reasonable under these circumstances that they should be allowed some opportunity to express their views and watch their interests by allowing them to nominate a representative. The Minister appears to be following the lines of New Zealand and Australia, and it is significant when we come to look at the two New Zealand Acts, the Dairy Export Control Bill and the Meat Produce Control Bill, to notice that the station agents or sellers are given direct representation on the respective boards, although the producers themselves have the controlling voice. There is another practical point to be considered, i.e., that the fruit shippers of South Africa are affiliated to a National Association for the retailing abroad of fruit and other produce, which have a very powerful influence in the English markets. I suppose that among themselves they very largely provide this finance in South Africa, It is impossible to ignore the fact that if by any action of the Minister’s they feel compelled to take less interest in the export trade it might be unfortunate for the development of our trade. Probably the Minister of Agriculture will, at some later stage, develop this matter of control of exports in order to secure better markets, and I think in the first Bill of this kind which he passes it is important that he should state whether he is prepared to recognize the existence and rights of the fruit shippers, or fruit financiers as I should prefer to call them, as an essential and inevitable feature in our economic system of distribution.

I hope the hon. Minister will not listen to the hints given him by hon. members opposite. The first reason is as stated by the hon. members for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) and for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk), that in the Transvaal a beginning has been made with the export of deciduous fruits, and it will be wise if the hon. Minister in appointing the board will take care to make it as representative as possible. But the strongest argument in my opinion is something else, sections 1 and 4 must be read together. Section 1 provides for the constitution of the board, and section 4 gives the board the power to approve of the work done by the fruit exchange in the distribution of shipping space and the regulations as to export. As I said at the second reading it is certainly a bad business principle to give control over the fruit exchange to a board which for the most part consists of members of the fruit exchange. For this reason I hope that the Minister will not listen to what hon. members opposite are suggesting.

Before the Minister replies I should like to stress the point made by my right hon. friend the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). I think he has referred to some very important points which I hope will receive the very careful consideration of the Minister. In the first place, we are very anxious to have an assurance from the Minister as to the position of this board. Section 1, as it stands, leaves the whole matter in the hands of the Government, who can appoint on the board whom it likes, for as long as it likes, and under whatever conditions it likes. The Minister gave us a rather vague assurance, on the second reading, which I should like to have repeated to-day, that the board of control will be so constituted that the majority of the members will be appointed by the Government on the nomination of the fruit exchange and that there will be a minority representation given to the outside producers who are not members of the exchange. I take it that it is common cause, from what the Minister has said, that there will be the official members representing the two great Government departments concerned with fruit export—the Railways and Harbours and Agricultural departments. I hope the hon. Minister will be able to give us a definite assurance to-day, because if he does so, so far as I am concerned, there will be no further trouble as regards clause 1. But there is one other point my hon. friend has raised which struck me as deserving of very considerable support by the Government, and that is that the board should not be constituted of the same personnel for deciduous and citrus handling. The hon. Minister knows that, ever since the origin of the exchange, there has been a certain amount of friction between the citrus growers in the north, and the deciduous growers who are mostly in this province. Citrus growers up north have been under the impression that they do not get a square deal, and that things are run from the Cape Town point of view; and the result has been that, although they have most patriotically joined the fruit exchange, they have the feeling that they are not always treated fairly in the distribution of money and other affairs of the board. What my hon. friend suggests is that the board should be constituted in such a way that when it deals with citrus export the personnel will consist of the two official members and representatives of the citrus growers, and when it deals with deciduous export it will consist of the official members plus representatives of the deciduous growers. I think there is a great deal to be said for that, and if that is done I think the difficulty which is felt up north and has been expressed by the hon. members for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) and Delarey (Mr. van Hees) will be met. The board of the exchange consists, as far as I know, of eight citrus and five deciduous members and one or two representatives of the pineapple industry, so all these various interests are represented in the fruit exchange; but there is the fear that in the recommendations and appointments that may be made justice will not be done to these two sections. The Minister knows, as the committee knows, that the fruit export divides completely into these two parts—deciduous and citrus. They have different seasons, and entirely different shipping arrangements have to be made for each. It is a matter for consideration whether the board of control should not have a variable personnel, as suggested. I think it is quite feasible and will make for smooth working and inspire confidence in the board by people in the north. I am very glad the Government has come forward with this Bill, but my hon. friend knows there is a good deal of suspicion in the various parts of the country, and we are trying to keep together under one control very divergent interests, which are very suspicious of one another; and I believe if this suggestion is adopted, this suspicion will disappear entirely. I hope my hon. friend on my left (Mr. Jagger) will not take it amiss if I say that I do not entirely agree with him in his suggestion as to the representation of the agents on the board. I am very much afraid of overloading this body. We have to deal with a difficult matter and the fruit exchange is fighting an uphill battle; there are interests which are not on their side; and with the best will in the world we may overload this board, instead of making it a homogeneous body which will work smoothly, if we include those who have not the same interest in the fruit industry as the growers. It is my feeling that we have to leave the appointment of the board in the hands of the Government. At the second reading I suggested that we should settle the constitution of the board here, but, after the conversation which my right hon. friend on my right and myself had with the Minister this morning, I feel there is much to be said for his point of view. The position is too uncertain and too much in a state of flux for us to make a statutory settlement in view of certain considerations which the Minister has to bear in mind. I hope the hon. Minister will be able to give us the assurance in regard to what I have suggested as to the nominations being made by the exchange.

We could, unfortunately, not hear what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) said, but from what the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), who has now spoken, has said, it is clear to me that the proposal should not be accepted because if the Government should appoint a hoard of control for citrus fruits and a board for the control of deciduous fruits he will actually acknowledge that we in the north were right in contending that the control had always been in the hands of a few Cape people. If two boards are appointed then the work of one will encroach (upon that of the other. While the export of citrus fruits from one portion of the country is still going on, deciduous fruits will again come into the market. Where are we then? When will the function of one board cease and that of the other begin? We have always looked for a central board, a central body which in the end everybody would join. If there are two boards which are composed differently then we shall have the circumstance that the one will encroach upon the work of the other. No, we must have a central board which will look after the interests of both. We think that the existing suspicion will disappear in time but this will never happen as long as two kinds of people serve on the board. It is just such a central board which will deal fairly in cases where possibly there is a shortage of shipping space. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and all of us agree that the Government will do its best in the appointment of the board and will see to it that the board does not solely consist of representatives of the deciduous fruit farmers nor only of representatives of the citrus fruit producers. We have, e.g., in the Gape the case of people being interested in both kinds of fruit. Mr. Pickstone, e.g., is a large producer of deciduous fruits, but he also produces citrus fruits. He is interested in both kinds of export. If two kinds of members are to be appointed then we shall have what the enemies of the fruit exchange have always striven after, namely “friction.” This Bill is, as a matter of fact, intended to remove friction. Accordingly, I hope that the suggestion of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) will not be accepted.

I support the remarks of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). There is another very important point which I hope will receive attention. It is unusual and undesirable not to have a limit to the number of members appointed to a board. Furthermore, there is nothing to prevent the members of the board, including the chairman, being appointed for a unlimited time, say, for ten years, or even for life. It is necessary for boards of this sort, dealing with a very big industry, scattered over wide areas, to have a continual change of membership, but there is no provision for such a change.

I would only like to point out in connection with what the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has said, that it seems as if a board of this nature can consist of representatives of the fruit exchange for deciduous fruits during a portion of the year and then again for citrus fruits during another portion. He must, however, read section 4 in connection with this section. Under section 1 the constitution of the board is provided for, and under section 4 the powers of the fruit exchange are fixed. Under section 4 the fruit exchange has the power of entering into contracts, or rather of declaring contracts of no effect. Now when the fruit exchange gets that power, why should it still be represented on the board? Section 4 (1) reads—

It seems to me, therefore, that we must be careful not to compel the Minister to appoint members of the fruit exchange on the board, at any rate, not before we have considered section 4. We do not yet know whether section 4 will be passed. If it is not passed, I shall have something else to say about section 1. It seems to me that section 4 is the most important in this connection.

I think it will be best to deal with the difficulties of the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) first. I only wish to point out that no powers are given under section 1 to the board of control. Powers are given under section 2. The hon. member has correctly stated that section 2 is actually the important section, and he has also rightly said that contracts will be made by the fruit exchange and not by the board of control. But the contract will be subject to the approval of the board of control. I, however, find nothing here in section 1 about the fixing of the powers, so I cannot see how section 1 is in conflict with sections 2 or 4. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) has again referred to the importance of the Transvaal, not alone for citrus fruits but also for deciduous fruits. Well, as I said at the second reading, the production in the Transvaal of both kinds of fruit is increasing very much and will increase more in the future, and the Transvaal will probably in respect of deciduous fruits also become just as important as the Western Province. The fruit exchange is itself aware of this. This Bill, as the hon. member will see, does not in the least deal with the Transvaal. It would be very unfortunate if the control should favour one province above another, but the importance of the Transvaal is not injured in the least. I can give this assurance to the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) as well.

†I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) to alter the word “Shipping” to “Transportation,” as that would be quite contrary to the whole spirit of the Bill. The question of transportation on the railways is quite a different matter. It seems to me that the remarks of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and the right hon. member for Port Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) with regard to the constitution of the board, are very largely met by the Bill as drafted. With regard to their suggestion that we should have two separate boards—one for citrus and the other for deciduous fruit—I think that it will be wise to leave the matter an open question, as I am not prepared to commit myself on this matter. I think that the remarks of the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) should be very carefully borne in mind, and I have been very much struck by what he said as to the dangers which would arise from the establishment of practically two different boards. I don’t propose at this stage committing myself as to the constitution of the board in regard to the interests of the two big branches of the industry, namely, citrus and deciduous fruit, but wish to say that in constituting the board due regard must be paid to both these interests. That seems to me to be another reason why the power should be taken to the Government to constitute this board, after consultation of course, in the best interests of the industry. I must remind the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) that I have never agreed to the principle that the board is to be constituted out of four members of whom three will be representatives of the fruit exchange. In constituting this board the Government will consider the claims of the fruit exchange and will give them a majority, that is a majority of membership on the board, but I have not indicated how many representatives of the fruit exchange, and how many representing the outside growers will be appointed. Further than that I am not prepared to go. In the interests of the industry it would be wrong to go further than the terms of the Bill as it stands. With regard to the constitution of the board I shall naturally consult the fruit exchange with regard to their representatives, but the Government does not bind itself to accept the nomination of the fruit exchange and it would be a mistake to do so. Take the question of proportionate representation between the deciduous and the citrus growers, and the question ox provinces. If the exchange were given the power under section 1 suggested, it would mean that if the exchange nominated three deciduous fruit growers from the Western Province the Government would have to accept those three. That would be wrong. You must leave it to the Government to consult all interests and leave it in the hands of the Government to make the appointments on the board as they think fit, not only looking to the interests or the Transvaal or the interests of the Western Province, but to the whole of the interests of the fruit growers. I hope, therefore, members will allow clause 1 to pass. We shall endeavour to establish a board that will satisfy all interests. I agree that this board is not going to have an easy task. But if we consider the interests of all sections, deciduous and citrus, we hope to be able to get a board which will so function that no difficulties will arise. In reply to the hon. members for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) I have been approached with regard to an advisory member representing the shipping agents, and this is under consideration. The addition of advisory members is under consideration. What has been said by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) must be borne in mind, namely, that we must not introduce a jarring element. The shipping agents have done good work and have financed the farmers, but there is nothing to prevent the farmers from going to the Land Bank and getting all the assistance they want for financing the export of their fruit. The Land Bank has the capital available. We do not under this Bill say that the farmers must go to the Land Bank or to the shipping agents. We leave them free.

I would have liked my hon. friend to have said at once that this is a board to represent the fruit producers of this country.

I do say that.

I disagree entirely with the hon. members for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) and Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that the shipping agents should have anything to do with the constitution of a board representing the fruit trade. The board has the fullest facilities for consulting the shipping agents if they desire, but between that and putting shipping agents on the board there is a big difference. The fruit exchange has gone through stormy weather, not owing to difference of opinion and misunderstanding between the growers, but owing to the fact that there were large interests in the country out to do all they possibly could to break up the fruit exchange, and the hon. Minister knows that as well as I do. I agree with my hon. friend it would be inadvisable in appointing a board to have at one period of time a board representing certain sections of the citrus industry and at another time representing the deciduous industry. I only threw this out so that the hon. Minister had an opportunity of consulting the fruit exchange and finding the greatest amount of unanimity possible. It is my desire to strengthen the fruit exchange to represent every individual grower in the country. There is nothing to prevent him under his regulations from asking the fruit exchange to make nominations. I want both sections represented, and there is nothing to stop the hon. Minister from saying to the fruit exchange that a certain number of your nominees must represent certain interests or certain sections, if it is to be a growers’ board, but my hon. friend will not always be there.

I hope not.

I should be sorry under existing conditions to see him change his portfolio with anybody else. In appointing members for the fruit exchange I want to see him allow the fruit exchange to nominate the people it desires should represent them. In his own interests it is best because if they make a mistake he would not be in the position of having them turn round and saying that if the fruit growers had had the nomination it would have been different. We want them to say that this is a fruit growers’ board and not a political organization. I am sorry if I misunderstood the Minister the other day. I understood that he suggested that the fruit exchange should have a majority on the board, say, for instance, three members on the fruit exchange, and one or two representatives of outside growers. I call the Minister’s attention to the statement, I think I am right, that roughly, taking the citrus and deciduous growers, 80 per cent. of the growers were members of the fruit exchange, and I thought under the circumstances he should have been satisfied with one member representing the outside growers. All I wanted to know was if the Minister will be guided by the nominations of the fruit exchange in regard to the members that represent them. I think that is a very fair thing to ask my hon. friend. I agree with the Minister that you could not possibly have three representatives of the deciduous growers or three representatives of the citrus growers nominated by the fruit exchange, and I agree with him entirely that you should not have them all represented down here in Cape Town. You cannot help recognizing, if you listen to the speeches that have been made, that there is a certain idea in the minds of people that one section of the fruit industry wants to get an advantage of the other. I think my hon. friend knows that it is the desire of all of us to get rid of that.

Let me reply at once to the right hon. gentleman (Sir Thomas Smartt). I have already said, and I want to repeat that the fruit exchange will be consulted in making the appointment or representatives of the exchange to the board. The right hon. gentleman has referred to the possibility of suspicion arising. I do not want to go into the past history of the fruit exchange. They have no doubt made mistakes in the past. The shipping committee was constituted out of three men from the Western Province, and they were with the exception of Mr. Pickstone, who is interested in citrus, deciduous growers. It is said that this is one reason why there has been suspicion in the minds of growers in the Transvaal. It is because I want to prevent this that I ask power to the Government to make the appointment of members of the board. If the exchange is reasonable and their recommendation meet with the approval of the Government, I will make the appointments, but I cannot bind myself to accept the nominations of the fruit exchange. The Government are responsible for the constitution of this board.

I do not think there is any possibility of what the Minister suggests taking place. He has, however, forgotten that the constitution of the governing body of the fruit exchange consists of fifteen members, eight of whom are citrus growers, and if those fifteen members desire to say that they think A, B and C, whom they nominate are most suitable people to look after their interests on a responsible body of this character, surely my hon. friend would want very weighty evidence to depart from the recommendations of the exchange. The people who are taking the risk are the deciduous people; they are in a minority on the board. I feel that the men whom the fruit exchange recommend would be the men who have the support of the vast majority of fruit growers in the country. I am certain that if my hon. friend departs from that he will raise a great deal of dissatisfaction and unrest among the growers.

I have consulted the Fruit Growers’ Exchange and they are quite prepared to accept the Bill as it stands.

I only wish to say that I hope that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) will stop pressing that point. The Minister cannot bind himself and say to-day: I am going to accept the proposal of the one body or the other. I do not think that there is any need to prove that he cannot do it. The Government must take advice about the appointments, but if the Minister states here that he binds himself to take the advice, I shall be disappointed, especially when we see what the powers of the fruit exchange already are. The Minister has given the assurance that he will take their advice into consideration. We must be satisfied with that, and see what powers will be given to the board or to other bodies. We can then say that the constitution should take place in a specified way with a view to the special powers that are granted.

Perhaps the Minister will meet me in another manner. I think the Minister knows the idea in my mind. If the Minister gave the committee an assurance that the members who are appointed to this board, outside the technical advisers of the Railway Department and the Agricultural Department would be individual growers, then he would relieve me of a great deal of anxiety.

As far as the fruit exchange is concerned, or the outside growers?

As far as the fruit exchange and the other member that you propose to appoint representing non-cooperators are concerned. I think the fruit exchange can only nominate growers because it is a co-operative organization formed entirely of fruit growers, but so far as the outside member is concerned representing non-co-operators, I would like an assurance from the Minister that he would be a grower himself of fruit in this country.

I think in my second reading speech I have already indicated that that was my intention, if I can get suitable men, of course.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I move—

1. (2) The Board may, with the approval of the Minister, take such steps as it may deem expedient and practicable to equalize the rates of freight payable by exporters of fruit from any port of the Union during a particular period and to make all necessary arrangements for the payment of such rates by exporters.

This is to give the board power to equalize the rates, the shipping freights for export during the season, for all exporters of fruit. The amendment gives effect to the proposal of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) at the second reading. I hope that the intention of the amendment is quite clear, but because I am not convinced now that it will meet with the approval of all exporters of fruit, and particularly not of the fairly considerable numbers of producers who are still outside the fruit exchange, I make the enforcement of this power by the board of control subject to the approval of the Minister. This means, as a matter of fact, that if the fruit exchange can convince me that all interests inside and outside of the exchange wish the provision to have effect, I can give the board the power to equalize the tariffs for a season for all exporting. I think if the Government has the assurance that all interested producers are unanimously, or, at any rate, practically unanimously in favour that is to say, not necessarily the full 100 per cent.—of granting the authority to the board, then the Government should be embowered to bring the provision into operation. I propose the amendment. Then there are a few literal amendments which are required in the Dutch text.

May I ask the Minister whether he has consulted the fruit exchange with reference to this new amendment? It seems to me that it is a good amendment, and I do not know whether he has consulted the fruit exchange about it. In connection with the functions and duties of the board, I hope the Minister will in each case give the board the hint that they should as far as possible give priority in shipment to fruit according to its order of arrival. I hope that it is not the intention that the board shall decide what fruit shall be shipped irrespective of the time of arrival. Delay at the docks causes great losses. One of my electors shipped 2,000 boxes of pears by the “Durham Castle.” They were in good condition, but arrived in England valueless. It cost him about £200 to export the pears to London, and he did not get a penny for them. This does not take into account capital expenditure, labour, and the spraying of the fruit trees. I mention this to show that if an attempt is not made to ship fruit in the order in which it arrives at the docks, then great losses may be incurred.

I want to move an amendment to sub-section (a) of clause 2. The control only starts from the time of the arrival of the fruit at the port. It is very necessary that the board should have the opportunity of controlling the fruit from the time that it is handed over to the railway authorities. To give an example, there may be a consignment of citrus coming down country. There may be absolutely no freight available in Cape Town, but there may be freight in Port Elizabeth. It seems to me that the control board should have power to divert that truck at Port Elizabeth for shipment. I would therefore move—

I should like to know whether the new amendment which the Minister proposes means that all fruit shipped from South Africa will be placed on the same footing, and whether no distinction will be made if the fruit goes to a port in America or to various ports in Europe? I think that this would be unfair to the producers. Some of them will perhaps wish, e.g., to ship to Hamburg in preference to London, although the freight to the former port will possibly be more. It will then surely not be fair that all should pay the same freight. Then I have another question. The hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) has already pointed out that the season for deciduous and citrus fruits sometimes coincide, and will the tariff for both kinds of fruit then be equal? This will also not be fair, because citrus fruits can be carried under entirely different conditions. They are packed in larger boxes and they are mostly carried at a time when there is more shipping accommodation than when other fruits are carried; thus those fruits should be carried at lower prices. The same is, e.g., also applicable in the Transvaal with reference to the carriage of mealies, and lower rates are taken from people who live a long way off for carriage to the inland markets, and this works well. But, nevertheless, it is something novel, and I would be glad if the Minister will take these points into consideration.

I wish to ask the hon. Minister to go carefully into this matter. I understand that only 45s. per ton is paid for the carriage of citrus fruits and 65s. per ton for deciduous fruits. This will mean that if the equalization is applied to-day certain portions, especially the northern portions, will suffer much damage, and that the southern portion where the people export deciduous fruits will obtain an unfair advantage. This will be the more unfair, for, as I understand, the northern portions already pay 15s. per ton for carriage over the railway. I would therefore suggest that a matter such as this, especially in the beginning, should be tackled with the greatest care. It may happen that the fruit exchange has its largest membership in the south, and that the members say: We want the prices equalized. This would be decidedly damaging and unfair to the fruit farmers of the north.

I think that the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) reads that amendment wrongly. The intention is not to put citrus and deciduous fruits on the same scale as regards freights. This amendment as I read it is intended to put on the same footing the transport of fruit with the special steamers that pass through here from Australia and not to equalize the freight for citrus fruits with that for deciduous fruits. It is necessary because otherwise there will be people who will say that they do not wish to ship their fruit through the board because they want to make use of cheaper rates than those of the Australian boats. That is the intention of the amendment as I understand it. As regards the amendment of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) I entirely agree with the Minister that the board must have control from the moment that the fruit is delivered on rail. There are many stations from which fruit, that is intended for Europe, is carried, and on many of the stations there is no storage accommodation for a box of fruit. Sometimes hundreds and hundreds of boxes of fruit stand baking in the sun. I agree that the board must be able to come to the railway administration and point out such defects and urge them to make proper arrangements.

As section 2 (a) now reads it means that the board can only make arrangements for the export of fruit through Union ports. The board can therefore make no arrangements for ports outside the Union, but which are nevertheless situated within the sphere of the Union. We in the east and northeastern parts of the Transvaal find that it is no longer a question of choice with us but of urgent necessity to export our fruit via Delagoa Bay. We have a million orange trees in Barberton, and along the Selati line there are certainly just as many or more. Those fruit growers are convinced that it is necessary to export via Delagoa Bay. Mr. R. A. Davis, late head of the fruit department in the Transvaal, has made a favourable report on the arrangements that have been made there for the export of fruit. I thus propose—

1. (b) To control the export of fruit intended for shipment from a port outside the Union.

This will give the board the opportunity of making such arrangements for the export of fruit via Delagoa Bay.

I think the amendment of the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) should be accepted. As I understand the amendment, it means that if any fruit-grower in the Transvaal, say in the Barberton district for instance, finds that his nearest port is Delagoa Bay, this board should also concern itself with the export of his fruit, as well as the export of fruit throughout the whole Union. I do not know whether the Minister proposes to draft regulations under sub-section (d), but if so, he might provide for the appointment of an officer at Delagoa Bay, or other port where it could reasonably be expected that the Transvaal fruit would be shipped. If he did that, the amendment of the hon. member for Barberton would be unnecessary. But in any case, I take it the object of this Bill is to prevent muddling and to see that the fruit reaches the foreign markets in good condition, and if a particular producer wishes to export through Delagoa Bay and it is his nearest and best port, he should not be penalized and should have the same security as others that controlled export will take place of fruit from his district.

The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) has asked me whether I have consulted the fruit exchange with reference to this amendment. The answer is yes, and I can also tell him that they are satisfied with the amendment as far as it goes although I will not say that they would want to go a little further. Then the hon. member has referred to the losses suffered in the past through lack of shipping space. The hon. member will appreciate that this Bill is especially intended to make provision for shipping space and to make an end to the unhappy condition of things.

But will no preference be given to one or other shipper?

No, naturally there ought to be no preference. The body which exercises the control is a public body and they are responsible to the fruit exchange and through it in turn to the fruit growers. If there is unfair preference then the board will immediately be brought to its duty by the fruit exchange. I hope that the hon. member does not think that preference will be given by the board but if it actually happens then the board, as a public body, will be called to account. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) has asked me if this section will mean that the same rates of freight will be charged for the shipments to ports in Europe as to ports in America, and whether freights for different ports will be placed on the same footing. This will undoubtedly not be the case. The prices of freights to the respective ports will certainly be taken into account. The second question which the hon. member asked me is whether deciduous and citrus fruits would be treated on the same footing. I do not think so. The fruit exchange will have to regulate this with the fruit growers and certain distinctions will have to be made. I want to say to the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) that the seasons for citrus fruits and other fruits do not coincide and therefore it is unnecessary to be afraid that difficulties will arise in this connection.

†I now come to the amendment of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford). I am afraid I cannot accept that. The hon. member will see that if I agreed the railway administration would have to decide to which port the fruit had to be transported by rail and that would create a very difficult position. A grower at Wellington, for instance, asks the administration to send his fruit to Cape Town. The railage, of course, is much lower than it would be if the fruit were sent to Durban or East London, and if the fruit were sent there the grower would probably not be prepared to pay the railage. What the hon. member has in mind, no doubt, is that he fears that we may have a recurrence of the unfortunate condition of affairs this year with fruit collecting at one port when shipping is available at some other port. Under this Bill, however, the board of control and committee at each port will keep in the closest touch with the shipping companies and the growers in the different parts of the country. These committees will advise growers where to send their fruit, and the board has the power of regulating export under clause 2. I therefore do not think that this difficulty will again arise. A grower may have an agent in Durban whom he trusts, and he does not care to send his fruit to some other port, or vice versa; and the amendment would mean interference with the grower in such matters. If growers do not accept the advice of the committees of the board of control, they do so at their own peril, and I am sure that no grower who has once been caught will again disregard the advice given him in this regard.

*The hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) has brought up the position of Delagoa Bay and the rights of the farmers of the northern and north-eastern portions of the Transvaal to export fruit from that harbour. I wish to point out to him that there is nothing in this Bill to prevent the farmers in question from exporting their fruits by way of Delagoa Bay. I understand that the hon. member wants us to include Delagoa Bay in the Bill. But how can we do this? We have no right in a foreign harbour. I can only say this, that unless the shipping freights from Delagoa Bay to Europe descend considerably there is no prospect of fruits being exported by way of Delagoa Bay. I wish to lay stress on the fact that in this Bill there is nothing to prevent farmers from exporting by way of that harbour. I think it undesirable to accept the amendment.

I am rather sorry in regard to the Minister’s attitude, but I see the difficulties which he finds in the Bill as it now is. Nevertheless I have a good deal of sympathy with the amendment of the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood), because I see the whole idea in connection with this control is to get the fruit away as quickly as possible and to give equal consideration to everybody, the largest as well as the smallest grower, and a time might arise when the whole idea of fruit control may be frustrated by arrangements being made by people on a large scale to get their fruit out by another harbour. This might disorganize the market and be used as a lever to get growers to sell their fruit to other people. The only way to prevent that is that embodied in the amendment of the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben). If the hon. member for Barberton urged the Minister to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Albany, it would have been a way of regulating the port of shipment. I was anxious that something of that sort should be done, but I foresaw that there might be a possibility of getting outside the arrangements in this Bill by using a foreign port. Perhaps on the report stage my hon. friend will consider whether he will put into the hands of the board the power of controlling the movement of fruit the moment it reaches the railway. The only way in which the difficulty can be met is by the adoption of the amendment.

I would emphasize what the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) says. As far as I can see, if something is not done in the nature of my amendment the bottom will be knocked out of this Bill, as the whole of the control could be jeopardized by the utilization of Delagoa Bay. Fruit could be sent to the Portuguese port where there is no control and cold storage space could be taken up by a syndicate at Delaogoa Bay, and the whole of the fruit export trade, particularly the citrus fruit, could fall into the hands of a fruit syndicate whose headquarters were located at Lourenco Marques. The clause will be of absolutely no value at all, because a contract could be made between a company in England and a syndicate in the Portuguest colony, and the result would be that the whole of the advantages we hope to obtain under the Bill would be entirely lost. I would very strongly urge the Minister to consider the amendment which I have suggested. His difficulties I do not think are real difficulties. Let us take the case of a fruit grower at Wellington. There is no likelihood of the board sending fruit from Wellington to Durban. The board will handle all the traffic, and in case of a congestion at one port would switch the fruit to another port as it comes down the line without any increased expense at all.

How do you suggest that could be done?

My amendment would cover that. The amendment would give the board the power to deal with fruit from the time it reaches the railways. If the Bill does not do that a syndicate at Delagoa Bay could drive a horse and cart right through the measure.

This is really a very serious matter. If such a thing as the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) has in his mind, and if such a thing as the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) has referred to, should come about, that would nullify the control of the shipment of fruit. One of the wise provisions of the Bill is that it constitutes a board of control which, acting in conjunction with the Fruit Growers’ Exchange, contracts for space in the ships in advance, but if the fruit is not forthcoming to fill all the space, the money thus lost has to be paid by the whole of the shippers, as naturally the average cost of shipments would be increased. If there arose a combination which tried to break up the exchange and to obtain active control of the citrus growing industry in the Transvaal, it might be prepared to spend a little money in the effort. Suppose we calculated on shipping the whole of the fruit, but a portion of it was sent to Delagoa Bay instead, the space the board will contract for will not be filled up. If a syndicate at Delagoa Bay, which might act as distributing agents and brokers, could charter a ship, they could flood the European market. If that occurred I can imagine a number of small growers saying that they would be prepared to sell their fruit at a reasonable price to anyone who would take it. As it is impossible to control people in a foreign port, the only means to obtain effective control of the trade is by accepting the proposal of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford). There would be no jealousy with a board representing the fruit growers. I would urge my hon. friend to consider the advisability of accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Newlands.

I am really surprised at the reply the Minister gave me when he stated there was nothing in the Bill to prevent the farmers of the Transvaal making such arrangements with Portuguese shippers as they might think fit. It was tantamount to saying to the farmers of the northern and eastern Transvaal, “Stay out of the fruit exchange and paddle your own canoe.” Suppose we acted on the Minister’s advice? What would happen would be that the fruit growers would stay out of the exchange, and would not be controlled by the board, and that we would form a sort of board of our own and make such arrangements with the Portuguese authorities as we think fit, and drive in such a wedge into the board’s arrangements that the board would not have enough fruit to fill the space it might contract for. In this way, before the fruit is sent, we come and say that the time has arrived, whether you like it or not, when it is essential to send our fruit to Europe. The Minister’s statement that we shall not be able to do so, because the rates are so high, does not frighten us. We should do so the moment arrangements can be made by the exchange with a shipping company to call at certain periods at Delogoa Bay and take fruits, soft fruits like mangoes, which at present we have to send 1,300 miles to Cape Town. It does not necessarily mean control of the port at Delagoa Bay. I assure the Minister, as far as the Portuguese are concerned, they are anxious for business. Right from the Swazi border through Barberton and right through the country, fruit has been planted. It is one area of cotton and citrus fruit. Does the Minister tell us that we have to make our own arrangements? I shall be sorry for the board if we have to make our own arrangements.

Who controls the cold storage there?

I don’t know, but we have the report of a man like Mr. R. Davies on the cold storage at Delagoa Bay, which shows that the cold storage is sufficient to warrant our sending our fruit by Delagoa Bay.

I was informed on Thursday last by a Portuguese gentleman from Lourenco Marques that a certain gentleman has taken over the cold storage, so I am afraid that the position you are afraid of has already arisen.

I don’t know whether I am in order in moving another amendment, not altering my own previous amendment, but adding to the amendment for Clause 2 (a). I move—

That amendment has this effect. It covers all ports, not necessarily ports of the Union, and controls all fruit produced in the Union. That would help to cover the difficulties which have been suggested by the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) and others.

I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment as already indicated, because it would create a very undesirable precedent. The hon. member’s point is fully met with by the control which the board has with regard to shipment. If the grower disregards the advice he does so at his own peril. If he does not take the advice and suffers loss, the responsibility is his. The hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) misunderstood me. I did not advise the growers of the Eastern Transvaal to ship through Delagoa Bay. I only pointed out that if the growers in the Eastern Transvaal, thought their interests would be better served by shipping through Delagoa Bay, that there was nothing in the Bill to prevent them, but, of course, we prefer them to ship from Union ports. The control is confined to the ports of the Union, and the hon. member surely does not suggest that we should extend our control to a foreign port. If the hon. member desires to include all exports under the board of control, I am prepared to delete the words in Clause 4, “any port in the Union.” That would then meet him. I am not, however, quite clear what he really wants me to do.

The Minister says he is not quite clear what I want him to do. He says he cannot have the board controlling the port of Delagoa Bay.

The exports there.

Yes. I don’t ask for the control of the port, but I want the control of export fruit there. If you have it controlled at Port Elizabeth, Durban and Cape Town, you could have the same board controlling the export fruit at the port of Delagoa Bay, foreign port or not. If we did export by Delagoa Bay, there would be a certain amount of fruit deducted from Cape Town. The Minister says that if he accepts the amendment of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), he will, to a certain extent, be interfering with the right of the grower. The whole thing is interfering with the right of the grower in a certain way. You have got to interfere with the right of the grower when you are acting on a co-operative basis.

I do hope the Minister will take an extremely serious view of the position. Whether it is possible to control a foreign port by accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Newlands is a very arguable question, but one thing is certain, and that is, if you do not introduce something in the direction indicated by the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood), you are going to have large interests in this country out to break the fruit exchange and out to get a great deal of control over citrus export. It has been suggested to me by a legal mind that it might be met by making, for the purposes of this Bill, Komatipoort a port of export, in place of Delagoa Bay, and so control the export there. I do not care where it is controlled, but I do say that if you are not going to make it impossible for any combination to break up this organization and all the provisions laid down in this Bill by utilizing Delagoa Bay to the detriment of other fruit growers, then you are going to find, in a year or two, that a very serious position has arisen. I feel that, unless you do this, you will allow a lever to be brought to bear upon large numbers of the smaller growers of the Transvaal, which will compel them to export their fruit through certain organizations. The Minister is in the position of being the only person who can come forward and protect these co-operators. I do not think there is anything to prevent you from making Komatipoort a port for the export of fruit.

I am afraid I cannot agree to the amendment of the hon. member for Newlands, but I will meet the hon. member for Barberton, by inserting in sub-section (a)—

So that the clause would then read “to control the export of fruit from the Union and order of shipment at all ports of the Union”. That, I think, will meet the point made by the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) and I move accordingly.

Then I withdraw my second amendment.

Though my constituents, not being fruitgrowers, are not particularly interested in this question, I am interested in the difficulty which the Minister is now attempting to solve, and it does seem to me that, if you introduce such general and vague words as those of the amendment, the Minister will find, on re-consideration, that he will have to re-cast the whole of section 2. I understand that it is the wish of this House that the Bill should be put on the statute book as soon as possible, but at the same time I do suggest to the Minister, with all deference, that he should not rely on an amendment of this sort, hastily drafted, without further consideration, and, if the Minister thinks it wise, I would suggest that you report progress.

No, no.

Well then, let this particular clause stand over until the other clauses have been disposed of. I give the Minister my assurance that the matter is not quite so simple as possibly it would appear at first blush.

I think that sub-section (c) which says that one of the functions of the board is to make enquiries about, and to receive the reasons of their representative about the amount of available space booked on a ship to call at a port in the Union, must be amplified so that the board shall also have the authority of collecting such information from ports outside the Union where such ships call. I therefore think that the amendment of the hon. Minister is not in agreement therewith. Further I do not think that the title of the Bill permits of that amendment because the title reads—

I am entirely in favour of the Minister’s proposal but we shall have difficulty on this point.

I would like to ask whether that is not really a very reasonable proposition. I gather now, from what the Minister has said, that he is desirous of meeting the position raised by the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) and other members of the House, but that there is a legal doubt as to whether the Minister’s amendment is going to meet that question. Would it not facilitate business to let this clause stand over and go on with the other clauses so that in the meantime there may be an opportunity for the Minister’s legal advisers to go into the matter, and when we come back to this clause to get something which really brings out what is in the Minister’s mind and the minds of other members.

With leave of the Committee, the amendment proposed by Mr. Rood was withdrawn.

The first amendment proposed by Mr. Stuttaford was put and negatived.

Can the hon. Minister assure the committee that his amendment will meet the case brought forward by the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood)? If it will not meet the case will he give an assurance that he will reconsider it at the report stage?

Undoubtedly.

The amendments proposed by the Minister of Railways and Harbours were put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I move—

1. (1) From and after the commencement of this Act no person shall export fruit from the Union, save under contract or other arrangement made by, through, or with the consent of the Fruitgrowers’ Co-operative Exchange of South Africa, Limited (hereinafter called the Exchange) and approved and authorized by the board.

In line 41, to omit “on” and to substitute “before”; in line 42, to omit “fifteenth day of April, 1925,” and to substitute “commencement of this Act”; in line 43, to omit “at any port of” and to substitute “from”; in line 46, to omit “Fruitgrowers Co-operative”; in lines 46 and 47, to omit “of South Africa, Limited”; and in line 50, before “makes”, to insert “exports any fruit, or”.

While I was correct at the time in saying that the existing contracts were not large it since came to my notice that there were provisional agreements not concluded. This, therefore, should meet the whole position.

I must say that I personally object to this section for this reason. A board is appointed to take control of the export of fruit. It is expected that it shall be representative of the fruit farmers and other bodies interested in the matter. Even with the new sub-section which has been proposed the control of contracts are now put still more into the hands of the fruit exchange. Both sub-sections have this peculiar provision that it is the fruit exchange which approves, or disapproves of contracts. Section 4 (2) as it now will be reads—

And then only follows—

…. and has been approved by the board. In both cases the board comes second. If the fruit exchange has rejected a contract then there is nothing to come before the board. The power is in the first instance given to the fruit exchange. I should like to see the board as the first body for the approval of contracts.

The reason why it is so is to overcome a legal difficulty because the board of control has no legal status and otherwise shipping companies would enter into no contract because in the event of non-performance of a contract there would then be no one who could be held answerable in case of damages. That is why the section is so drawn. What has been done is that the fruit exchange has been given the right to enter into contracts, also to make funds available so that eventually damages can be recovered from them. The hon. member will see that in the circumstances this was the best. He will see that under section 6 the board of control is indemnified from responsibility, while of course the responsibility of the fruit exchange remains, but subject to the approval of the board of control. The position is that if the fruit exchange enters into a contract it must first receive the approval of the board of control. In these circumstances this was the only solution.

But the levy applies to all fruit farmers, whether they are members of the exchange or not. It may, however, be that a fruit farmer is pushed out of the export if he is not a member of the exchange. It is possible that the fruit exchange may refuse somebody’s contract to exercise pressure on him to become a member of the fruit exchange. I can see that we are giving that power to the exchange by giving it the power to reject contracts. The second is that in section 6 it is said that no damage can be recovered in consequence of the neglect of duty or even of the negligence of the representatives concerned. Does the Minister regard the representatives of the fruit exchange as official or not for the purposes of section 6?

Allow me to clear up this point. The fruit exchange is not included under section 6. If mistakes are made as mentioned in that section then the person can recover his damages from the fruit exchange. The board of control is an honorary body, as are also the advisers of the railways.

I do not quite understand the hon. Minister in his explanation about the effect of section 4. I listened attentively but his explanations amounts to this that he says it was impossible to give the power which is granted under section 4 to the board of control because it is not a legal body. But as I read section 4 the power is only given to the fruit exchange to approve or disapprove of contracts entered into by private people. The section reads—

In other words this section allows private persons to enter into contracts but they must have the consent of the fruit exchange or the contract must be made through the fruit exchange. It thus amounts to this that the necessity does not exist for a body which can be made responsible in an action for damages. That is not what it means. All that is required is the consent of a certain body, in this case, the fruit exchange. I have an objection to this far reaching power being put into the hands of the corporation. I know that in the Transvaal the same feelings do not prevail with reference to the fruit exchange that exist in the Cape Province. I would suggest to the hon. Minister that he should not give the power to the board of control. With all submission the fruit exchange is not responsible according to the provisions of this section, they only have authority to approve or disapprove of contracts. I would ask whether this power cannot be given to the board or if not, that then in any case a right of appeal to the board against any decision shall be given so that we shall not have the unhappy position to which the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) has just referred that the fruit exchange will make use of the power to force everybody to join. I repeat that legally there can be no objection against the granting of the powers to the board.

Clearly the hon. member (Mr. Pirow) has not read the section. The last line reads—

What the hon. member is pleading for is thus provided here. I think that his difficulty is met. Let me again read the sub-section as it now reads—

And if they disapprove of it?

Who, the board or the fruit exchange?

No, the fruit exchange.

How can the fruit exchange do

There is another section, the new sub-section that the hon. Minister has himself proposed which goes too far. It says clearly that no person shall export without a contract which is entered into through or by means of the fruit exchange. In every case such a contract will have to be approved by the fruit exchange. If it is disapproved by it then it never comes before the board of control.

Does the hon. member seriously argue that the fruit exchange will reject contracts which are bona fide and in the interests of fruit export? The fruit exchange and the board of control are bodies that must look after the interests of fruit export and if we proceed from the assumption that the board of control does not look after the interests of the fruit industry then it is better to scrap the whole thing. If we accept that the board is so constituted that it will work in the interests of the fruit industry then I cannot imagine that it will disapprove of a contract which is in the interests of the export. Suppose that there is a large group of people who come to the board and notify it that they e.g., will export much fruit in June and that they notify the board that they at that time will themselves provide a ship for the export, will not the board entirely welcome the suggestion? This will ease the difficulty in connection with shipping room. Of course if the board has made arrangements and they subsequently come and withdraw the quantity upon which the board has calculated and provided shipping space then the board can object to such a contract. I think that we should accept that the board will work in the interests of the fruit industry and we must not go out from the assumption that it will put a spoke in the wheels of the producers.

It seems to me that this section may cause great difficulty to arise in the Transvaal. We know that the Cape Association some years ago became affiliated with the Rustenberg Association. Subsequently difficulties arose and they separated. To-day they stand on their own legs. Although the associations in the north have now decided to export independently, their contracts have to be approved by the fruit exchange. They export fruit via Delagoa Bay, and I therefore fear that great difficulty will arise in this connection. If members are nominated from the Transvaal associations the difficulty will possibly disappear.

I associate myself with what has been said by the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius). My point is not that no provision has been made for approval. The great point is, who is going to approve of it in the first instance? We agree that the fruit exchange will act in good faith. That is not the question. The exchange may, however, act wrongly according to the view of the other growers. If the fruit exchange differs from other growers it may be that a contract of those growers will fever reach the board. The board therefore never gets the opportunity of approving or disapproving of it. I have very strong objection to it that where it is the case that the fruit exchange decides wrongly, the unfortunate grower will have to suffer the loss because he has no recourse in as much as he cannot according to this section go to the court. I wish again to ask the Minister to make provision for approval or disapproval by the board. I would respectfully say that it is no argument to say that the bona fides of the fruit exchange is brought into doubt.

The Minister’s amendments were agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

New Clause 5,

I move—

1. 5. The central board of the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa may, on such terms and conditions as it shall prescribe, guarantee the performance by the exchange of any contract entered into by it with any shipowner or his representative for the shipment of fruit.

I think this clause will commend itself to every hon. member.

Agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

New Clause 7,

I move—

1. 7. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 5 of the Agricultural Products Grading Act, 1922 (Act No. 16 of 1922), the exchange, out of any moneys received by it under section 4 of the said Act—
   1. (a) shall pay members of the board and of committees at such times as the Minister may direct any allowances prescribed for such members by regulation under this Act; and
   2. (b) may, with the approval of the Minister, defray any expenditure occasioned to it in the exercise of any function under this Act.

Agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I move—

1. (d) The allowances to be paid to members of the board or of committees.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On the Title,

As a consequential amendment to the motion adopted, it will now be necessary to amend the title, and I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments, and specially an alteration in the title; amendments to be considered now.

On Clause 9,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Remaining amendments agreed to.

If there is no objection, I would move that the third reading be taken now.

No.

If I put it down on Wednesday, it will be merely formal, and then it will interfere with the Budget debate, which will be dealt with as the first Order by my colleague.

When do you want to set the third reading down for?

I want it to be taken now.

No, don’t do that now. We have passed this Bill through all stages except the third reading.

This Bill may otherwise have to stand over for five days until after the Budget debate has been dealt with.

Put it down for Wednesday.

In the Senate the whole matter is bound to come up again, and I am quite prepared to meet hon. members on any points that they want to bring to my notice.

Is there any objection to the third reading being taken now? There being no objection, the Minister may now move.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to; Bill read a third time.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

Gen. MULLER seconded.

Agreed to.

Bill, as amended, was adopted and read a third time.

When the debate on this question was adjourned a fortnight ago, I was discussing the position of the coloured people in this country, and I pointed out that in the only institution in this country for the higher education of the native we have nearly 40 per cent. of the coloured population, Asiatics and coloured people generally, as well as Indians, who have passed the higher examinations; and that these people were being brought into daily contact with the natives in this country, so that, naturally, there was a growing sympathy between them. If we, in this House, are going to follow a policy of placing coloured people on the same level as white people, then we should be changing a policy which has been in existence in this country almost since its origin. The policy of the present Government is to say that every man not a black man is a white man, a distinct reversal of the policy which we have inherited in this country from our ancestors and of America, where the policy is that every man not white is black. In placing coloured people on equal terms with Europeans in this country, I feel we are entering upon an extremely grave change of policy, and we should think the matter well over before we pass this Bill. We have in the Cape Province equality in the political field, but we have never gone so far as to establish social equality; yet this Bill and the statements made by hon. members on the other side of the House show that such is the intention of the Government. I would like to refer again to Professor Brooks’ book, dealing with the coloured question, and with the policy of Gen. Hertzog in that connection. Gen. Hertzog’s policy, as I take it from the book, and as I believe it to be, is one of partial, gradual, natural and practical segregation. I place particular emphasis on the word “gradual.” Here to-day you are reversing the whole of the previous conditions of this country in one little Bill of this kind. Has the Native Affairs Commission had the opportunity of discussing the matter? Does the hon. the Prime Minister still subscribe to the principle of consultation with the natives on matters affecting them, established in this House under the 1920 Act? Have the natives been consulted in any way in connection with this Bill? I can think of no Bill which strikes more vitally at the interests of the native than this Bill. It is going to affect the whole future of the country. I would like again to quote from Professor Brooks’ book—

We are to-day placing a bar against the progress of the natives in this country. Every time this country is threatened by the black problem are we to rush to the House for protection? If that is done the natives will realize this House does not exist for their protection, but for something very opposite. The Prime Minister, in not accepting the invitation of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) to discuss this matter on calm and non-party lines, is not acting in accordance with the doctrines he has laid down. An important point I would like to raise is this: How is this Bill going to affect the native voters in the Cape Province? It seems to me that if you are going to place a bar against the native entering a trade or business by which he can obtain a higher salary or wages, you are going to keep him down and prevent him from obtaining the franchise right, and that is a serious offence against the South Africa Act. The Hofmeyr Act made provision that there should be no differentiation between the native voters and the Europeans. How will this Bill affect the Cape native voter? I think the native will realize that he is being held back from obtaining that position in the country to which he is entitled under the Act of Union. Now I ask myself this question: Who is responsible for the Bill before the House? I do not think Cape Province members will get up and say that Cape Province is asking for a colour bar. Has the Free State asked for it? I have spoken to several members, and they say it does not interest them very largely. Does Natal want it? Natal certainly wants Asiatic legislation and I think I can wholeheartedly support Natal, but I do not think Natal as a province will ever come forward with a request for colour-bar legislation against the natives. Does the Transvaal require it? We have had the Transvaal farmers coming forward this session and asking for certain legislation, but I do not think they are asking for the legislation in this Bill. Who then is asking for it? The labour community of Johannesburg represented by labour members on the other side of the House. But are the Labour members the backbone of this country? With perhaps one exception—the hon. member for Pretoria (Mr. Hay) who has told us that he lost his identity, the Labour party is composed of persons who a few years ago would have been called “uitlanders” by members on the other side of the House. Is this the price which this country has to pay for the Pact? If this Bill becomes law—and I hope the Prime Minister will not allow such to happen—then I say without hesitation that the natives will have just cause for complaint. To-day they are having meetings to protest against it, and are also beginning to use threats. As long as we act in this way the natives will feel that they have reason to rebel against the authority that lies in this House. I have in my hand a resolution passed recently by the Bantu Union, representing very large numbers of natives in the Eastern Province and the native territories, which reads as follows—

I am sorry to say that it seems to me also to be a policy of retreat. I do not say it is cowardly, but it is not the correct policy to adopt, and if we are going to legislate against the natives, then what we take from them with one hand we must give back with the other. If we are going to bar them from employment in our factories, we must help them to expand in their own areas; but we are doing nothing in this direction. That is the great complaint of the natives against the Land Act: that their rights have been taken away and that they are getting nothing in return. If we take away their rights we must open up avenues for their development. I would like to ask the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) what he thinks of this proposed legislation. It has been indicated by hon. members that the Minimum Wage Bill meets the position, and will enable the white races to hold their own against the native races. If that is the case why come forward with legislation of this kind which will cause, and has indeed already caused, unrest throughout the country? I feel very strongly that we have to protect our civilization against the dangers of native and coloured competition, but there are methods of doing that without placing on the statute book an Act which is going to unite the black and coloured and yellow men against the white men in this country. We should do all we can to avoid putting on the statute book an Act of this kind which is going to be a danger to us in future years.

I think that the House and the country are entitled to protest against the way in which the Government has handled this particular measure. This Bill was introduced, in its second reading, before the House on the 25th February last. The matter was then discussed by my right hon. friend the member for Standerton in a memorable speech. It is common cause that that speech focused the attention of this House on this measure in a marked degree. We should then have expected some continuity of debate on the question. Certainly the country did expect it, but what happened? Although this was probably the most deep-seated and fundamental measure before the House this session it did not again reach a discussion in this House until the 6th April, although the Government has charge of the Order Paper. We had then another patchwork discussion on the measure, and again it emerges to-day, two months after the first discussion on the second reading.

During which the country has considered it.

My point is that the country having seen the matter come up on the 25th February, has not been able, because of the kangaroo-fashion in which it has appeared on the Order Paper, properly to follow the discussion, and the issues involved in this Bill. I ask the Minister now whether it is his intention to allow this debate to finish now, or whether, after this resumption, we will have a further discussion, perhaps after the Budget and the other measures involved in the Budget have been disposed of? I agree with the Minister of Mines in several points he made in his second reading speech. I agree that the Chamber of Mines was, to put it bluntly, looking for trouble when it countenanced the employment of that particular native to drive that particular engine; that, further, it was looking for trouble when, the manager having been prosecuted for having allowed that native to be employed on driving that engine, it took the matter to appeal, and on appeal raised the question of the validity or otherwise of the particular section of the mines and works regulations under which it was prosecuted. It was common cause that these particular regulations imposing the colour-bar were, in fact, ultra vires the Mines and Works Act.

They did not take it to appeal.

No; I thank the Minister for the correction. They took the point before the magistrate, and forced the Government—if they were not prepared to accept the decision of the magistrate that the regulation was ultra vires—to take it to appeal. Having done that, and upset the applecart, as it were, and established beyond doubt that these regulations were ultra vires—having made them absolutely useless—the Chamber of Mines, according to the Minister, says it is prepared to work as if that judgment had not been given. I agree with the Minister that the position could not be left there and that some legislation to stabilize the colour bar had to be brought before the House. I think that if the South African party Government had continued to exist, it would have been forced to legislate in order to stabilize and crystallize the colour bar in the Transvaal. But my quarrel with the Minister is this, that the Bill, so far from merely stabilizing and crystallizing the existing colour bar, goes, as my right hon. friend has said, right out into the blue, and extends the colour bar to other provinces, and finally seeks to give power to the Minister to delimitate the spheres of industry between the white and coloured on the one hand, and the black and Asiatic on the other throughout the Union. Where the Minister has gone out into the blue I am unable to follow him. I say frankly that if this Bill had been merely to set right the position created by the judgment in Rex versus Hildick Smith and to continue the colour bar in its existing form, I should have supported it, and if the Minister will give me his assurance in his replying speech in this debate that he will limit this Bill by suitable alterations in committee, so that it will only apply to the preservation of the status quo, I will vote for the second reading; but if he asks me to vote for a Bill, the main principle of which is to give him power to extend the colour bar into spheres of industry where it has never existed and to provinces where it is unknown, I shall never vote for the Bill. I ask myself the question why I am prepared to support the colour bar as it has hitherto existed. My first ground is the historical ground, inasmuch as the colour bar has existed in the Transvaal from Republican days. Under the Act of 1897 the colour bar was imposed in regard to engine drivers op hauling engines. It was subsequently extended to the drivers of locomotive engines, and finally, as the result of the Mines and Industries Commission of 1907, of which Justice Krause was the chairman, it was extended under the Act of 1911 to the extent to which it existed until the judgment of the Supreme Court. So that we can say that almost from the beginning of the mining industry there has been a colour bar and rightly so where you have a huge mass of raw, uncivilized labour, directed by a comparatively small number of white people. For the purpose of this argument I might say that roughly there are 20,000 Europeans to 200,000 natives, or one to 10. The principle is that in the interests of safety and health, occupations which involve the safety of others, such as the control of machinery and haulage, should be entrusted to white men, and not, whether on the score of cheapness or any other account, be given to natives.

What about Natal?

I ask whether the conditions existing on the Rand duplicate themselves in regard to the Natal coal mines. Do you find there men recruited from Portuguese territory, not civilized, and not speaking English?

Yes.

I have never yet heard of them. There is no justification for these special conditions except on the Rand, and the hon. Minister of Mines and Industries in introducing the Bill spoke entirely and exclusively of the conditions on the Rand as they are to-day. He said nothing about the conditions in the mines of Natal. He justified the colour bar in so far as it affected the conditions on the Rand, and so far I am with him. On historical grounds and grounds of safety there is justification for the continuation of the colour bar in the Transvaal. But that justification is limited. As I have said, all the occupations specified in sub-section (n) are those of persons who are in charge of the safety of their subordinates, and it can be said to be right that these persons should be Europeans as opposed to the uncivilized labour of which the great body of mine labour on the Rand is composed. So it can be said that these colour bar regulations were based solely on the idea of insuring the safety of subordinates. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) in attacking this particular Bill referred to certain remarks made by Mr. Justice Krause in Rex versus Hildick Smith to the effect that “the colour bar was repugnant to the law of the land, unreasonable and even capricious and arbitrary.” Justice Krause is the same gentleman as the chairman of the Mines Regulations Commission in 1907, which sat for nearly three years, and it was in consequence of the recommendation of that commission that the colour bar was introduced in its present form.

I cannot allow criticism of judges in the exercise of their judicial functions.

I have therefore to ask myself the question, being as I am in favour of the continuance of the existing colour bar, but not of its extension by one inch, what I must do in regard to the second reading of this Bill? I have said that if the Minister will limit the operation of this Bill to setting right the position I will vote for this Bill.

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

I have telegrams from Bloemfontein which I should like to read to the House.

I think it is very unusual for such a statement to be made in the middle of a debate, but if it is the wish of the House the Minister may proceed.

I have received following telegrams from the Deputy Commissioner of Police at Bloemfontein—

Second telegram—

This last telegram is the latest we have received from the magistrate. It has just come to hand.

I appreciate the action of the hon. Minister of Justice in reading these wires, because we have felt anxiety as to what was happening up north. I might be pardoned for saying that these wires come not inappositely at a juncture when we are discussing a measure which has a detrimental effect upon the whole of the native population of South Africa.

That is inciting them.

What nonsense. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), in his anxiety to find trouble seems to distort these innocent words of mine into something that was never intended. If it appears to him that these words were an incitement he is suffering from so jaundiced a mind—

Order. The hon. member must moderate his language. He must not say that another hon. member has a jaundiced mind.

May I not repel with indignation the charge that I am inciting these natives to rebellion?

The hon. member may repel any attack made upon him, but he must do so in Parliamentary language.—

Is it un-Parliamentary to say that the hon. member—

I have ruled that the hon. member is not entitled to say another hon. member has a jaundiced mind and I must ask him to withdraw the term.

Withdraw.

I have no intention of withdrawing anything, except at the request of Mr. Speaker.

I have already asked the hon. member to withdraw the term.

I withdraw the words “jaundiced mind.” I protest against that insulting remark, the sort of remark which we are accustomed to on this side of the House from the hon. member. The suggestion that he regards what I said as anything in the way of an incitement I repel, with the warmest strength possible. When the House adjourned I was endeavouring to define my attitude with regard to this Bill. It may be suggested, as an hon. member has suggested, that my attitude in regard to this Bill could be described as an “egg dance.” If it is an “egg dance” to say to the Minister of Mines, “insofar as you are maintaining the status quo and keeping the colour bar where it has hitherto existed, I will support you, but I will not support you in extending the colour bar”—if that can be Called an “egg dance,” I plead guilty. I find the first point in this Bill is an affirmation of the existing colour bar, and the second point is the extension of the colour bar to other portions of the Mines and Works Act, and the third point is the giving of the Minister power, without reference to this House, to create a colour bar in the whole of the industries of this country. I find myself opposed to the second and third points, and because of that I cannot support the second reading of this Bill. I submit that that is a reasonable attitude. Having read the hon. Prime Minister’s speech on this debate, and having endeavoured from its mass of cloudy generalities to get a fixed principle, and that one of justice to the natives, I am astonished that the Minister, instead of producing a Bill which would merely put right the judgment of Rex v. Hildick-Smith, he has tried to set up a colour bar throughout the whole of South Africa in districts where it has never existed. That action is wanton and provocative. I am surprised at the hon. Prime Minister’s attitude. He tells the natives what he wants for them is segregation, and when he has segregation they will be as free as a white man to develop in their own areas. Before he has brought that about he is endeavouring to put on the statute book industrial segregation. He is segregating them industrially throughout the whole length and breadth of South Africa. You can appreciate how it is the natives do not understand that attitude, and that after they have read the Hansard report and compared it with what is in this Bill, they are unable to grasp what is in the mind of the Government at the present moment. The Prime Minister, to a deputation of women suffrage supporters, said he would do nothing to alter the franchise laws of this country until he had solved the native question by segregation. Before he has attempted to settle that question we find him coming forward with a Bill like this, prejudicing the native in the provinces where there has been no colour bar in the past. I have been reading up what the Labour party has said on this question in the past. If there is one thing more than another that the leader of the Labour party, the present Minister of Labour, has insisted upon, it is that they dislike the colour bar, they think it is fundamentally and ethically unsound, and they would do all in their power to see that no colour bar existed, but they were forced to support the existing colour bar in the Transvaal in the absence of any satisfactory wage legislation. What do we find? The hon. gentleman himself is now in power as Minister of Labour, and he has before the House two Bills, which it is announced it is the intention of the Government to place on the statute book. One is a General Wages Bill, to set up the minimum wage.

You voted against it.

I have not voted against it, though I do not like the machinery of that Act. He has also brought before the House a special Minimum Wage Bill, dealing with the industry in question, in respect of which he is demanding a colour bar. On this Bill which is before the House he and his party will press, not only for the existing colour bar, but for its extension throughout South Africa. Let me remind the Minister of Labour that, as leader of the Labour party, he said in this House in 1914 that, as far as colour bars were concerned, he had no use for them as a permanent policy, that the colour bar had been a danger to the white worker and was still a danger. He had an amendment to the resolution moved by Mr. Merriman that a petition from some 1,500 coloured persons praying for the removal of the colour bar be acceded to. The Minister of Labour, then the leader of the Labour party, moved the following amendment—

We read that that amendment was received with “Labour cheers.” I want to ask where the cheers are from the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), that hon. gentleman who, conscious of so large a stock of modesty in his own person, takes it upon himself to criticize its lack, or alleged lack, in other members in such insulting terms. What about the hon. members for Salt River (Mr. Snow) and Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce)? Why have they kept silent on this Bill? In dealing with the Labour party’s attitude on this point, I say that no Labour members, after their expressions of opinion in this House, and on public platforms for years past, can vote for this Bill without being guilty of the most cunsummate political hypocrisy. I want to say one word as to the very important principle involved in this Bill and mentioned by the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees). He said that the Government’s policy in future was to create two camps in South Africa, in the one the white and coloured, and in the other the Asiatic and native. That is done in this Bill, it is done in the Draft Liquor Bill, and it is going to be the policy of the Government in future. Apart from the merits or demerits of such classification, it is a matter of fundamental importance, because it marks an entirely new departure in the government of this country. I would have expected, if this is going to be the new industrial departure, that we would have had at least some cogent and well-thought-out reasons for such a policy given by the Minister in his speech, but the Minister’s speech, as I read it, was confined almost entirely to a justification of the colour bar as it existed on the Rand up to the time of the recent judgment. Very little of his speech was devoted to what is the most important part of this Bill, namely, this new classification. I think we are entitled to ask, the country is entitled to ask, and a very large number of Asiatics in this country are entitled to ask what economic, social or racial grounds that distinction is based upon. I am not a friend of the Asiatics, I have never posed as a friend of the Asiatics, and I regard the presence of the Asiatics in this country as an unmixed evil, but to initiate so drastic a change in policy (a change not recommended by the Asiatic Commission), seems to me is a matter that calls for a great deal more attention than has hitherto been given to it from the Government benches. Is anyone going to stand up in this House and tell me that an Asiatic, a civilized Asiatic, cannot do mechanical work, cannot take charge of machinery, just as efficiently as any coloured man? Is anyone going to tell me that a skilled Indian, Japanese, or any other type of Asiatic is not just as skilled in the handling of machinery as a coloured man? I do not think hon. members on the Government benches have realized the importance of the new classification introduced in this Bill. The Government have told us that they are going to introduce general Asiatic legislation, if possible this session, but if not, later on. If so, why take two bites at the cherry? Why forestall by legislation or compromise the position in this way by introducing Asiatics by name in this Bill and relegating them to the category of uncivilized natives? I say there is no call for it. This Bill, I submit, should be restricted to making good the position created by the recent Transvaal judgment.

I want to make my position quite clear. I have never voted for a colour bar, and I never intend to do so. My hon. friend who has just spoken is one of the leading members of the league against Asiatics, and he has been endeavouring to stir up strife against them. If he had a colour vote he would not take up his present attitude.

Is my hon. friend in order in saying this to me?

I must ask hon. members to refrain from imputing any motives to hon. members.

He says the Asiatic is a man who can do this and that. Let me ask him if an Asiatic cannot run a shop as well as a white man. His arguments are not genuine. He has had one foot in Bezuidenhout Valley and the other in yellow Asia. I do not believe in a colour bar. I have not got any coloured voters in my constituency; they are all white voters. I take up the attitude that if we were to have a proper Wage Bill it would clear up the whole colour bar question. He wants a colour bar in the Transvaal, but there must be no colour bar in Cape Colony. My hon. friend is not logical. He says, let us have a colour bar in the Free State or the Transvaal, but nowhere else. The Asiatics are not to be allowed to trade in the Transvaal, but they can drive a thrashing machine in Natal. My hon. friend is not genuine in his long speech. He wanted to follow his leader into black Africa and yellow Asia, but he does not mean what he said. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) did not say on the platform, we must not have a colour bar, but as soon as he gets to the Cape, he says it is a terrible thing to have a colour bar.

What do you say about it?

The chairman of the South African party in the Transvaal is an able advocate who says we must have a colour bar. He goes for the Labour party and for the Nationalist party for not having one. They blow hot with one breath and cold with another. Why do not they come out in the open? The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) sneers at this. He said, you should retain the colour bar in the Transvaal, but he won’t get up now and say, do away with the colour bar in the Transvaal. I challenge any leader of the South African party to get up and say he is prepared to do away with the colour bar in the Transvaal and the Free State.

How are you going to vote on this Bill?

I am going to vote against the colour bar.

You are quibbling.

I am going to vote against the Bill and against the colour bar.

Hon. members must not endeavour to carry on the debate by question and answer.

The country wants to know whether they are genuine on the colour bar question. If they are, they must get up and say they are in favour of doing away with the colour bar in the Transvaal, but not one of them will do it. Not one Transvaal member will get up and say it in front of the press and the country.

You do not say so.

I have always said so.

You do not sit in a Transvaal seat.

The men in the Free State are logical. They say they believe in a colour bar, but contend that it should be extended throughout South Africa. Let the country know where the South African party stand on this question. Let us be honest in South Africa over this matter. Let us say at once that the majority of members of Parliament and men in politics, whether they are in the House or not, have an eye on the vote.

You have both eyes on it.

I lose votes by not voting for a colour bar. It is a known fact. I knew my hon. friends would begin to jump about it. The country will judge them. The country will judge them and will know that these fine speeches from the other side—such as the one coming from the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), whose heart bleeds for black Africa and yellow Asia—they will know that these are so much eye-wash.

You are really too funny.

Hon. members don’t like it. I want to ask: What did the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) say the other day? He said—

I did not say that.

That is what he said, and that is what the South African party say in the Transvaal.

Nonsense.

I am afraid the hon. member is referring to what has been said in a previous debate. He cannot do this.

No, Mr. Speaker, this was said during an election. I would never dare to break a rule of this House. I must say that I respect the members of the Nationalist party and the members of the Labour party, who say we want to have this colour bar right through South Africa. That is a logical and honest attitude to take up. But the party on the other side does not quite know what it wants. One section does not want the colour bar and another section is in the white camp, and the country will judge where they stand. It is not an honest attitude to take up either in regard to the native and coloured people or the Asiatic people. I believe that with the Wages Bill we will be able to clear up all the difficulties in connection with the colour bar in South Africa, and, that being so, I see no need to vote for the Bill and will vote against it.

I have been listening carefully to-night to the speeches. I want to ask the Minister of Mines and Industries to accept neither the amendment to read the Bill for the second time this day six months nor the proposal to send the Bill to a Select Committee before the second reading. What is actually now the bottom and the truth of the matter? In 1895, in the Republican time, the Transvaal Volksraad instituted the colour bar, and in 1911 the colour legislation was repealed. Then this House so altered the old law that the colour bar was removed. But what happened? The hon. member for Standerton was at that time the Minister who introduced the Bill. He brought the Bill before the House and after it had been accepted by the House he drew up illegal regulations. On the one hand the Bill of 1911 was introduced to satisfy he Transvaal that the colour bar was removed; on the other hand, to deceive the coloured people, the regulations were drawn up which were last year declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court. I say that in 1895, 30 years ago, the law was passed and the vested right of the white man laid down, and this was abolished by the Act of 1911. Now the hon. member for Fort Beaufort comes here and talks about the injustice that was done. I ask where is the justice that the work of the white people in the Transvaal should be taken away? The condition to-day in the Transvaal is that certain duties such as the driving of electrical engines and supervising of pumps are taken out of the hands of the white man and given to the coolie and the kaffir. I know of men who have been working in the mines for 10 and 12 years but who were discharged in 1922. This is the position. The whites are pushed out of work. Members opposite are constantly asking what becomes of the kaffir who is put out of work. Have hon. members forgotten that there is more work to-day in South Africa than what there are workers? Every year about 70,000 or 80,000 natives are imported to work here. And what happens? The natives that are imported are doing the work of the natives in the Union and the whites are systematically being squeezed out of work by the natives of the Union. Where is the fairness, and where is the justice in putting the whites out of work, out of the work which he has been doing for the past 30 years? Did the Government of 1911 not appreciate what the consequences would be when they struck their pens through the old law of 1895? But what did they do? The illegal regulations were drafted and the natives were made to believe that the old law still existed. This condition of things cannot last any longer in our country. Thousands of whites are without work. “What of the native?” is asked. I say “What of the whites if we continue like this?” I ask what will become of the white men who are thrown upon the streets and walk around without food; on the opposite side members ask what will become of the natives. There is plenty of work for the natives. The farmers have not enough native labour and the mines are short of native workers. It is said that the natives are now more civilized and better educated. But it is not the civilized and educated natives who work on the mines. It is the raw kraal kaffir who works on the mines. He works from three to four years and is taught his job. And it is work upon which the lives of people depend, dangerous work. That is why the old Volksraad understood that it was work that could not be done by persons who had not been trained to the work. But now the raw kraal kaffirs are imported and taught the job and then they squeeze out the white men because they work at a wage four times less than the wage of the white men. That is the object which is behind the matter. In the first place the white man is pushed out, and in the second place the lives of the white men and all who work on the mines are brought into danger because the engines, etc.. are driven by unsuitable and uncivilized persons. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has said that it is an injustice and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has said that the native is being oppressed. To what may such speeches lead? To nothing else but to stir up the natives and the consequences are that such things take place as are now happening at Bloemfontein. It should be remembered that the natives are uncivilized. He has not got the sense of the white man. The first thing that he does is that he grasps the assegai. Hon. members opposite with their speeches that the natives are being oppressed will be the cause of it if blood is spilled. I say that the white man is being pushed out of existence. Is it then not right and just that our Government should bring our existing rights which was laid down in 1895 into force again? The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) does not worry himself about what will become of South Africa. He goes hence and goes so far that he indicates to the coloured races that they can call in the help of Japan and other nations. What is this other than treason towards the white population of South Africa?

The hon. member may not accuse another member of treason, he must withdraw his words.

I will withdraw the words but I remain of the same opinion.

The hon. member must withdraw the words unconditionally.

Yes, I am obliged to withdraw the words. Every sensible man outside this House who reads the speeches will understand what happens here in the House, and will appreciate that it can lead to no other consequences but that the natives and other coloured people will be stirred up by the people who constituted the previous Government and with what other object except to stir up revolution and to get rid of this Government—

The hon. member may not accuse other members of stirring up revolution or anything of that nature. It is unparliamentary to use such language with reference to other members.

I mean commotion thereby, commotion is brought into the country. The object of the members is nothing else than to catch votes and they came here by the kitchen vote.

Will the hon. member please sit down.

If we study the vicissitudes of this Bill since it was first introduced by the hon. Minister of Mines I think we are entitled to wonder what exactly are the feelings of the Nationalist benches towards this Bill. If we follow the erratic and chequered career of this Bill through the mazes of the order paper, and remember that the hon. Prime Minister first agreed to refer it to a Select Committee before the second reading—

No, that is not true.

I naturally accept the hon. Prime Minister’s word, but we understood him to say that he accepted the suggestion of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). However, this Bill has been doled out in driblets, and that makes me positive that if the Nationalist party had a clear majority the Government would not have brought forward this or the other socialistic legislation with which the country is being flooded. When the hon. Minister of Mines introduced this Bill he gave us the impression that it would apply only to the mines of the Rand. He sought to minimize and localize its effect whereas it may become one of the most far-reaching enactments that has ever come before this House. This Bill gives to a single Minister rights such as, I believe, are held by no Minister anywhere in the world. It gives him the right, without consulting the public or Parliament or the natives, at any time arbitrarily to sentence the whole or part of the natives of this country to perpetual economic slavery, and to declare at any time that the natives shall not make any progress, that he shall be kept in a state of subjection, which, to my mind, differs very little from that of actual slavery. I am sure there is no white man in this country who would not shed his last drop of blood before he would subject himself to a Bill of this sort. That being so, what right have we to subject any human being to a law of this sort. What right have we to say to the native “you shall not acquire skill or efficiency and if you do by any chance acquire skill or efficiency you shall not be allowed to exercise it.” What right have we to say that we are going to keep him in a state of barbarism, because that is the true intent of this Bill. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) says he is against the colour bar, but he is in favour of a colour bar being enforced through wages. He is in favour of a colour bar, but finds it to his political interest to give it a different name.

Hon. members are much too inclined to use the words “want of political honesty.” I must ask hon. members not to use terms of that kind, which mean retaliation and the prolongation of the debate. I hope hon. members will avoid using such terms in future.

May I use the term “lack of political frankness” or “political courage”—“moral courage,” because members like the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) and others are all out to impose a colour bar, but they have not the moral courage to say so in so many words, but shelter themselves behind the catch-phrase “equal pay for equal work.” The only reply from the Government side as to the right to pass such a Bill is that of “self-preservation.” Self-preservation is certainly a very powerful impulse, but I have yet to hear of a nation that has preserved itself by unjust legislation of this kind. I have not heard of any race which has kept down the intellectual progress of any other race by a Bill of this nature. I assume that the Minister of Mines, in introducing this Bill, intends to put it into operation, and that it is not another sword of Damocles to be held over the heads of the unfortunate natives, for that would be reprehensible indeed, merely to introduce such a measure as a bogey to frighten the natives with. I believe this legislation will have the very opposite effect to that intended—I believe it will defeat its own object. If you try to oppress a human being the acts of oppression serve as a spur and an incentive to him. I am against the Bill on moral grounds, but also because I think if it is put into operation we shall find ourselves faced with years of unrest and trouble, for I do not think the native will tamely submit to an unjust law like this. Hon. members on the Government side fail to realize that the native of to-day is not the native of fifty years ago, and if the Bill becomes law the natives, driven by despair by that very law of self-preservation which is invoked against him, will organize until he has dislocated our entire economic life and concentrated the hatred of the African continent against us. The native, too, has his law of self-preservation, and in his case of the native the law of self-preservation is reinforced by the fact that he has justice on his side. We on this side of the House strongly hold that the white man must remain paramount, and in the interest of the natives themselves the white man must be supreme. I hold that it is the sacred duty of the white man to preserve his civilization intact, but he must do that by superior ability, superior merit and, above all, by superior justice. If the white man cannot maintain himself in South Africa by those qualities he is doomed in any case, and no amount of unjust legislation will save him.

Are you in favour of allowing natives to sit in this House?

We are not discussing that at this moment. I am afraid the Government has approached this Bill in the wrong spirit. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) told us in stirring terms that the implications of the Bill were. He told us that the Bill was a vital issue for ourselves and for our children. That was the right spirit in which to approach the Bill. The Government, unfortunately, has not approached the Bill in a broad, national spirit, but in a purely party-calculating spirit. The Bill applies only to the towns and industries, and carefully excludes rural areas. I would like to hear from any member of the Government why, if the principle is sound, it should apply to the towns only. I would like the Minister of Mines to explain why a native can work a threshing machine or drive a motor car in the country, but why he cannot do so in the towns. The distinction in the Bill has been made from a purely party point of view. The Nationalist wing of the Government has apparently said that the Bill is forced upon them by the Labour party, but they will see that it does the minimum amount of harm to their party. They argue that if the Bill applied to the towns it would gain votes, but if applied to the country it would lose them votes. The result was that they carefully excluded the agricultural population. In the second place, why has the coloured man been excluded? I am not in favour of including the coloured or any other man in so unjust a measure. The Minister of Mines told us that the sole justification for the Bill was the fact that the white man had to be protected in skilled labour from competition. If that is so, why has the coloured man been excluded? It is not the natives, but the coloured man who is the competitor in skilled trades, and if the Government were sincere in their desire to protect the white man against competition, they would not have excluded the coloured man from the operation of the Bill. But the Government know that the coloured man has a vote, so they excluded him. The Government knows that it will never get the native vote, and it will certainly not get the coloured vote either by these tactics. The Government has not introduced the Bill in a broad, national spirit, such as the importance of the subject demands. This exclusion of the coloured man may be a slim party dodge, but it does not approach the problem in a national spirit. Proof No. 3: Why did the Government tack the Asiatic clause on to this Bill? The Government knows that not 20 Asiatics will be affected by the Bill, for the Asiatic and native problems are of an entirely different nature. The native problem is as to whether the white man is going to allow the native to rise and to participate in his western civilization. The Asiatic problem is an entirely different one. The Asiatic is not a savage or a barbarian. He belongs to an order of civilization older than our own, and in some respects as good as our own. Our Asiatic problem is a question of whether we are going to allow another type of civilization, I don’t say superior or inferior, but an alien one to oust our own. The Asiatic problem is a very important one and a very vital one and must be dealt with, but this Bill does not touch the fringe of the question. The Asiatic clause has been tacked on to this Bill as another slim party dodge.

The hon. member must not use such terms in the debate, it is not parliamentary.

I withdraw “slim dodge” but may I say it was simply a party manoeuvre—and may I say of a doubtful character—the Government hoped to place the Natal members in a quandary. For several days after this Bill was introduced you could hear Government members chuckling up and down the lobby at the position they thought they had placed the Natal members in. They have approached this Bill in a petty partizan spirit.

I must ask the hon. member not to use terms of that kind.

I bow to your decision, sir, but it very much restricts one’s vocabulary. I would be the very last to exceed the bounds of etiquette in this House. I would be sorry to acquire the reputation of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) for invective and personal abuse. However I will try and conform to your rules. The Government have approached this Bill in a spirit of party manoeuvre, in a spirit of counting votes, and not in a national spirit. I am afraid the Nationalist members are either wilfully blind or woefully ignorant of the true intent of this Bill. Even the hon. the Prime Minister keeps harping on what he calls the danger of allowing unskilled natives to do skilled work to the peril of the white man. If this Bill aimed at obviating that, everyone of us would heartily support it, but this Bill says the very opposite, it says that no matter how skilled and efficient a native may be he shall never be allowed under any circumstances whatever to do the work of a white man. By the smile on the face of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) I can see that is what the hon. member of the Labour party intends. I am not discussing the question with regard to the Rand gold mines only but on broad principles from the point of view of the whole country. This Bill is making of the native an industrial helot, an industrial untouchable. May I point out another injustice of this Bill? If the hon. the Prime Minister, or the hon. Minister for Mines and Industries had said that we want to keep the native from contact or competition with the white man in his own sphere of labours there might, by stretching justice, have been something to say for it. But in no part of the Union is an area left to the native for skilled work, in fact this Bill will apply to the native reserves as well. In his own reserve, under this Bill, if a native acquires a motor-car or a threshing machine, or builds himself a dam he must get a white man to do it.

Where do you see that?

This Bill declares “anywhere in the Union” the native must not be allowed to do skilled work, so that nowhere in the Union is there industrial sanctuary for the native. What puzzles me is the attitude of a number of people in the House. I am sorry the Minister of Railways and Harbours and the Minister of Education is not here. I wish to remind the Minister of the Interior that three years ago he issued a public statement in which he stated that “no race had shown a greater love for South Africa than the native herein he is a pattern of true patriotism and he is entitled to take his place beside the Nationalist in the same political arena.” Those are his words and that statement was made in December, 1922. It was a public statement and only last week the hon. Minister of the Interior read us a homily on political consistency and political purity. If the hon. Minister does not wish us to look upon his statement the other night as merely “Pecksniffian,” we are entitled to an explanation from him. We are entitled to an explanation from the Minister of the Interior as to what has happened since December, 1922, to make him change his views of the natives. I ask the same question from the Minister of Railways and Harbours as he read the statement of his colleague to a public gathering at Queenstown. I ask these two Ministers what has caused them to change their opinion in the meanwhile. Has the native done anything to cause that change? Unless they wish to lay themselves open to a charge of, may I say, political inconsistency, they have to give us an explanation as to this change of front. The Minister of the Interior also took the trouble to write a pamphlet on this very subject of native and white labour, and his final summing up was to this effect, that the only hope for the white man in South Africa is to do the same work as the native, in the same sphere as the native, for the same pay as the native. With regard to the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander)—the independent demagogue, I think he calls himself—I am puzzled at his attitude on this Bill. To hear him talk in such altruistic vein about the native, you would think that the native has no firmer friend in South Africa than the hon. gentleman. To hear him discuss the native and coloured problems in this country, you would think that those were vital and fundamental points with him. You would not think, by the way he talks, that he could possibly support any party that was trying to down the natives and keep them in a state of savagery and barbarism as this Bill proposes. Let me tell you what happened at the recent election at Klerksdorp. The hon. member for Hanover Street pretends to speak for the native down here, and behind the scenes he writes confidential letters to the Jewish electors in Klerksdorp to vote for the Nationalist party. I want the coloured and native people of this country to know that the hon. member is facing both ways over this matter. He is pretending to attack the Government over the native problem and behind the scenes he is writing letters telling the voters in Klerksdorp to vote for the Nationalist party. That sort of political flunkeyism, that sort of political dodging or political egg-dancing, is very difficult to understand. And what of the Labour party? The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) told us during this debate that he believed in the rights of man in England, where all men were equal.

I have not spoken on the Bill yet.

I am sorry. I mean the hon. member’s colleague, the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson); it is quite a comprehensible mistake. He told us cynically that he believed in the rights of man in England, where the rights of man did not come into play because everyone has full rights, but, said he, “Do you think that when I came out here that I still believed in the rights of man?” No, he believed in the law of self-preservation before the rights of man. That is a very curious attitude for a member of the Labour party to adopt. The Labour party has in other countries tried to help the underdog. In this country it is simply trying to create a combine to form a corner, a selfish, aristocracy of labour, and, so far from telling the workers of the world to arise and throw off their shackles, they are trying to keep the native, who is the real worker in this country, down in the mud. I frankly confess I cannot understand the ethics of the South African Labour party. This Bill does not emanate from the Nationalist party. We know that this Bill has been the pet hobby of the Minister of Labour for the last 20 years, and how any man professing altruism in regard to labour and a desire to improve the lot of mankind and calling himself a Labour man can be associated with such a measure passes my comprehension of political honesty. I am not an Exeter Hall crank on the native question, but I am jealous of the honour of the white man in this country. The white races of this country are proud to think that they are descended from men who have ever been in the forefront of freedom and liberty, and are we going to descend to passing Bills of this sort? To degrade and to enslave any section of the human community is the negation of liberty.

You did that in the 1911 Act.

No, the South African party has never done anything of the sort. There is another aspect of this matter that has not been touched upon. I am sure that every South African is anxious to see an end to this patchwork domain that we have in South Africa and that we are all desirous of seeing the protectorates, Basutoland, Swaziland, Bechuanaland and South-West Africa, join the Union under satisfactory terms. I would ask the country seriously to consider what hope there is of ever consolidating South Africa so long as this Bill is on the statute book. Do you think that Basutoland, for example, would ever come into the Union while such a blot as this remained on the statute book? The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) was posing here as a friend of the native, yet he knows very well that, unless the natives in Basutoland voluntarily come into the Union, they will never come into the Union. Is this Bill going to make them come in voluntarily? We all know that the natives in the Basutoland Protectorate are not coming in unless they are coming in voluntarily. The same applies to Swaziland. The same applies to German West. We are all very keen on getting them to join the Union. A great many of our own citizens are there, but I do not see the League of Nations allowing them to come in under an iniquitous Bill like this. That is an important point which has completely escaped the notice of the Prime Minister and the Government. It forms a very important side issue of the question. It has been said that the supreme test of a nation’s spirit is this “To see helpless people and not to oppress them; to see great wealth and not to confiscate it; to have absolute power and not abuse it; to raise the native without sinking oneself.” Tested by these standards the South African nation will fail in every respect if this Bill becomes the law of the land. We shall outrage the conscience of the world if an unjust Bill like this goes on the statute book. No South African would dare to raise his head in any free country in the world if this become law. I hope the Prime Minister, even at this eleventh hour, will agree to refer it to a Select Committee before the second reading. He has told us he gave no promise—I accept his word unreservedly—but it is obvious that he had leanings in that direction. I am afraid pressure from the corner there caused him to alter his views. The Prime Minister made a very strong appeal to us to put this matter above party politics. I only wish that in drafting this Bill that spirit had been kept in view. We of the Opposition, we of the South African party, are quite prepared to accede to his request. We are prepared to help in solving this most vital of all problems—if solution be possible—and of the Asiatic question also. But to dragoon this Bill through this House, to force a second reading, is not the way to raise this Bill above party politics. We realize the sincerity with which the Prime Minister made an admission the other day, that he had failed to find a solution of the native problem: He went up in our estimation when he told us that now he was in closer touch and had been able to go into the question of segregation he realized the only course was that followed by the South African party in 1913. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) made a statement on behalf of the party that we were prepared to help him; we were prepared to deal with it in a non-party and non-sectional spirit. Unless this Bill goes to a Select Committee, however, I do not see how we can assist the Prime Minister. If this is dragooned through the House by a second reading, how then can the Prime Minister expect us to help him? He knows that he would be passing a principle to which we are opposed. That is not the way to deal with this tremendous problem that is facing the white man in South Africa. Let us put party considerations aside, suspend the second reading, and get together and look at this matter from a broad national point of view. I still hope and appeal to him to do so.

I feel the policy of this Bill will have far-reaching effects, and it is difficult to know exactly how far they will extend. It will affect the lives of everyone in this country, and I do hope hon. members will very carefully consider this Bill before they vote upon it. Briefly, this Bill is a direct attempt to crystalize into a principle the policy of repression of the native races in South Africa. This Bill declares the native shall not rise. This legislation demands that the native shall be kept on a low level of economic efficiency, and that he shall not be able to rise in the scale of western civilization. What is this western civilization? Upon what is it based? Our western civilization is based upon the law of justice and right. We know that it can boast of a great deal in the way of scientific advancement and invention, but that is nothing and can be nothing, and would in fact be detrimental to our race, if it were not for the great law of order, of justice and of right. On this question of moral law I would ask if this legislation is not a direct attack upon our western civilization. I feel that this Bill will strike at the very foundations of our supremacy as a white race in South Africa. We are reverting to the old dark ages, when law and order, justice and right, were still struggling against ignorance and prejudice. Looking at it, then, from this moral aspect, I feel sure I shall have the support of hon. members in my contention that this Bill is a direct attack upon western civilization and progress. In regard to the economic point of view, it would be folly to consider that such a policy could be applied with advantage to the economic welfare of South Africa. The effect of this Bill is a direct blow to the future economic development of South Africa. In this country you have a huge area of land teeming with all sorts of possibilities for the future, full of agricultural resources and mineral wealth. For that development we demand labour. We have an economic asset in labour, which has a right to a fair field and fair play in the development of the country. It has a right, also, to be able to become more and more efficient, to rise in fields of labour, and to take a fair share in the efficiency of skilled labour. To revert again to what I said in regard to the Bill. This Bill is to reserve certain spheres of labour for white men. We have heard a good deal in regard to this question of a horizontal line, separating skilled from unskilled labour. We have also seen the absurd inconsistency of that unskilled labour below the horizontal line which was relegated to native labour, now being applied—now being usurped—by the white man. I feel in regard to all this question the very humiliating position of every sane white man who has any racial pride. Now I would refer to the problem of the white unemployed, though I would only refer to it shortly, as it is not the subject before the House. We all realize the absolute necessity of something being done for the white unemployed of this country. The matter demands the most serious consideration of every right-thinking man. We all realize to what an alarming extent this unemployment is increasing, but I do feel we should not confuse the subject or obscure the issues of this policy in regard to native labour with that of the unemployment which is occupying the minds of so many at present. Let us, in this matter, keep those two subjects entirely separate. Are we to allow the poor whites of this country, many of them absolutely inefficient—and many of them so lazy and indifferent to the fact that they have white skins—are we to use them as a factor in deciding a policy in regard to the industrial development of South Africa? Are we to use them as a guide as to the destinies of the people of this country? Is all our future industrial development in South Africa to be mis-directed because of one section of our community who have shown such indifference to their position as the white race of this country? I am sure this Bill will act as a brake, and hamper progress, and yet our resources require development. We have an enormous asset of labour which has a perfect right to opportunity and liberty in working in that field of labour, and a perfect right to become efficient workers. In regard to labour, I wish to say a few words to the farmers, as a farmer of over 40 years’ experience, who has worked with white and black labour, and alongside of them, from dawn to night. I know their faults and their shortcomings; but I also appreciate their good qualities. We have found—I am not the only man—that they become skilled and efficient workers, men who are able at times to handle all kinds of machinery. Is the native to be debarred from becoming an efficient and skilled man and not allowed to work machinery? It seems to me a most extraordinary attitude for a white race to take up in regard to a race which has been committed to their charge, and to whom they have the obligation of trying to raise them in the economic scale and in industrial life. I have at my place men who are able to handle a machine-shearing plant and they have excited the admiration and approval of an American expert who saw them working. My neighbour has a threshing machine run by native labour alone.

What do you pay them?

I pay the native a fair wage for a fair day’s work. I also employ Europeans.

What do you pay them?

I believe I pay as much to my Europeans as any farmer, and I pay my natives also a higher wage than other Europeans pay. I have one European—a Dutchman—at my place, and I pay him over £300 a year, with a house and all the comforts he would require. I pay according to a man’s efficiency, and that is the basis on which we demand that both white and black should be paid.

Is that £300 cash or kind?

Well, he gets £20 a month cash, and everything found in the way of meal, meat, butter and everything else except groceries, and he has a house which I would not mind staying in myself, with a garden attached. However, I will not keep the House with personal matters; but we want to see the native and the white man being paid an efficient wage for efficient work. That is the manner in which many Europeans do pay their men. Now I just want to say a word not only as an employer of Europeans and as a farmer but as the son of a missionary—a son of a family of whose traditions I am not ashamed. I feel that this Bill is repugnant to every ideal of justice, right and honour, and when I speak of this matter I would like to say in regard to the rising tide of colour which has been referred to, that I am not afraid of that rising tide. We must have a rising tide. With 100,000,000 natives in this dark continent do we imagine that, rising tide of natives is not going to seek for civilization and the improvement of themselves, morally, physically, and mentally? We are bound to face the fact that we have a rising tide of colour coming on, and I feel that if we “play the game,” and are true to our own traditions we shall be the leaders and educators of that rising tide, as it rolls onward. I would like to make reference to the history of the past: More than 40 years ago, when I was in the Transvaal, as a lad from school, I had a great admiration for the old type of Boer, for whom I had the most reverent admiration. I refer to the type of old voortrekker who retained the status of white men amidst all the barbarism and the heathenism in which they lived in isolation, and still retained all the instincts of a white man and a gentleman. And if they could do that in those old days, surely, under the changed conditions we see around us we, as a white race, should be able to hold our own in this advancing tide. In conclusion, I would like to make one appeal to hon. members opposite; to my Nationalist friends I would remind them that their Church, the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa, stands pre-eminent among the churches of the world for its mission work. From here to Rhodesia, from Rhodesia to Nyasaland and even to far Nigeria, your ministers are trying to carry the torch of civilization and the Cross of Christ to the heathen races They are enduring hardships and privations and isolations, and dangers of all kinds, not only from savage races and wild animals but from nature in her most cruel and most insidious forms, and we here in Cape Town, sitting as representatives of the people of this Union—can we, dare we declare in favour of a colour bar against the natives of South Africa?

There is a colour bar in every Christian church.

We have to look at this matter from the economic point of view, and also from the moral point of view, because this is going to affect our children and every man, woman and child in South Africa, if we introduce the policy which is in this Bill.

I feel bound to rise in view of the very abusive remarks by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) about myself. He prefaced his speech with some remarks about justice and fair play, and proceeded to make one of his usual personal attacks on people who do not agree with him. If people read that speech they will be able to judge of his way of dealing with political opponents and the value of his remarks about justice and fair play. He did not have the courtesy to find out from me what the facts were, but launched into a personal attack. If the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) decreased the vote of the South African party at Klerksdorp I am very glad that I assisted in increasing the Government majority.

You have kept it very dark.

That is absolutely untrue, there is nothing private in my letter. I do not say it is deliberately untrue, but I say it is not true to say that it was secret.

It was very quiet.

I know the hon. member does not like to hear the truth. As a matter of fact I am thankful for his attack, because no honest politician could have a better political advertisement than an attack by the hon. member. His attacks will not worry me.

They seem to have rattled you to-night.

Nothing of the sort. When an hon. member makes a personal attack, one cannot remain silent, or these high minded gentlemen will repeat it. He insinuated that I have kept people in the dark as to my opinions. I have never heard a more astounding statement, considering that on the first reading I protested against the Bill.

I didn’t say you were quiet; I said you faced two ways.

The hon. member insinuated that on this Bill I was silent (dissent). Of course he did.

I said you were insincere on this Bill.

On the first reading I protested and I will always protest against legislation of this kind and on the second reading I moved an amendment and spoke, and that amendment is still on the paper; I have not gone back. My hon. friends seem to think that because they moved another amendment it is necessary for me to speak again, but I do not speak for the sake of speaking. They are trying to get out of the difficulty their personal abuse has landed them into. I foresaw that capital would be made by hon. members about this and I have got a copy in my press book, so far is it from being private and confidential.

You kept it in your press book?

Of course. The hon. member and his supporters made the mistake of keeping on the files things they should have got rid of, but there is nothing private and confidential about my letter. I would challenge the hon. member to produce my letter. There is not a single word in it that I retract, and there is nothing confidential about it. I received a telegram from Klerksdorp on April 3—the Friday before the election—and I was asked whether I had written such a circular letter. I replied, “Yes. Letter written by me in my Parliamentary capacity and gives my reasons which are general, not Jewish.” The insinuation was that I wrote a confidential letter to ask the Jewish voters to vote as Jews.

You sent it only to Jewish voters.

The hon. member, after making a personal attack on me, is such a sportsman that he will not even listen to my reply. I endorse every word of my letter. There are certain matters on which I do not agree with me Government, one being tile colour bar, But with the bulk of their measures I thoroughly agree. If it were the last bit of political work of my life, no word or voice of mine would get rid or the present Government in order to make way for the unfortunate Government which preceded it. I would sooner lose my seat in Parliament than be responsible for putting into power the michievous ruinous, disastrous Government we had before. My circular letter reads—

The same circular will be issued again if there is an opportunity. So long as the Opposition continues its present tactics, so long will my words be directed against the South African party. I went on in the circular to refer to the attitude of the late Government in regard to European immigration and the application of section 4 (1) (a) of the Act of 1913. There was no reference to Jewish immigrants. I challenge any hon. member to produce any circular in which I have used the words “Jewish immigrants”—all my references have been to European immigrants. It is quite true that the bulk of those affected were Jewish immigrants, but we were fighting for all European immigrants. The late Minister of the Interior (the late Mr. Abraham Fischer) made a definite pronouncement in this House and gave the assurance that section 4 (1) (a) of the Immigrants’ Regulation Act was never going to be applied to Europeans. It is in Hansard and has been quoted, and every member can read it. The hon. Minister who gave the pledge was the late Mr. Abraham Fischer, and the hon. member to whom the pledge was given was the present member for Yeoville, the hon. Minister of the Interior in the late Cabinet. Immediately after we had the so-called revolution in Johannesburg in 1922, the late Government put into operation section 4 (1) (a) against European immigrants on a wholesale scale. I protested time after time against their breaking of the pledge given to Parliament. One of the first things the present Government did was to say that they were going to honour the pledge given to Parliament in 1913. The circular ended: “For these reasons I feel justified in urging any friends I may have in Klerksdorp to vote for the Government candidate (Mr. de Villiers).” If a statement of the truth, and that is all I stated in the circular, has had an unfortunate effect upon the South African party, all I can say is that it ought to be a lesson to them in the future. It is their own fault that they have achieved this loss of popularity in the country. I have never been a member of the South African party.

Thank God.

That is only childish talk. Everyone knows that men with far less influence than I have were received with open arms by the South African party. Before this amalgamation took place they used to coo at me like sucking doves, and since the amalgamation, when I refused to join the South African party, they have been roaring at me like lions in sheep skins. I never fear any political action of mine, and so long as the present Government do their best to make the position of the masses better in the country, although I differ from them sometimes, I would rather see them in possession of the Government than those from whom they took the Cabinet seats. When the late Government had only been in power a few months there were two bye-elections in the Cape Peninsula, and they lost them both. There have been two other bye-elections in the lifetime of the present Government in less than twelve months, and the Government have increased their majorities in both. The South African party can abuse me as much as they like, but whatever political action I take I am prepared to answer for inside this House and in public outside this House. When members talk about my action being private and confidential, it is unworthy of them. If the hon. member did not see the circular he had no right to make the attack on me, and if he did see the circular he knew very well it was not private and confidential. I want to stand by my amendment that the Bill be read this day six months.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have already spoken on this Bill; am I entitled to speak again? The hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) has spoken on this Bill and moved a resolution. He has spoken now for at least 40 minutes and he has never once referred to the amendment which I have moved and which. I would have thought, would be the only reason that would justify him in taking up the time of this House.

I understand that the hon. member for Hanover Street was making an explanation in regard to matters which had been brought up by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). The hon. member for Fort Beaufort has moved an amendment, and since then no other amendment has been moved. I do not think the hon. member for Fort Beaufort is entitled to speak again.

That was not my point, if I may say so, with permission. I moved an amendment. The hon. member for Hanover Street had already spoken before I moved my amendment, and then I thought the hon. member for Hanover Street had only the right to speak again in case he spoke to the amendment.

I understood the position to be that the hon. member for Hanover Street was making an explanation with regard to a certain circular which had been referred to by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz).

It seems to me that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) must feel very much hurt by the crushing blow that has been given to him by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander). After that blow one should rather speak with pity about him. We have to-night been listening here to an argument which reminds me of a farce that we had in the House not long ago, when members of the Opposition were exactly in the same position as they are to-night. I refer to the position when they had already on a previous occasion agreed to a principle, and subsequently felt that they should contest it by making us believe that they had only limited it to a small circle, and that we wanted to enlarge it. I listened to the exhibition of unreasonableness by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), where he wanted to make it clear to us that he was against the colour bar provided it was not abolished in his constituency. Perhaps it may influence the votes there. We have several times this session had to do with native affairs, and we have heard on both sides words which sounded very fine, e.g., those of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), when he stood up and offered the olive branch to the hon. the Prime Minister, and when he said that he was desirous of treating the matter from the broad standpoint of the interests of South Africa, and he did not want to make a party question of it. But he felt, and hon. members opposite must certainly also have felt, that the dagger was hidden behind the olive branch. I thought that this was only so in the House, but we see that he shows the dagger everywhere in the country. He declared that the present Government was engaged in sowing bitterness against the English and the other races in the land. I read the words that he used at Worcester carefully in several newspapers so that I should be certain of their meaning. He said that we wanted to give the native a slap in the face. He said that this was the way the present Government was friendly to the coloured man, namely, by giving him a slap in the face, and then he goes on to make a speech which certainly does not have a calming influence on the natives. When we have to do with this matter it is not only the time to think clearly, but we must also be straightforward in our actions. The hon. member for Standerton appreciated this when he said in his Worcester speech—

I hope that he will apply that principle when he has to do with more educated people. But what is the whole tendency with reference to all this legislation regarding the colour bar? It has often been said that we must depart from the high moral standpoint in this connection and that we must place ourselves on the standpoint of opportunism. It is said that we should only allege that the circumstances demand such legislation. If that is the case that we must depart from the moral standpoint, then I must say that I shall have to vote against the Bill. If I cannot do it on ethical grounds, then I will not vote for it, but it is because I believe that it can be thus justified that I will vote for it. If we now ask what direction the Opposition have taken, well, we know that they introduced the colour line. The hon. member for Standerton tried to rub it into the people at Worcester. He said: Under the former Government there was no colour bar, and then he adds, as if between parenthesis, not on the statute book. The colour bar was there. What, then, was the object of the Opposition? I have tried to find out from their speeches. If I understood the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), then his alternative is nothing else than the old Manchester doctrine of letting things develop of laissez faire, laissez passer. The result of that will be nothing else than upsetting, bitterness and consequent misery. Because it means that we will bring about competition between the natives and the whites, which will cause bitterness in comparison with which the bitterness between black and white in the southern states of America will be negligible. There the bitterness became greater in proportion to the increase in the civilization and development of the blacks. The competition became sharper. This will also happen here, and when all are once on the same level the bitterness will be at its worst. This will be the result of the teaching of the battle between the races in its sharpest form which will follow upon this doctrine of letting things take their course. It is simply the doctrine of competition between black and white. If we want peace in the country we must take count of history. The verdict of history is that there is and must be a clear colour line. It is a part of the character of the people and one of the bases of the future. For the sake of the peace and co-operation and the salvation of our people we shall have to try to substitute a policy of co-operation between the races in the country in the place of the policy of keen competition which has been advocated here by that hon. member. We must have a policy of co-operation where the races will be complementary to each other. In the Free State, and I think also in the Transvaal, the old farmers often said that the barbed wire had brought peace to the land. Before the barbed wire existed everybody farmed, but the cattle ran on the other man’s ground, with the consequence that troubles arose. Subsequently the farms were fenced and peace reigned. This is the only sound policy which we can follow in the country to prevent estrangement and friction and bitterness. We will in one or other way have to erect barbed wire. I know it will be difficult. Much consultation will be necessary, and more than one beacon will only be able to be erected after much trouble and fighting. But if we do not do it the result will be trouble and misery. I may add that hon. members opposite can only condemn the Bill on moral grounds if they give an interpretation to it which is not applicable. This does not mean that we are going to put a damper on the natives and that they will be confined to unskilled work. It embraces the principle that from time to time certain trades can be brought under the Bill. I believe that the most enlightened natives will be willing to have conferences with us when we fix the beacons, so that there may be proper development on both sides. I admit that the fact that this section is coupled with the old law gives the opportunity to some of coming to the conclusion that we want to put a damper on the natives, and for this reason I am glad that the Bill will after the second reading go to a Select Committee, so that there need not be this unnecessary fear. I shall defend the colour line on the ground of the peace of South Africa in the future, and I think that there is ground enough for saying that this is not opportunistic legislation. In native newspapers there is another tone which is strengthened by speeches that we hear in the country, and from which that of the hon. member for Standerton is no exception. We hear that the natives are beginning to feel that we do not acknowledge the human rights of the natives, that they also should develop, and that they also should have the right to spiritual development. It is unfortunate that it is so. I have more than once recently read speeches which made me think that the natives are of opinion that they ought to argue that they, too, are human beings. This reminds me where Shylock had to appeal to ‘his Christian friends that he was also a human being. That spirit is encouraged by the speeches which represent that we are out to oppress the natives. I think that that sort of speech will in the end do us much harm in South Africa. I have got up simply because I felt that it was necessary to make it clear that it is incorrect what has been said here by the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat), that we do not keep count of the spiritual development of the native. I believe that a wrong and unsympathetic application of the colour line in the country may do an endless amount of harm, but I think that the principle of the colour line will be approved by the native and the coloured man. I do not know whether I understood the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) correctly, that he is sorry that a colour line is not drawn between the white people and the coloured people. He confuses a social with a society colour line. The coloured men will say to him that in social life he does not wish to mix with the white man. I hope that with reference to this matter we will have plain speeches and honourable action so that we can erect the beacons clearly and on the correct places. We cannot take away the colour line. The constitution acknowledges it. It is our social system. Nobody can argue it away. Hon. members say that the Government do not know what its policy is. This is also a misrepresentation, because the Government has not yet got a fixed policy of segregation. We will go to work steadily and systematically to see how we can erect our beacons so that we shall have room for development of the native as well as for the white man.

During the evening we have heard talk about political inconsistency and political honesty from the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), but the outstanding example of political inconsistency is seen in the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) himself, inasmuch as he was a member of the Government which legislated on this very matter, but they legislated by a regulation which constituted this colour bar on the gold mines. Then the action, Rex v. Hildick-Smith, took place, which declared the regulation ultra vires, and I think it is a more straightforward method to take up legislation in the present manner, namely, by means of an Act, than by the way the South African party dealt with it. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) made an eloquent speech, and I want to say he is in a delusion so far as his speech is concerned, because he missed the main fact that his own party was in power whilst this colour bar existed in the Transvaal, and it had existed for many years, and it was only following the result of the Hildick-Smith case that a straightforward Government comes forward now and makes the position effective by law. On the gold mines the position is that white miners are going down below risking their lives from the minute they step into the skip to the minute they come out. Are we going to permit this particular position, in which hundreds of white men are carried, to be occupied by natives when a slip or a careless action, or the not having a well-balanced mind, might result in a serious accident? There have been many serious accidents in recent months. A good deal can be attributed to the extension to natives of this kind of work not properly supervised by whites. It is essential that this particular machinery should be in the more highly-skilled hands and the more evenly-balanced and more dependable white man. It is not a question of employment at all, but the chance of a disaster through not having well-trained and disciplined men in control. And, further, I would say that it is in the financial interests of the mining company to have skilled white men instead of the natives. Take, for example, the mines’ policy of replacing the white drill-sharpeners by natives. If the Chamber of Mines would enquire from the mine officials actively concerned in the work they would find that a big loss was taking place owing to the breaking of dies and other parts of drill-sharpening machinery, parts that cost £12 every time to replace. This damage is caused by the rough methods of the natives and by their want of having the necessary “feel” of machinery, and I believe that in this policy the Chamber of Mines has been pennywise and pound foolish. I submit that the South African party Government either believed that they had a colour bar by means of regulation or else they pretended to the people that it was so. If that were not so, why did we have that prominent South African party man, Mr. C. F. Stallard, stating shortly after the Hildick-Smith judgment in the Transvaal that the South African party would allow no intrusion on the position as far as the colour bar on the mines was concerned, and that they still stood where they were on that question? If that statement were a definite statement—and it certainly was made by a responsible member of the South African party—then there must be some bluff, some attempt to deceive the people in regard to where the South African party stand to-day. With regard to the powers to be placed in the hands of the Minister under this Bill, I contend that for the past 15 years this has been the policy of the South African party. They have always given to the Minister supreme power, even in respect of the very thing we are now giving effect to by law, where the South African party Minister was given the power by regulation. This Government is not taking the power by regulation but by an Act of this House, which they propose to place on the statute book. This Bill will do in effect what the South African party Government have for years pretended to do by regulation.

I do not get up to speak on the moral or political side of this Bill, but to point to the dangers to the white people themselves that will arise if the Bill is accepted as it stands here. It is well known that in several of the smaller mines which are conducted by private people and by syndicates natives are used for work which in larger mines of the Rand would be considered as work for white men. In the small mines, for instance, kaffirs are used to sharpen drills, to do blacksmith work, to repair scotch carts and wagons, to do rough carpenters’ work, and even to do timbering in the mines. These are all operations which on the Rand are considered to be white labour. Why are they performed in the small mines by natives? In the first place the mineowners are satisfied with their work, and, further, of course, because their labour is cheaper. It is indeed the fact that precisely the difference between what is paid to natives and what would have to be paid to whites constitutes the profit of the mines. Accordingly, what will the consequence be when, for instance, under this law smaller mines are compelled to use white labour? The mines will be closed down and thus even the white workers who now get work on the mines will be deprived of work, and so actually it will be a step backwards for the white workers in place of an advance. Then I do not at all agree with the statement that the Act will not apply to the farming industry. On the contrary, I think that it is entirely within the power of the Minister to also apply it to farmers and to the agricultural population.

That is the case under the regulations.

Provisions are made here not only for the mines but for mines and industries. What is considered an industry? It is defined in the Act as, “factories and other places where machinery is erected or used.” Thus not only where machinery is erected on fixed foundations such as factories or mills, but also where it is used. Thus, e.g., cutting machines, saw mills or threshing machines or other movable plant falls under it. And what is the definition of machinery? It means boilers, and embraces, according to section 2 of the Act of 1911, “all appliances or combinations of appliances which can be used for the developing, receiving, transmitting or connecting either mechanical or natural powers.” Thereunder nearly all the tools and machinery are embraced which are used in farming. For instance, water wheels or water turbines which are used for the conversion of the natural force of water into mechanical power for driving anything. Take self-binders on farms, which are used to convert the natural power of horses and oxen into mechanical power for cutting wheat. It is no use saying that this law will not be applicable to farming industries. When the same argument was used by this side of the House the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) said that with them no natives were used on the threshing machines but coloured people. Now we in the Transvaal have no coloured people, and so we use natives. But at the same time I think that the wages of the coloured people are not more than what are paid to our kaffirs, namely, 3s. or 4s. per day. I only wish to point out what difficulties may arise for the farming population and small mines which depend for the most part upon the work of natives in the event of their being compelled to employ whites instead of natives.

I have listened with the deepest interest on the three occasions when this Bill and the amendment have been before the House. The most impressive thing I have heard was spoken by the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) on the 6th April, when he delivered this astounding statement: That it was the purpose of the Prime Minister to see that the native and coloured people of this Union got justice and good treatment unless the interests of the white population were jeopardized—a most astounding statement; but I am very much surprised that the Prime Minister did not repudiate what may have been-well-meant talk nominally on his behalf, but talk that is dangerous in the extreme. I fear that what lies at the bottom of this contemplated measure is panic on the part of white workers. We have heard much in the House about the position of the white man being jeopardized. Is there not pride of place with the white man in this country? Ought anything to be allowed to diminish the conviction that we are here as leaders and directors of the fortunes of this land? Why surround ourselves with a barbed-wire fence, to keep the natives away from contact with us? Why not show that we really do stand for a superior civilization and the leadership involved in that? It seems to me that it is altogether unfair that by special privilege the white man—who has so much of privilege already—should be in fierce competition with the millions of natives in this country. I make bold to say we cannot do without the natives. Who constructed our railways? Who constructed our public roads? Who constructed our harbours? No doubt the directing intelligence of the white man was there, but there were the thews, the muscles, the sinews, the hard work of the native labourer who was there in hundreds of thousands and resulted in the great public works of which we are justifiably proud. We owe much to the natives, and we have no right to bar honourable employment to them which they may wish to do and to rise to the civilization we have put within their reach. I feel proud it has been our British tradition in South Africa to show fair play in every sense to the native people committed to our charge, and I am glad those not of the British race on this side of the House share these high traditions. It seems to me the way to permanent security in this land and to the mollifying of racial feeling and the promotion of kindly co-operation between white and black men, is not in panic legislation or in seeking special privilege because a man is white, but in showing justice, kindness, honesty and honour to every section of the population, and in never allowing the races to forget that we who labour in this House are undergoing the careful scrutiny at all times of those natives whom we have encouraged to seek education and who cannot be silenced now when they ask for these things.

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