Before the business of the day is proceeded with, may I be allowed to make a statement with regard to the constitution of the fruit control board? The Governor-General will appoint the following gentlemen as members: Mr. J. C. le Roux, a member of the firm of Messrs. Walker, Jacobsohn and Le Roux, solicitors, of Cape Town, will be the chairman. The next four names are those nominated by the Fruit Exchange, viz.: Mr. A. C. Buller, Mr. J. A. du Preez, two deciduous growers from the Western Province, Mr. J. A. du Plessis and Mr. W. P. Anderson, citrus growers from the Transvaal. A sixth member will be Mr. R. A. Dyason, who has been appointed in consultation with the National Fruitgrowers’ Protection Association.

I move—

seconded.

I do not want to oppose this motion but I should like to ask the Prime Minister to give us some information about the business of the House. I am getting seriously alarmed, sir, and I am sure you are too, and so is every member of this House.

No, no!

Well, there may be exceptions, but I think the great bulk of members are getting perturbed. We have a very long list of work before us. A new Bill is going to be read just now; notice has been given of another by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, and we know as a matter of fact that a number of first class measures of the Government are still to come forward, the Railway Bill for instance, the Asiatic Bill of the Minister Of the Interior and the South-West Africa Bill; all matters of very far-reaching importance and difficulty. I do not know whether it is the intention of the Government that we should sit here for the rest of the year; I hope not. Anyhow, I would ask the Prime Minister to give the House some information. It is quite certain that part of this cargo will have to be jettisoned. Could he give us some indication now as to whether he has sized up the situation? Are We simply drifting on, or has the Government any plan in this matter?

The session has only started.

We have been drifting for many months now. Surely the time has come when stock has to be taken. The Government having attracted the attention of the country sufficiently perhaps we can now come to grips with the real work. I would appeal to the Prime Minister to be merciful to this House and to the country and to give us some indication of what the real work is to be. As I have said before, the Prime Minister knows you cannot accelerate the pace of this House beyond a certain rate. I am sure there has been no obstruction in this House; none whatever.

Oh!

Well, if there has been any obstruction it has been from those benches and not from this side. The House has a natural pace which it is very difficult to accelerate. The Government may be assured that when a measure of first class importance is brought forward it is debated. Points strike members and one speech leads to others; an attack leads to a prolonged defence and so it goes on. The ball is kept rolling from one side of the House to the other. So inevitably if we have to carry out this long programme we shall be here for many, many months more. It is not in the interests of the country that we should be sitting here the whole of the time. We would like to help the Government to expedite business if possible, but I am afraid some of us will not survive if this lengthy programme is to be carried out.

The question asked by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is quite fair and I can understand his asking it, but I will just say that I think it is a little early to answer it as yet. I think—it is a pity—that we shall not be finished before the end of July. It is possible that we may finish before that time but I do not think so. There is, of course, quite a lot of work on the order paper, which, as the hon. member for Standerton has rightly said, will have to go back to the mill—not to be thrown overboard but to stand over. That will certainly happen, but it is practically impossible to say now which Bills they will be because possibly with one or two exceptions nearly all the measures appearing on the order paper will have to be adopted or rejected by Parliament during this session or a subsequent one. Now, four months have not yet elapsed since we met and we know from experience that at the commencement of a session work progresses slowly and by the end of the session hon. members usually become a little more keen and lay themselves out to expedite matters. Now, I do not wish to say that there has been obstruction, it would not be fair to say so, but there has been a great deal of discussion, not only on the opposite side, but also on this side of the House, and I think if we will confine ourselves move to criticism that is actually necessary we shall find that we can do a good deal in the two months to the end of July. I would gladly comply with the request, but I do not think it would be right, because I think it is a bit too soon. Perhaps later when the session is a little more advanced I shall be in a position to say which Bills will have to stand over. It is possibly discouraging time after time to see notice given of new Bills, but they are actually little Bills which deal with questions which have arisen during the session and which are of urgent importance in one cause or another. They are Bills which affect one or other matter of public importance and not party matters. Take, e.g., the Bill of which the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has just given notice, namely, the Bill in connection with the General Botha training ship. It is unfortunately urgently necessary, and if the Bill is not passed the undertaking cannot be carried on. Let me add that it is a matter of great importance to our people and will become of more importance in the future, and if we postpone the matter then an irreparable damage will be done to the undertaking. They are, unfortunately, matters which arise from time to time, and which have then to be dealt with during the session. But if we are actually prepared and desirous to make progress then the most important work at least can still be disposed of by the House in the two months up to the end of July. I can assure hon. members that the session will not be protracted longer than is necessary. At some future date I hope to be able to comply with the request.

Motion put and agreed to.

In regard to clause 18 I wish to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, viz.—

My reason for moving this amendment is that I have been advised that if the clause is left as it stands, it will debar any servant from appealing to the law courts of the land. On the two previous occasions on which these words occur in the Bill, they are quite right, as the Railway Board should have the final say. One refers to promotion and the other to a charge against a man for inefficiency, but this paragraph deals with the case of a man charged with misconduct, and if you read sub-sections 3, 4 and 5 you will see that it is going to apply to a comparatively small number of employees on the railways, say one man in a thousand, yet I want the courts to be open to that one man in a thousand. If the finding of the appeal board is not unanimous, the man has the right to appeal to the general manager and to the Railway Board. But if the appeal board is unanimous it is laid down that the case is decided, there being no further appeal. If they are not unanimous, it is quite possible that an appeal to the general manager may not satisfy the man, nor even an appeal to the Railway Board, and I think it is only right that we should leave the way open, so that servants may have recourse to the courts of the land and get justice. I therefore move the amendment.

I wish to second the amendment of the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. G. Brown), and I hope the Minister will be reasonable and accept it. It will only affect a very small number, and it does not leave the matter open to the courts, except in extraordinary cases. It will be seen that the hon. member is not asking for an ordinary appeal to the courts. The effect of his amendment will be this, I take it, that if a man wants to bring his case to the courts, he will still have to show that there has been some irregularity in the procedure; he will still have to show that there has been some departure from the rules of natural justice or he will still have to show that the regulations have not been carried out. If these words remain in the Bill, the effect will be to tell the courts that no matter whether there has been an irregularity or a departure from the rules of natural justice, or whether the rules have been carried out or not, the decision of the Railway Board is final. I take it that that is not the object of the Minister. The hon. member has not moved that there should be an appeal from the Railway Board to the court. The small body of men affected by this clause, if they can show one of the extraordinary grounds upon which the court interferes with a matter of administration, such as I have stated, will not be debarred by the administration coming in and saying the decision of the Railway Board is final. The Minister has told us that we must not forget that this is a business concern; but if any business concern came before this House with a Bill not only preventing lawyers from having any say, but stating that the decision of the general manager of the business shall be final, what would the House say? No private concern would ever get such a Bill through the House. The amendment simply provides that when an extraordinary thing takes place, no words of the Act will prevent justice being done when there has been a palpable injustice. Even in the event of the amendment being passed, if the Minister is able to prove to any court that the regulations have been carried out, no court will interfere. That has been the decision in a large number of cases; but if these words are not taken out, the court may find it is not able to interfere in the event of a departure from the principles of natural justice.

I take it that the Minister does not want by this section to debar a man from taking his case to the court, if he can show wrongful action on the part of the railway administration or that he has been treated without regard to the law of the regulations. That is the only sort of case in which a man can go to the court. It is just possible that if the words to which exception has been taken remain in, they may be held to debar a man from going to the court in any case. To delete these words will not in any way take away the finality of the Railway Board’s decision in an ordinary case. These words are not necessary if the appeal to the board is final. I hope, therefore, the Minister will see his way to agree to the deletion of the words.

Even if the administration is not prepared to agree to the amendment that should not bind Parliament, for we are here to do justice. Are we going to debar railway servants from access to the courts of law? The members of the Cape fixed establishment and the Natal railway servants have this right. I hope the Minister will not debar even the humblest railway servant from having access to the courts.

It appears that we are all agreed on the two main propositions, namely, that when during the course of hearing of a charge of misconduct against a servant there is a contravention of the regulations by the appeal board or anyone in authority, that the servant should have the right to appeal to the courts. I hope we also all agree on the point that when a decision of the appeal board is taken to the railway board the decision of that board should be final. As that is agreed—and as I understand that the deletion of these words will not affect the position—I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to

Amendments in clauses 18 and 19 and the omission of clause 23 were agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Bill, as amended, adopted; third reading tomorrow.

I move, pursuant to notice—

Before the House goes into committee I should like to say a few words about the motion which I have just read. The amendments which I intended to propose are in the votes and proceedings. The position is shortly this. The Bill makes provision for the sale of stock by public auctions and sections 2 and 3 lay upon the auctioneer certain obligations. But the Bill does not stop at the sale of cattle, but also applies to the sale, by public auction, of agricultural produce, in which is included wool, mohair and feathers. In Durban, wool is sold in the first instance, by public auction. If wool is sold there the auctioneer must carry out the provisions of sections 2 and 3 of the Bill. The selling of wool, mohair and feathers by public auction is, however, but little done in the rest of the Union. The agents at Port Elizabeth and Cape Town who sell that produce do not come under those provisions, and what I intend by this motion is, that where the wool is sold by agents, they will be placed under the same obligations as the auctioneer. I do not wish to go fully into the matter because it is quite clear as I have shown. I can mention the same objections that existed among the farmers in connection with the sale of stock by public auction and the payment. I may just say that the only provision in section 2 which has not already been carried out by the agent and factor is the giving of the name of the purchaser. The wool farmer and we, ourselves, want to know who buys the wool, etc. That is the usual legal position between principal and agent, and what we ask is not irregular, and it is entirely within the scope of the Bill. I hope that there will be no objection to give the committee the opportunity of considering the advisability thereof.

seconded.

I think the full extent of the operation of this Bill has not been taken into sufficient account. It over-rides all regulations affecting the sale of livestock and agricultural produce in the whole of the markets of municipalities. When the Bill was before the House previously, it was suggested that there should be some definition of what livestock is.

I do not think the hon. member can discuss that now; he can do that in committee.

It would be advisable to have some information from the Minister of Agriculture, who we are all glad to see in his place. I don’t say it from any desire of criticism, but we should like to know if my hon. friend has discussed the tenor of the proposal with the technical officers of his department. I take it the hon. member means we have a Bill before the House dealing with sales by public auction, with certain provisions to protect the seller of articles which have often gone from his possession and are put into the hands of an auctioneer for disposal. I understand that the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Fourie) means that wherever certain articles are sold by a broker or an auctioneer privately he will be obliged to supply the same particulars as if they were sold by public auction. I do not know how that will be accepted by private agents. I asked the hon. Minister if he has discussed the matter with the technical officers in his department, and whether he has found out how a proposal of that sort is received by them. I take it means, if a man sends his wool, mohair or skins to any agent privately representing him, if the agent sells the article, not by public auction, he must transmit in connection with these articles exactly the same return as would have to be transmitted if sold by public auction. I should like to hear the views of commercial men in this House in that direction. I am anxious to protect the farmer so that he gets the strictest possible protection in connection with the disposal of his produce.

I just want to say that I have no objection to the motion of the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Fourie). I think it is fair and that there can be no objection to it on the part of anyone who wants to do business honestly and who wants to buy wool, etc., from the farmers in an honest way. For this reason, I am prepared to accept the amendment. I think it is of especial importance to the Cape Colony. As to Natal, nearly all the wool is sold by public auctions in Durban, but in the Cape Province it is not so, and the motion is of importance to the Cape Colony.

My difficulty is that the people concerned in this matter have not had sufficient notice of this motion. Many hon. members here do not know what is actually going on to-day. When one sees that a Bill is published with reference to auctioneers he will never think that provision is being made for regulation about private persons. The section may possibly lead to difficulties for farmers and agents of which we have no special knowledge, and they had not had sufficient opportunity to express their views.

I do not pretend to have any particular enthusiasm for this, because I hardly think it is necessary, but at the same time I do not think it will give any particular trouble. I understand that under the common law the information that is required to be given could be claimed at any time by any sellers from his agent, and I would have thought it would have been sufficient to have left it so that any seller who wanted information could claim it and get it from any time from his agent. At the same time, if the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Fourie) is very keen on this, I do not see any particular objection, because in most cases it would be just putting into legal form what has hitherto been done, that is making compulsory what could be claimed at any time by any seller. Speaking for the mercantile community, as I say, I hardly think it is necessary, but we do not see any objection to it.

Motion put and agreed to.

House in Committee:

On Clause 1,

I think before this section is accepted by this House it should be thoroughly understood what the scope of the Bill is. I have already mentioned that it will make all the difference in the world to every municipal market in South Africa. I want the Minister to thoroughly consider what the effect of this Bill will be. We have these markets under market regulations and coming under provincial councils. This is a superior Act and is going to wipe out all regulations under which market sales are held. Take the market at Johannesburg, one of the largest in the country—how will it be affected? Unless some provision is made that this Bill shall not apply to sales, say, under £20, a market master will have to observe all these conditions in regard to sales. The market master at Johannesburg does not know how the market can be conducted if this Bill is passed in its present form. I am in entire sympathy with those who wish to protect the seller and can quite understand that those who consign produce and cattle to the markets should be protected, but it would not be in their interests to handicap sales by too drastic conditions. In section 4 it might be possible to put a limitation that it does not apply to any sale for less than £20 in one lot. There is no definition of livestock to show whether it applies to rabbits, fowls and other living things, but definition is provided in previous Acts in regard to agricultural produce. If the Bill is passed in its present form its operation will inevitably create difficulties in public markets.

I hope the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) will not press his amendment because it is just as necessary to have details of stock sales held in agricultural show grounds as it is of any other stock sale. With regard to the point raised as to the impossibility of rendering detailed accounts of produce sold at the municipal markets, I do not think this really holds ground, but provision can be made to meet any difficulty therein.

In answer to the question in connection, with the Johannesburg market I just wish to say that the proposal for such legislation came actually from Johannesburg so that I cannot see what objection the market master can have. The agricultural unions in the country are all in favour of the Bill, and regulations have already been drawn up at some of the smaller markets to give effect to this Bill. Seeing it can be done on certain markets I cannot understand why the marketmaster of Johannesburg objects to it. I hope that the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) will not make any further difficulty.

I just want to know from the Minister whether bazaars, such as church bazaars, or a party bazaar, will be excluded from the Bill.

In sub-section 2 of section 1 I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that the sub-section makes provision for sales on show grounds, but no provision with regard to sales on the premises of racing clubs. The Minister knows that one of the conditions attached to racing to-day is that they have a selling race; and this means that they will be debarred from selling. I therefore wish to move the following amendments—

I just want to tell the hon. member for Ermelo that this Bill does not apply to bazaars, if the auctioneers do their work gratuitously. I feel that the breeders of horses are labouring under many difficulties and that we must not deprive them of the right of selling their horses after certain race meetings. I shall thus accept the amendment of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik).

I hope the Minister will accept the hint to exclude church bazaars as well. I will only say that if the hon. Minister thinks that commission is not demanded by some auctioneers at church bazaars, then he is wrong. I have had personal experience of various church bazaars where auctioneers have knocked down goods, and for that reason I think it will be fair to exclude church bazaars.

In some of the bazaars I have seen up country hundreds and hundreds of livestock are sold, and the auctioneer takes the responsibility for the payment of the money. Will he not be protected by the clauses of this Bill, because at a bazaar of this sort the public have quite free access. Those to which my hon. friend refers are church bazaars up country, where hundreds and hundreds of sheep are sold for the creditable purpose of paying off debt; but in the other case it refers to where an auction sale is held and the public are not admitted.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 2.

In this section there is something which is not clear to me. Section 2 (b) reads—

1. (b) Forthwith after the conclusion of the auction make out, and deliver or transit to each seller a sales note showing legibly:

1. (1) The name of the seller;
2. (2) if the seller is engaged in farming operations, the name of the purchaser.

This latter portion is not clear to me, and I hope that this section will define more clearly when someone is carrying on farming operations and when not. I take it that the Minister wishes to protect the seller. But we must also protect the business man who sends the produce to the market. I think that we should also protect him as well as the farmer. The section should read “or sellers.”

It is at the request of the business people themselves that this provision has been made. The hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. de Wet) can therefore be at ease on this point.

In view of the fact that the conditions of clauses 2 and 3 will govern clause 4 when it comes into operation, I would like to move—

It is impossible for these men, who are dealing in wool and other produce of that sort, and who may have a consignment of 100 or 200 bales to sell, belonging to 20 different owners, “forthwith” to render these accounts.

That has been provided for. I understand that the legal interpretation of “forthwith” covers the legitimate case you bring forward.

I hope that the hon. member is satisfied. The word “forthwith” here means as soon as possible.

In that case, with the leave of the committee, I withdraw my amendment.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I move—

With regard to the amendment now moved by the Minister, I wish to say that many of these sales are arranged weeks, or even months, beforehand, and it will be against the interests of the seller to stipulate that the auctioneer shall declare his intention to buy “prior to accepting the stock for sale.” Very often at these sales, to which stock is sent from long distances, there is no previous intention of the auctioneer to bid; but owing to various reasons there may be a bad sale, and in order to save the position he may be prepared to buy with the consent of the seller. I had an amendment myself on much the same lines, but not that the auctioneer should so long beforehand declare his intention, nor that such declaration alone would be sufficient. It should be possible to safeguard the seller against the speculative auctioneer of whom there used to be quite a number in this country; the man who was the buyer, seller and auctioneer, and I would ask the Minister whether he is prepared to accept an amendment in place of his as follows—

That consent might be given at the last minute. You have your safeguard to attain a certain result, and with that we should be satisfied. I am afraid that the Minister’s amendment, in practice, will mean that the auctioneer might say, “I am not going to accept any entries for sale unless you allow me to bid myself,” and then you at once raise suspicion in the mind of the seller.

I cannot accept the amendment because then we shall entirely weaken the section, and then the whole Bill will be of no use. The law is there to protect the farmers and the auctioneers must not be permitted to do business themselves. The recommendation of the Select Committee was to make the section as it is. The auctioneer must declare whether he is going to do business himself or not and obtain the consent of the seller. It is not necessary to enter into an agreement months before hand.

I cannot understand why the Minister objects to this amendment. Its object is to safeguard the seller, while it does not necessitate the auctioneer having to inform the seller long before the sale takes place of his intention to bid, or, perhaps, even forcing the seller to agree to such bidding in order to have his stock accepted for sale.

I cannot understand the amendment. As I understand it is at the sale that the auctioneer must disclose his intention of bidding.

The intention of the Minister is that if the auctioneer is going to purchase, he must give notice to the owner of the stock which he is selling. I move as an amendment—

I would suggest to the Minister that the amendment of the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) would meet his objection quite satisfactorily. Even the Minister’s own amendment does not altogether protect the owner, because it only provides that the auctioneer must give notice to the owner.

What, if the owner is not there?

Then the auctioneer cannot sell to himself.

I hope that the Minister will not accept this amendment because it will kill the whole Bill. It is one of the grievances that the farmers had in the past that the auctioneers are also the purchasers of their cattle. It is not right that the auctioneer should draw fees and still be the purchaser.

I am afraid the hon. member has not read the Bill and has not grasped its intention. Experience has shown that there were cases in which people acted as auctioneers and were also associated in partnership or otherwise with people who were buying the stock the auctioneer was selling. It then became evident to the producer that there were grave possibilities of his stock being knocked down quickly to a man, who was either financially supported by the auctioneer or the auctioneer having a certain interest in his business. It was to prevent this that the clause was drafted. Then it was pointed out that there might be cases in which, owing to a paucity of purchasers, the auctioneer was prepared to bid himself, but if the clause was passed as printed, he would not be able to do so without the consent of the owner. If the owner lived a long way from the place he might never have sent his consent, but he might have been present at the sale and have been a willing party to the selling of the stuff. The owner is protected in every way and no one is stronger than I am in wanting to see him protected when the stuff gets out of his hands.

It seems to me that the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is just what is needed and gives the seller the necessary protection, because the seller who is there must give his consent to the auctioneers buying. Without that the auctioneer cannot buy.

I agree with the hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. de Wet). I think that the object of this Bill is to keep in check the kind of auctioneer who is also a speculator. We find them in Johannesburg. The farmer is not present to give his consent.

Then the auctioneer cannot buy.

I think that we must insert a section that all auctioneers must be prohibited from buying stock from their clients.

I hope that the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) will not insist on that. It often happens that an auctioneer is prepared to pay something more than other purchasers, and if the owner is present and gives his consent, why then should not the auctioneer also have the right to buy? The effect of the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) will be that if the auctioneer makes a bid, the bid will only be valid if the owner approves. We must get away from the idea that all auctioneers are frauds. If the auctioneers are prepared to pay more, why should the seller be prohibited from accepting such a bid?

It seems to me that the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) actually protects the farmer. He wants to prevent the owner having the right of doing what he wishes with his property. Why should he not have the right of giving his consent that an auctioneer should be able to buy his property?

If he is not there?

Then he cannot give his consent.

I think the suggestions being made would defeat the object of the Bill. All that occurs after the word “employee” in the 52nd line should be omitted, otherwise we are opening the door to auctioneers who sell within their own circle to their friends. If we enact that he shall not sell to himself or to any person connected with him, that would finish the thing. If we pass provisions he has not to comply with in writing, and can simply say. “I had the owner’s permission and sold to myself,” it opens the door wide to litigation. I accordingly move—

I ask the hon. Minister not to press his further amendment.

The omission of the last two lines has already been moved.

We must not forget that the auctioneers are often large farmers, and if a good class of cattle comes on the market then possibly the auctioneer will pay a good price for the cattle. He knows his client knows that he is honest, and would therefore often be prepared to pay more than any other man. If he thus gets the permission of the farmer himself for the purchase, I do not see how the public can be damaged.

He can buy out of hand.

Yes, the auctioneer can buy out of hand, but on the other hand he is obliged to knock it down if another man makes a bid. We should not, I think completely prevent the auctioneers from buying anything.

The last speaker cannot see why the stuff should not be sold if the auctioneer has the consent of the owner. The Minister’s amendment has said nothing about that consent at all. It is sufficient for the auctioneer merely to say that he intends to bid, and it says only that he shall have—

He has not to give his consent at all. Whether the auctioneer gets the owner’s consent or not, he, under this amendment, if it becomes law, is protected. I think the Minister, inadvertently, is making the Bill much worse. Notwithstanding what the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) said, the Bill is going to be worse with this amendment than it is now as originally printed. As originally drafted, the Bill only provided for disclosure of an association, etc., and, therefore, I asked the Minister to accept my amendment, which made it stronger, and I had wanted not only to declare this association or ring, or whatever you call it, but that the auctioneer without associates should also disclose when he was a buyer. Then the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) suggested as a way out the insertion of the words “without the consent of the seller,” and the deletion of the two last lines of the subsection. It has been stated by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) that this Bill was designed to meet the conditions on the Witwatersrand. But do not forget that the Bill is going to apply right through the country as well. I do hope that the Minister will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort.

I do not understand what the difficulty is on that side of the House. The objection that I have is this: a man sends 1,000 sheep to Johannesburg; at the last moment the auctioneer says that he will not sell the sheep unless he has the right of purchase. The man, then, for the first time finds out there is something wrong in the matter. That is why I say the auctioneer should give notice of his intention beforehand. I cannot see what objection members can have to that. The Bill is expressly intended to assist the farmers in knowing on what condition he is sending his cattle to Johannesburg. Let us look the thing in the face. There are some exceptions as indicated by the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins), but we cannot do an injustice to others on that account. The amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) does not differ very much from my own and why should there be this hair splitting? It seems to me that my amendment is safer and, therefore, I stand by it.

I think my hon. friend misunderstands. I am not fighting for this amendment because I have moved it; it was a legal suggestion made to me really. With regard to the Minister’s amendment, I would like to take the case to which he has referred of 1,000 sheep going a long distance. It might never strike the owner, when he was sending those sheep, what the conditions are that would appertain at the sale, and all I say is that, unless the owner has been a willing party and a consentor, either he can send a letter when the stock are going, or he can be present at the sale. I thought my proposal was going to still further assist the farmer, while protecting him in every way.

I want to say to the Minister that if his amendment is carried, you might just as well not pass this Bill. It will be a mere waste of time and paper and printing, and will accomplish nothing. You are placing both your seller and your buyer entirely where they are at present, at the mercy of the auctioneer. I agree with the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) that if you delete the words he has mentioned and stop the subsection at the word “employee,” you have then prevented the auctioneer from exploiting both parties, and I want to put it to the Minister what safeguard is it to the seller if, beforehand, the auctioneer has got his consent? It is no safeguard at all, because the auctioneer can then make his own price, and you are in precisely the same position as you are in to-day without this Bill. In all probability in all future transactions, if the Minister has his way, the auctioneer will safeguard himself by notifying the seller that he proposes to buy.

That is right.

Then what have you done? You have simply legalized the present position of the auctioneer. I do not ask the Minister to think very seriously about this position. The reason why I am supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) is because the persons who are buying have also some right to protection. It is just possible that the auctioneer, presuming what the market is likely to be in a week or two’s time, or even next fall, will be able to go a little bit further than the crowd of buyers around him in order to make a profit next time. You are setting up a dangerous position if you allow any loopholes at all. They are clever people, I say this despite the fact I was one myself once, but I was never clever enough to be a livestock auctioneer. I do say there is a grave danger to the purchaser, and there is a grave danger in allowing the auctioneer the opportunity of saying “I shall bid myself, or buy myself.” There is nothing, however, to prevent the auctioneer making a private arrangement with, say, my friend the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) He can say “I am prepared to give you so much here and now for your cattle.” That is a legitimate transaction, and it can be accomplished quite easily. Apart from that, make it as hard and fast as you can, and thus protect both the seller and the buyer.

I do not think that the Minister will attain his object with his amendment on the order paper, because by it the auctioneer is only required to give notice that he wants to buy. The seller need not give his consent.

It must be done before he accepts the stock for sale.

Right, but this will make it very difficult for the auctioneer to buy anything. How can he know when the cattle has already been booked for sale months beforehand whether he will eventually buy or hot? This amendment only demands that he shall give notice that he wishes to buy; but I see another way in which difficulties might arise; it is when an auctioneer has obtained the consent of the owner to bid. He may make use of this consent while he is engaged in auctioning to suddenly knock the goods down to or accept the bid of his partner. I do not say that we can stop all these things by legislation, but I want to call the attention of the Minister to the point. His amendment only requires that notice must be given by the auctioneer.

I agree with a great deal of what has been said, especially with the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), and I feel—I always felt this as an auctioneer—that it is in the first instance not fair for the auctioneer to bid against the public. When an auctioneer takes up that occupation he should be nothing else than an auctioneer, i.e., the agent between seller and purchaser. He must be honest. I think that it is quite undesirable and dangerous to open the door. The auctioneers will then open it further. If the auctioneer wants some special thing he can make arrangements with the seller. I do not think we shall be doing an injustice to the seller. The cases of abuse will be much greater than the cases of advantage. I suggest that the Minister should with draw his amendment, and I move—

That will prevent the auctioneer from buying either directly or indirectly. Both are then protected.

That is the law to-day.

No, it is not illegal.

It is desirable to know what an auctioneer can do. As the position now is in Johannesburg, a person does not know whether he will have to do with a principal or with an auctioneer. The auctioneers speculate in stock, buy and sell stock, and the auctioneer has always still got the opportunity to have a purchase made by a private individual.

That cannot be done under the law.

We must not permit that the auctioneers have any right of purchasing stock which they are selling themselves. I have seen how much fraud goes on in Johannesburg, and agree with the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Fourie). We must give no opening to the auctioneers.

I hope that the Minister will see that the best way out of the difficulty is to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Fourie). There is no doubt that the Bill is necessary, because unfortunately fraud takes place in places like Johannesburg. We must always leave out the “unless.”

I am not going to object to that; because it was the suggestion that must come in if my amendment is accepted, that is, that the two lines must come out. The only difference was this, that we have to meet the statements made by several members of the committee. I think that by deleting these lines and putting at the beginning of the sub-section “without the consent of the owner,” that would be in the interests of the owner; but if the House does not think that is protecting the farmer, I am not going to object.

I am glad to see that hon. members wish the Bill to be made stronger. I am prepared to accept the amendment and to withdraw mine.

As a matter of procedure, I am afraid that, if I do not move an amendment now, I shall not have another opportunity. I move—

It is an exceedingly difficult thing to prove that a man cannot pay; but it is comparatively easy for a buyer to prove that he can pay. Suppose an hon. member were bidding at a sale, and the auctioneer said I cannot accept the bid; it would be easy for the hon. member to provide proof that he can pay.

I think the hon. member who has just spoken is quite correct. You want to protect the auctioneer to some extent. He simply says I do not want to take your bid. It would save litigation.

I just wish to say that if the Minister accepts the amendment to limit the amount to £5 or £10 it will not help us out of the difficulty. The auctioneer will never know what the purchase price of a purchaser will be. If an exception is made it is better to exclude the market master. The public have confidence in the market masters of the town councils, and I think that that is the way out of the difficulty.

I support the amendment of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). It is very difficult for the auctioneer to know whether a man can pay or not, and it is wrong to put the burden of proof on him. It is in the interests of the farmer himself that the amendment should be accepted, because otherwise it might happen that the purchasers would be much restricted.

I would like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). You cannot throw the onus on the auctioneer. He cannot prove, in black and white, that a man cannot pay. The general practice is that, if a man goes to a sale where he is a stranger, he has a letter of introduction, or a crossed cheque or something.

The difficulty might also arise that, where the bid of a prospective buyer is refused, and the auctioneer cannot prove that he is unable to pay, the auctioneer might be liable for an action for damages. I think the section as it stands is a dangerous one and should be expunged.

No auctioneer willingly refuses a bid. If he thinks a man is able to, pay, he is only too willing to take the bid.

I only wish to remind the committee of what happened in Johannesburg a few years ago when the offer of a certain buyer was refused; which I think is just what we want to prevent. We want to prevent what was done in that case, where the auctioneers combined to exclude a person from the sale.

I think we all agree that we want to find a method which will make the farmer safe, and I would ask the Minister to consider the position that might arise if the amendment is accepted. I understand the Minister does accept the amendment to strike out the last two lines. It may happen that a prospective buyer is detained at the last moment, and is unable to attend a sale, and he wires to the auctioneer to buy him a certain number of hamels or oxen, at so much. The auctioneer could not do that under this clause.

He could.

I take it that, under these circumstances, the auctioneer immediately becomes the agent, i.e., the buyer. I have seen this done myself. I would sooner see subsection (c) stand as it is, and not strike out the last two lines, in view of that eventually arising. I take it that the amendment by the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) and the original clause (c), are practically the same. The Minister must realize that different conditions obtain in Johannesburg from those which obtain in the country. I do not think the amount of, shall I say, “humbug,” indicated in this House, goes on at the country sales which is said to go on at Johannesburg. I think we should let sub-section (c) stand, or else accept the amendment of the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort.

I do not think my hon. friend need fear for if anyone were to telephone to an auctioneer to buy him, say, 500 sheep, it is quite competent for the auctioneer to bid on behalf of so-and-so. The auctioneer is only debarred from selling to himself or to any person with whom he is associated in business.

If that is so, I am satisfied.

With reference to the amendment of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) I only wish to say why the burden of proof is laid on the auctioneer when he refuses an offer. In Johannesburg the auctioneers in 1920 formed a ring and refused to accept a bid from the meat exchange, although the exchange could pay-cash, with the result that the meat exchange could not fulfil its contract. If we were to accept this amendment we shall make that possible again. I am very sorry that the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) is in favour of it. I leave the matter in the hands of the House but I think that hon. members will not support the amendment when they understand what the effect of it may be.

Now that the hon. member has given the reasons I can entirely agree with his view. But then the wording is entirely wrong. If the section is drafted more positively then there is no question of burden of proof. I think that the wording should not be put negatively. It must be so worded that when the auctioneer has good reason for knowing that the man who makes a bid can pay he may not refuse it. Now the section says that unless the auctioneer has good reasons for thinking that the man cannot pay he must accept the bid. The transpositions of the words takes away the burden of proof. If the auctioneer refuses to accept a bid from a man who can pay then any court will protect the man. I therefore hope that the section will be drafted differently.

I quite agree with the interpretation placed on sub-section (c) of section 3 by the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Fourie). I think an auctioneer receiving a wire to purchase, say, 500 hamels would be perfectly entitled to do so, and to knock them down to the person from whom he received the telegram, disclosing at the same time the name of the buyer. But the sub-section which seems to me fraught with danger to the auctioneer is (b), and I would like to see it expunged. The auctioneer, who alone stands to lose if he sells to a man not financially sound, who assumes the entire risk, should have an unfettered discretion to say whether he will accept a bid or not.

I withdraw the second part of my amendment.

The amendments proposed by Mr. Madeley and Sir Thomas Smartt were put and negatived.

The first part of the amendment proposed by the Minister of Agriculture was put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

There is only one thing in this section, and that is the definition of agricultural produce. The words “agricultural produce” have a meaning assigned to them under the Act of 1917, whilst this Act includes vegetables, but fruit is excluded, and there does not appear to be any reason for that. I move—

I should just like to say that I accept the amendment. The word “fruit” was left out in error.

I want the hon. Minister to consider carefully the operation with regard to small lots. It is customary to give a sale note to the seller, and it is proposed to put on that the name of every purchaser. If one lot is sold to 29 or 30 persons, it means the insertion of these different names, and a great deal of extra work is thrown on the market staff. I move—

It does not entail any more work than usual.

I think the amendment is moved in the wrong place. If it was in the first line of the clause it would attain the object. “whenever agricultural produce above the value of £20 in one lot is sold,” and so on. But I think £20 is too large a sum. I think he should make it £5 or £10, and to test the feeling of the committee, I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

I hope the member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) will accept that amendment, and that the Minister will accept it. The suggestion of the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) will meet the case, and it will be a very useful thing. In the municipal markets this is an essential matter in connection with these sales.

I hope that a minimum will not be laid down. Hon. members surely know that infinite endless business is done by individual producers for less than £10, and I hope that the hon. Minister will not accept the motion, because otherwise we shall miss the whole object of the Bill.

I accept the suggestion that the amount be £10, instead of £20. I may point out that if this section is pressed, and small sales are to contain all this information, the result may be that in the markets they will only sell in large lots. If forced to its extreme, this proposal will mean perhaps doubling the work in a market like Johannesburg. I think hon. members do not understand the magnitude of the work in connection with a large market. I can understand its being done in a small drop, but when you come to a market turning over large amounts, as the Johannesburg market does, it is quite a different thing.

No, I think that we should not meddle with this section. I agree with the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Bergh). I can assure the House that I often sell a basket of fruit in Johannesburg and I get the names of the purchasers. I think the Minister should let the section be passed as it is If we accept the amendment of £10 or £20 the agents will never give the names to us.

I am very sorry that an attempt is now being made to squeeze out the smaller farmers who sell for £2, £3, up to £9. In most of the markets in our country action on the lines of this Bill is actually being taken, but there are still certain markets which do not do so and that is the reason why the provision is inserted. We must specially look after the small man and, therefore, I am sorry that the amendment has been moved as the agricultural unions and most of the markets are already doing what this Bill demands, and also because—as the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) says—the market master in Johannesburg makes duplicates of his market notes. I hope that hon. members will not insist on the amendment.

May I ask the Minister whether it is intended under this Bill to apply this provision strictly to the municipal markets in so far as small producers are concerned? In the industrial centres the municipalities are building up a big market for agricultural produce, and they are trying to bring the producer and consumer into as close a touch as possible, and if this Bill is going to apply in the way that the member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) states, anyone who has had experience of town councils knows that it is going to do something that will be detrimental to the best interests of the producers and municipalities. Along the Reef women are now going to the market to buy their vegetables, butter and eggs, their purchases are made in small lots and the municipal seller does not know their names. If he has to give a return under this Bill of the names of all these small purchasers, it simply means that it will practically prohibit them from selling in small lots.

I may explain to the hon. member (Mr. Waterston) that most of the market masters are already sending these sale-notes to the owner of the produce sold, and under this Bill we are only complying with the wish of the general public and of the agricultural unions throughout the country. I do not think the difficulties which have been mentioned by the hon. member will arise, and that the market masters will not be able to sell in small lots. They will be able to sell in small lots, it seems to me, and practically no extra work will be involved, because the name of the purchaser has to appear on the sale-notes.

I do not think that either the Minister or many of the hon. members who have spoken on this subject appreciate the position in connection with municipal markets. I have had experience of the Pietermaritzburg market for many years. There they have four auctioneers at work on the morning market. With transactions of over 1,000 a day it will be absolutely impossible, in the case of little lots, averaging from 6d. to 2s. 6d. to make out a list of buyers. These are the people we want to help and the markets are to enable the small consumer to get the benefit. Here you have £100 penalty for not fulfilling this regulation. I would again appeal to the Minister because, I am sure, he does not appreciate the tremendous difficulty, and by what is proposed now, he will inflict hardship upon these people.

I am afraid the Minister has not quite understood the position. I have been in the auctioneering profession myself. We are doing our best to build up these municipal markets for the benefit of the small consumers. The municipal market master stands up and sells the produce. Some lady will bid for, say, a bunch of carrots or a dozen eggs. He does not put down her name; he does not know it. If the Minister would attend one of these sales he would grasp what I mean. These men have to sell as quickly as possible because the house-wives cannot hang about the market too long. The cash is handed over and the produce is handed over in exchange. In his note to the seller, he would simply put cash sales so much. If the Minister is prepared to exempt the market master he will meet the position. I can assure him it is a real difficulty. If any party does anything to place obstacles in the way of the splendid trade built up by these markets. It is going to strike a blow at both the consumer and the agriculture producer. The markets are largely eliminating the Asiatic trader. If the Minister will not accept the amendment now, I hope he will hold it over and make a few enquiries, because this is going to mean a great deal to the progress of the municipal markets.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the Minister, because I realize the difficulty of dealing with a clause of this sort. When this Bill was originally drafted in 1922, the draft then had in selling agricultural produce in lots of 50 lbs. or over. Then the question was considered and the other side of the picture was put, that while trying to protect these small sales by market masters in country towns—and there is a great deal in what the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) says—you are leaving a loophole in other cases where fairly large quantities of agricultural produce were being sold by public auction. If he will look at the definition of agricultural produce in the Act of 1917 to which this Bill refers, he will find it means meat, butter, cheese, eggs, or butter substitute, or any article of farm produce or derived from farm produce. There are eases of municipal auctions in this country where large quantities of wool are sold and on which he would require exactly the same returns, and there are many cases in which agricultural produce is sold in the larger towns in large quantities. It is a rather difficult thing for a small market master to find the time to give a schedule of prices and everything of that sort, would not the Minister perhaps give the committee an assurance that he would have this thing very carefully gone into, and see if there is any possibility of an amendment, whereby it will protect agricultural produce sold by auction on a large scale, and at the same time to see if you cannot make some provision to meet these small cash sales. It is very difficult to frame an amendment now, but if the Minister will inform us that he will have it enquired carefully into, I think it is quite possible we could frame an amendment. The agricultural advisory board also considered this matter for a number of years, and at one time it was suggested that any articles sold in lots of over £5 in value should have this provision. It is suggested, however, that people might defeat that by selling in small lots. Altogether it is a very difficult thing, but if the Minister would see if it is possible to devise an amendment which would protect the large sales of agricultural produce—which I am very anxious to see protected—and at the same time make some provision for these small sales which the hon. member has referred to, I think it will overcome the difficulty.

I would like to endorse what the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) has said. It is absolutely impossible in the case of small lots of merchandise sold on municipal markets to put down the names of the purchasers. Hon. members will realize that where the market is held three times a week, and the market takes two hours, if you are going to employ extra hands for these two hours, it is going to be a very expensive business indeed. As far as possible these markets are run within a very narrow margin of profit, but if you put this extra expenditure on, it means that instead of a commission of 5 per cent. being charged producers, it is going to be 10 per cent. on the small lots. I suggest to the Minister that he should either exempt municipal markets altogether, or else make an exemption of, say, £5, which would cover all sales of eggs and small lots of potatoes, etc. The law, as at present proposed, would be absolutely unworkable and very expensive to carry out.

The position is that, unless this amendment is accepted, we are driving the people back again right into the hands of our friend Sammy. As far as the Johannesburg market is concerned, during the morning sales, you will find the consumer in direct conflict with Sammy. The auctioneer, in putting up the produce for sale, very often will call for a bid to take the lot, and if it happens to be a box of peaches or pears you will find that the highest bidder will be Sammy; and if the bid should be 1s. 9d. per box the auctioneer then proceeds to call for bids for single boxes. The consumers then get busy and the price, instead of being 1s. 9d. per box, generally goes up to 2s. 3d. or 2s. 6d. The public are satisfied to get the boxes at that price, and naturally the producer receives the benefit of the extra 6d. or 9d. If the amendment is not accepted, however, the effect of the clause will be that the public will not go to the market and outbid Sammy and will have to wait for Sammy to come round to the door. I know very well that when these sales take place, the auctioneers have, at times, to hang up their sales to collect the cash and when the public are clamouring for the small lots, it will not do for the auctioneer to have to take the name of every purchaser. The auctioneers will get tired and will say “We are not going to sell in small lots.” The result will be that, instead of the consumer and producer being brought together, they will be driven further apart. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment.

I realize there is a great deal of difficulty in connection with this clause. I do not know what the special regulations of large towns may be, and how much they may be interfered with by this Bill; but I would suggest, and it would, I am sure, meet the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston), that we make the lot not less than £2 in value. In the meantime, the Minister could see whether there would be any objection to accepting an amendment of this sort, and, if so, it could be dealt with in the report stage. If the consumer buys an article for less than. £2, it should not be necessary for the market master to make out this schedule which everybody seems to object to. I move as a further amendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. Hay—

I do not quite agree that we should have full confidence in the municipal market masters. I think that experience has taught us that everything is not always above board there. I am not at all in favour of any higher amount being fixed. Where small quantities of vegetables and fruit are sold the amount need not be higher than £2.

I am just afraid that if you limit it to £2, in the small villages you will have people buying in the market for 6d or 3d. and the small shop keeper will come along and also buy small lots and defeat the whole object of the Bill.

Make it £5.

I am prepared to make it £5; but instead of moving it where it is now. I propose the following amendment—

What is a “bona fide consumer”? A consumer of what?—the stuff sold or something else? If the mover had said if the stuff is sold to “other than a trader,” I could understand him, but to ask us to support an amendment of that vague sort is ridiculous. If we exempt all sales conducted under municipal regulations that would meet the case.

With all the amendments I do not think we are getting any more forward. The last amendment will make the conduct of municipal sales almost impossible, and the persons affected will be the producer and the consumer. When small articles have to be sold at a very rapid rate, how can you expect an auctioneer to conform to all these regulations? How can an auctioneer find out who is a bona fide consumer or not? It would be much better to say that certain lines of agricultural produce, such as eggs, butter, fruit and vegetables, should be excluded from the provisions of the Bill, otherwise the consumer and the producer will be penalized. The result will also be that small towns will be unable to start markets and the farmer will be without an outlet for his produce if the provisions of this Bill were to be applied to the small sales of agricultural produce on the municipal markets.

I am quite prepared to consider this section and to try to bring in a motion at the report stage which will meet the position, more or less, or coincide with, the view of hon. members on various sides of the House. With all these various motions before the House it is difficult to go into the matter now.

The amendment proposed by Sir Thomas Smartt was withdrawn.

I move a further amendment—

I am sorry that the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) did not accept the hint of the Minister. I wish to say at once that I do not agree with it, because most of our produce is to-day sold on the municipal markets, such as, e.g., in Johannesburg. I hope he will withdraw it, so that the Minister, in the meantime, can find a way out of the difficulty.

I am prepared to withdraw the amendment and put it on the order paper.

The amendment proposed by Sir Thomas Watt was negatived.

I withdraw my amendment.

Won’t the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) withdraw his amendment, in view of the fact that the Minister is, considering them?

withdrew his amendment.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

New Clause 5,

I move—

1. 5.
   1. (1) Whenever wool, mohair, hides, skins or ostrich feathers are sold through an agent or factor, such agent or factor shall forthwith after the conclusion of the sale make out and deliver or transmit to each seller a sales note showing legibly—
      1. (a) the name of the seller;
      2. (b) if the seller is engaged in farming operations, the name of the purchaser;
      3. (c) the weight or quantity of the articles sold;
      4. (d) the prices at which the articles were sold;
      5. (e) the deduction which such agent or factor, in terms of the arrangement between him and the seller, or in the absence of such arrangement, of the custom of trade, is permitted to make from the purchase price and retain for his commission and for all bona fide charges actually and necessarily incurred by him in respect of the sale, including railage, cartage, storage, weighing, sorting, classifying, post and telegraph charges and insurance premiums; and
      6. (f) the net amount due to the seller.
   2. (2) The provisions of paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) of section 3 shall mutatis mutandis apply to any such sale as is referred to in sub-section (1).

I move an amendment in the new clause 5—

There is no argument that can be applied to the inclusion of other products that cannot be applied to sugar or cotton.

I am prepared to accept both the amendments proposed. I think the sugar industry should also be brought under this Bill, and am glad that the motion has been made.

Agreed to.

New clause, as amended, put and agreed to. On Clause 5,

I move—

I move—

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I move—

I would suggest to the hon. member (Mr. Fourie) that he should leave in the words “public auctions” and simply insert “transactions in.”

I have no objection to that, and I would therefore withdraw, with the leave of the committee, the reference to “public auctions” from my amendment.

With leave of the committee, the amendment to omit the words “public auctions” was withdrawn.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On the Title,

I think now that the title will have to be amended so as to conform with the previous amendment, and so as to read. “To regulate certain transactions in, and the sale by auction of, livestock and agricultural produce.” I therefore move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

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

announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had discharged Mr. Nathan from service on the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements and has appointed Col.-Cdt. Collins in his stead.

I move—

We have to do here with a Bill which consists only of a few sections, and I am sorry that at the first reading in my absence, and when the contents were entirely unknown, such a big debate took place on the Bill as if it were the most fearful and dangerous Bill that had ever been introduced. This Bill was introduced to legalize what has been regarded as legal since 1914. As hon. members perhaps know, the Cattle Diseases Act was passed in 1911, and in 1914 the regulations were passed, and the regulations were drawn up by the same person who drafts the laws of the land. My predecessors acted on those regulations which were signed at the time by Minister van Heerden. The regulations were used to fight East Coast fever, anthrax and scab, and action was taken under them. When the Department of Agriculture came under me I issued a proclamation under which certain stock had to be dipped I simply followed the practice of my predecessors and acted under the existing Acts and regulations. Now the Supreme Court in Natal has recently given a judgment that the regulations are not valid, that they are ultra vires. My predecessors always acted under the regulations and the regulations have always been regarded as valid until the court gave this decision, and now there is only one way open, and that is to come to Parliament and say: Look, there is an Act, and under the Act certain regulations have been made and have always been regarded as legal. We now come and ask that the validity of those regulations shall be confirmed. That is all I ask, and I cannot see what objection there can be to it. Does the idea then exist that we should allow East Coast fever and other diseases to spread, and that we cannot take action against them and cannot direct that cattle which are infected must be dipped? Is that the object that we should aim at? If we are going to do that then we shall put the country to such great expense that it will be impossible for a farmer to exist, because now that we have the judgment of the Natal Court, it is possible for any man to go to court and to allege that the regulations are invalid. Therefore we have introduced this short little Bill. In connection with the alleged heavy damage caused in consequence of the simultaneous dipping, I just want to say this, that this Bill, of which I now propose a second reading, does not indemnify the Agricultural Department from responsibility if sheep die in consequence of simultaneous dipping. The people who have suffered damage through dipping, and who are entitled to compensation, will not have their rights taken away The department feels its responsibility, and the people who, in terms of the regulations, apply for compensation will, after enquiry, be given the compensation to which they are entitled, and as it is said that so much harm has been done, and so much damage suffered in consequence of the simultaneous dipping, I just wish to say that about 5,000,000 sheep were dipped, yet, so far, only ten applications for compensation have come in, namely, seven from Natal and three from the Transvaal. No claim for compensation has come in from the Free State, where many sheep were dipped, therefore, I think that it is very unfair to make an attack about the matter, especially, also, because the proofs are available that scab has been removed as a result of the dipping. This insignificant number of applications for compensation shows that we in the circumstances must regard the simultaneous dipping as a great success, because we must bear in mind the very unpropitious weather that we have had while the dipping was taking place. I notice the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) laughs. Let me tell the hon. member this, that the farmers of Newcastle were the first to welcome the simultaneous dipping.

The farmers did not understand the position.

I think the hon. member does not understand the matter. He is trying to make political capital out of it, but his electors know better. They came voluntarily and took the dipping upon themselves, at which I rejoiced. I do not think that it is necessary for me to go further into the matter. If, during the discussion, any point is brought forward in this connection, I shall willingly make the position of the Government clear. In the old Act of 1911 in section 16, it is provided shortly that measures can be taken in pursuance of the regulations which were then drawn up. Those words “in accordance with the regulations” are replaced by the provision that the Minister can fix the methods and periods for the combating of cattle disease.

What was the judgment of the Natal court?

That the Minister is and was not entitled to issue the regulations in accordance with that section of the Act. Action has always been taken under those regulations, but since the judgment of the supreme court, the validity of the regulations must be concerned. The regulations were prepared by the Governor-General and, in accordance with the judgment of the court, the Governor-General has no authority to delegate the powers to the Minister. And if I ask this indemnity, then I also ask for indemnity for my predecessors. As the position now is, any man who, for instance, had his cattle shot twelve years ago, can come and demand compensation. Claims amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds might come in. What I ask here is just the legislation of the procedure always followed by my predecessors and myself, and I leave it to the House to judge whether my predecessors and I acted wrongly when we, bona fide, acted under those regulations. That is all. If any just criticism is made in this connection (I doubt it very much) then I shall be prepared to reply. I propose the second reading of the Bill.

As the Minister has said we gave notice at the motion for leave to introduce this Bill that we would protest against it. Of course if it is true, or rather if it is correct—because I will not say that the Minister wishes to mislead us—that this Bill makes no provision for indemnifying the Government for damage caused to sheep by the simultaneous dipping there will be great force in what the Minister has said. We on this side of the House have however a different opinion about the matter. I will say at once that I have no objection to section 1 of the Bill. It is quite right that the Minister should have the full right of issuing such regulations, because he bears the responsibility of them, and that he should not have to go beforehand to the Governor-General about the matter. But where in section 2 indemnity is being given to the Government it is another matter and there we have the strongest objection. The Government asks, in my opinion, indemnity with these words—

Then the section goes further—

It amounts to this that any sentence after 12th May, 1925, shall be of no effect.

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

I say that we object to section 2 of the Bill because it indemnifies the Government for certain Acts. The Minister says that the intention of the Bill is not to evade damages. I wish to know however what the meaning is of the last sentence of paragraph 5 which is as follows—

I say that indemnity is actually asked for in this Bill. Indemnity against certain acts done under a notice which has been declared ultra vires by the court. Before this is done the House must decide two things. The first is whether a general indemnity should be given; whether it should be limited, and whether any exception should be made. In the second place then we must decide whether the House has sufficient information to adopt the Bill and I think that we have not sufficient information. I will admit that it is fair to give indemnity for acts which were done in connection with the usual administration of the Cattle Diseases Act. I admit that it is fair and just to confirm everything that was done by this Government or the previous Government in connection with East coast fever, anthrax and even scab in connection with the ordinary administration of the Act. But I cannot grant that the circumstances in connection with the simultaneous dipping justify the House in giving indemnity for all the acts of the agricultural department. Our opinions on this side of the House have already been expressed about the simultaneous dipping and I think that I speak on behalf of this side of the House in saying that we strongly object to adopt this Bill in order to grant indemnity to the Government. The Minister of Agriculture looked for trouble and he has got it. Now the people are busy instituting actions against the Government and I ask whether it is fair to pass this Bill and to deprive those people of the right of going to the court in order to find out what the court thinks of their case. Many farmers asked at the time whether the Minister had the power of issuing such a notice. It was the universal question amongst the farmers and I think the farmers in general did not know about the technical objection that the proclamation should actually be issued by the Governor-General. The question was only whether the Minister had the right of compelling a person to dip his sheep if they were free from scab. This matter has not yet been disposed of but there are many people who thought that where such powers were granted to the Minister he should not abuse them but should carry them out in a reasonable way. This question was stated by the farmers and the advice to them was that the Minister actually had the right even it the sheep were clean. The farmers were obedient as usual and they dipped the sheep. If they wished to act as people wanted to do in certain places and to refuse to dip the sheep, then the Minister could have compelled them and they could then have got compensation. The Minister of Agriculture knows the farmers difficulties. He knows how much the farmer knows about the law and he knows that it is unfair to presume that everybody must know the law. I will mention a concrete case although I do not wish to enlarge upon it seeing the case is still to be heard. In my division there is a certain Mr. Jacobs who is admitted to be an efficient sheep farmer. He is so efficient that the department asked him to act as one of the voluntary inspectors and he agreed. He dipped his own sheep and suffered damage to the extent of about £1,500. That is direct damage and not indirect damage to wool or as a result of the going back in condition of his sheep. I am only speaking here of sheep that are dead.

Then he could not dip.

I can tell the hon. member this that if I had to select a good farmer between him and the mam that lost the sheep then I would choose the other man. The individual dipped, I think, with McDougall’s dip and therefore he is not entitled under the regulations to damages. I received a reply from the Department of Agriculture that they had told the farmers that they should dip for sheep ticks if they had no scab. For that the farmers were to use an arsenic dip. This man could not get a judgment before the 12th May and he is thus excluded from the right of taking his case to court.

He used the wrong dip.

Whether that is the case or not he has the right to go to the supreme court. In any event I say that it seems unfair to me to prohibit the man from going to the court to see whether he is right or not. I should have expected the Minister of Agriculture, who is acquainted with farming and also knows the farmers to have said that the Government would not avail itself of technical points to evade compensation. But he prevents them, on the contrary, from going to the court.

Did your Government never do that?

But two blacks do not make a white. I only mentioned one case and I will not detain the House by mentioning more. The Labour party says, that we, on this side, only want indemnity when we have shot people and that the present Government only want it for sheep. The circumstances, however, are entirely different. At that time it was done in the public welfare, and law and order had to be maintained on the Rand. I do not think that the same argument can be employed in connection with the action of the Minister of Agriculture towards the farmers’ sheep. The Minister of Agriculture thought that he was acting in the public interest, but our contention is, that it was not in the public interest, and that he killed more sheep than he eradicated scab. I am very much surprised to see the attitude of farmers on the opposite side of the House. I well remember the election manifesto of the hon. the Prime Minister in which he said that the farmers would enjoy all sympathy from a Nationalist Government. Where is the sympathy now? The Minister of Agriculture got angry when we at that time said that he did not take account of circumstances such as the excessive rain and blue tongue. What is more, we know that after the debate in this House and after the heavy rain the Minister issued orders that farmers need not continue dipping sheep which had not been dipped twice. I acknowledge that the Minister of Agriculture has acted correctly, even if it was very late. But what seems strange to me is that his instructions were not carried out, or that the inspectors did not understand them well. They refused to carry them out as we understood them. We understood that where rains had prevented a man of dipping his sheep for the second time within ten or fourteen days after the first dipping, it was not necessary for him to do so. The inspectors then went and said that the sheep should be dipped a month later, when they were in good condition. We know that this was a waste of money and dip. It was simply wasting trouble. The Minister of Agriculture tells us that he does not wish to evade compensation. The person whom I mentioned does not come under the regulations and that is the reason why the hon. Minister does not hear of all the losses. There are many farmers who have lost sheep, but who know, that according to the regulations, they have no claims to compensation. The Minister says that the object of the Bill is not to prevent a person going to the court to find out whether he is entitled to compensation or not. We have obtained legal advice.

Whose opinion is that?

What difference does that make? I know to whom to go for legal advice.

Are you ashamed to mention the name?

Why? I say that we have made out a case against the granting of indemnity. The least we could ask of the Government was that. We do not know how much damage has been suffered. We do not know how many people have instituted action, and we have, therefore, every right to ask that information shall first be obtained. I should like to know whether the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. A. S. Naudé) and the hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. de Wet) has not also had complaints in connection with this matter. I am depending on it that those hon. members will support me. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) laughs. Yes, he can laugh, because they did not have the simultaneous dipping here in the Cape Province. The least we can ask of the Government is that the matter shall first be investigated. If we adopt the Bill as it is we shall do an injustice to many farmers. I do not know whether it is the Minister’s intention to deprive the people of their right of going to the court if they have suffered losses on account of these invalid regulations. We do not complain personally against the Minister or the Government that the sheep have been dipped under these regulations, but on the other hand, we say that we must not take away the right of these people to obtain compensation or to institute an action against the Government in connection with the matter. The least we can ask is that enquiry shall be made and, therefore, I propose the following amendment—

I want to second the amendment. The main point is that section 2 should be made clear, and that can be best done by a Select Committee for which We are now asking. There undoubtedly exists, particularly in the eastern portion of the Transvaal (where my constituency is situated), decided dissatisfaction among the sheep farmers about the order that was given to dip. The hon. Minister is well aware that as soon as it became known that this order was to be expected, a conference was held at which a large number of sheep farmers from the eastern districts of the Transvaal took part, and it was resolved at the conference to go and interview the Minister and to ask him if he would not make an alteration in the dipping order so that those whose sheep had been clean for one or two years, should be excluded from the obligation to dip, and that only sheep which were scabby or suspected of being scabby should be dipped. The Minister did not see his way to comply with that request. Immediately thereafter a petition was prepared by the sheep farmers in my district, and the petition was signed by more than two hundred sheep farmers. The petition was addressed to the Prime Minister, asking whether he would use his influence with the Minister of Agriculture to cancel the dipping order. I pointed out to the petitioners that be was not the proper person to whom to address such a petition. But I was told that they saw no chance of influencing the Minister of Agriculture to vary his decision, and that they therefore wished to betake themselves to the Prime Minister to use his influence. I was not successful with the petition. I did not have the honour of a personal interview with the Prime Minister; he informed me simply through his secretary that he would send it on to the Minister of Agriculture.

Quite right.

Yes, the Prime Minister had that right, and I expected the answer, but yet I should have considered a personal interview as a great honour, to have an opportunity of laying the matter before him In any event, no notice was taken of all the protests of the eastern portions of the Transvaal. When I spoke about the petition on the former occasion, the Minister of Agriculture said that the petition was only signed by a few hundred people, and that there were surely many more than 200 sheep farmers in Lydenburg. That is true, but in answer I just wish to say that the sheep farmers who support the Nationalist party have stood faithfully by the Minister, although the majority of them were also certainly opposed to dipping. There were, however, a large number of farmers who, I will just say out of party feeling, did not sign the petition because they thought that the Minister might be brought into trouble. This does not take away, however, from the great dissatisfaction that prevails. Right up to the present time dissatisfaction exists, and I question whether the dissatisfaction will not be increased by this Bill, if it is not made clear and very fully enquired into so that every sheep farmer will see the scope and object of the Bill, and possibly the justice thereof. Now I come to the Bill itself. In connection with the dissatisfaction among the sheep farmers, the Minister has said that so little claim to compensation has been made, but this small number is not at all a proof of a small loss, because it is well enough known that one can only file a claim if sheep have died within 48 hours after dipping, and then it is supposed that a loss of 1 or 2 per cent. should not be included, so that only compensation is given when a certain percentage of loss is suffered. But everyone must agree that the indirect losses are greater than the direct. A fairly great loss was suffered, e.g., in sheep that were weakened by dipping and died subsequently.

They died of wire-worm.

The observation is not true. The Minister of Agriculture has indeed palliated his order by granting exemption from the second dipping when he saw that the weather conditions were so bad that still more sheep would die if they were dipped a second time. But yet considerable loss was suffered. Now the Bill consists of two definite parts. Section 1 is an amendment of section 16 of the Act of 1911, and I can quite well understand the amendment. The Minister could not do otherwise than propose the omission of the words “in a manner prescribed by regulation,” because otherwise the Minister could not do his work. He would without the amendment, every time he issued a proclamation, come up against the same difficulty. Therefore, I entirely agree with section 1. But in section 2 retrospective force is given to the Act, and there is included also an indemnity provision which is not quite clear to me. The Minister has given us clearly to understand that where anybody can, under the regulations, claim compensation, that right will not be interfered with by the Bill. But I cannot clearly see that in the Bill that is before us. I think that it is only possible, by careful enquiry in a Select Committee, to sufficiently clearly bring out what is actually intended now. If it should appear that this Bill has not been drafted well, then it must be so amended that everybody can clearly understand what this intended. As I understand the Bill, it is actually for the protection of the Minister himself, and when to the dissatisfaction which already exists in connection with the dipping, there is added the feeling that the rights of the farmers are not properly secure or that a danger exists that the compensation provisions are being undermined, then we retrogress still more. As I have said before, I feel—and I think that the Minister agrees with me—that a good understanding and co-operation, even a kind of friendship should exist between our farmers and the Department of Agriculture, and in order to secure this co-operation I should like to see the Bill referred to a Select Committee, so that the contents of the Bill will be made plain to everyone. I support the motion of the hon. member for Ermelo Col.-Cdt. Collins).

The hon. member moves that the order for second reading be discharged and the subject matter of the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for investigation and report.

The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) has led the House to believe that the responsibility for the injustice of these regulations rests on this side of the House, and has blamed the Minister for carrying out these regulations now. I think it would be as well if the House understood what the position was. The hon. member for Ermelo concealed from the House that these regulations which the Minister is now carrying out were promulgated by proclamation No. 1702 of 1919, and these are the very regulations under which the Minister of Agriculture is acting to-day. If the Government has not carried out these regulations in the past—

They carried them out at the wrong time.

If that is so, as stated by the hon. member for Taungs—

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, has the hon. member any right to address me as the hon. member for Taungs?

The hon. member must address other hon. members by referring to their proper constituencies.

With reference to this notice which the hon. member for Ermelo has brought forward to-night, he led the House to believe that the Minister was responsible for these regulations—

I never did.

The dipping regulations were promulgated and published in the “Gazette” of 24th December, 1919, by that Government, which is now the Opposition in this House. If the hon. member had taken the trouble to read these regulations, which he has animadverted upon to-night, he would have told the House that in these regulations it is distinctly laid down that compulsory dipping should take place twice a year, with a view to eradicating scab right through the Union. We find that that Government never put these regulations into force, never took the trouble to carry out these regulations which they themselves had passed, and to-day, when the Minister of Agriculture had to use that machinery which that Government had brought into force, we find the hon. member for Ermelo trying to make political capital out of the loss of a few sheep. I want to put this question to the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins). Is he against the principle of compulsory dipping? If he is not, why did he not bring up these facts in the last Parliament and remind the late Government of the necessity of compulsory dipping? Instead of condemning the Minister of Agriculture for carrying out this difficult operation, he tries to make a little cheap political capital out of it. There would have been no difficulty in obtaining an indemnity for the late Government, for it got indemnities whenever it asked for them. Owing to the conditions of South Africa, there is a good deal of prejudice against dipping, and the Minister of Agriculture has to do what the late Government funked doing so as to obtain clean wool. Would it not have been better if the hon. member had assisted in trying to carry out compulsory dip ping? The Opposition is trying to put the clock back a number of years in regard to clean wool and sheep. The hon. member would have been well advised not to raise this question. Every sheep farmer on this side of the House will give the Minister his wholehearted support.

I am sorry that not one of the sheep farmers on the other side of the House has got up to defend this matter. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) knows absolutely nothing about sheep, even if he does represent a sheep farming district. Towards the end of the last session of this House, the Opposition clearly pointed out to the Minister of Agriculture the danger of the application of the simultaneous dipping under the regulations, and he said expressly here to the House, that he accepted no advice from the Opposition, he even went so far as not to accept the advice of his officials. He was the Minister and was going and wanted to carry out his ideal. Consequently, we to-day have the position that the country is suffering terrible damage through the dipping. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) talks of a few sheep. He can talk lightly, he has not a single sheep to lose.

I have more sheep to lose than the hon. member, and they cost much more.

Yes, the hon. member can believe what he likes. Let me tell him that the farmers lost many sheep, and that they worked hard for them. We expected that the new Government, which was to put everything right that was wrong in the country, would not issue such regulations to cause great damage to the people. The Minister and his officers should have gone into the law, and found out whether the regulations were valid. It is no excuse to say that the former Government, and the former Minister of Agriculture did the same thing. This Government was to put everything right.

We are now engaged in putting it right.

Yes, after all the damage has been done, and I must assist in paying the taxes to make up that damage to the people. I am very sorry that the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) got up to justify the action of a Minister.

He has more sheep than you have.

I doubt it, but that does not make any difference. I am pleading for the sheep farmers of the Free State and the Transvaal.

You said that he knew nothing about sheep.

Let him know as much about it as he likes. I know that he knows nothing about it, because we grew up together on the Rand. I only insist on the point that it is said that the former Government issued wrong regulations. We have heard that the present Government would put everything right, and, therefore, it was the duty of the Minister to find out whether the regulations were valid.

He is now engaged in putting the matter right.

Yes, but the farmers are first ruined, and then there is this further grant of indemnity. If there is one thing in which the farmers must stand together, then it is in connection with this matter. Let us see to it, that the farmers who have suffered losses in consequence of this wrongful action of the Government are met, and that the damage suffered is made up to them. It is not right that we should take the responsibility from the shoulders of the Minister and give the people no right of claiming compensation. I do not wish to go into the matter any further, but I feel very strongly about it. I have argued that the people who have no scab on their farms should be exempted from dipping. We knew that it was the wrong time. Why did not the Minister apply it to the Cape Province? He knew that it was the wrong time, because the sheep were then poor in the Cape Province. In Natal and in the Transvaal it was, however, applied, although we, at that time, had had very heavy rains. I know that the sheep suffered and that many died. But there were also large indirect losses, because the farmers can expect many less lambs. The House should take the responsibility upon itself and stand by those people, so that they can obtain compensation for their losses.

It seems to me that we are a little bit too warm about this matter. If we think more calmly about the matter we shall find that there is much more to say on the side of the State, that is, on the side of the Minister than what is represented here. I will say at once that in listening, to the speech of the last speaker I noticed that two outstanding faults were made in the arguments which were used here. The first is that the Minister is to blame for what has happened here to-day, namely, the actions at law of those whose sheep have died. I wish to deny that. I shall return to it in a moment. In the second place, people go out to-day from the point of view that the farmers have not alone a claim to compensation from a purely legal point of view, but that the claim can be based upon an actual moral obligation on the part of the State. Here I wish to say again that I deny that, and I think that the House agrees with me that there can be no question at all here of any moral obligation, but that the only claim that can arise and has arisen is merely to be attributed to a technicality and nothing else, and just because that is so, because the claim can merely rest on the technical mistake, the people can, in my opinion, especially from the moral point of view, make no claim to compensation, and it is the duty of all of us in this House to immediately see to it that the people do not at the cost of the State, simply on account of a purely technical reason, demand large sums from the State. Let us look at the matter a little closer. In 1911 the Act on cattle diseases was passed, under Section 16 the Minister was given the right to issue orders that sheep should be dipped at any time, but the Act says: In a manner prescribed by regulations.” And then the Act goes on and says in, a subsequent section that the Governor-General shall state within what time and at what period dipping should take place. The Governor-General shall direct this by regulation. He shall also, further, prescribe the method, but I shall just confine myself to the point upon which the Natal court based its decision. By reason of the section that the Governor-General shall fix the period within which and at which dipping shall take place the former Government in 1914 proceeded to issue the regulations and in them it is said—and it is clear that the Government acted just as any other Government could act and also must act in the future, because the regulations were not merely issued, but duly submitted to the legal advisers who draft our ordinary Bills—in regulation No. 10, that the owner of sheep can be obliged to dip once or twice per annum. Then I see further “at such time and within such period as the Minister shall notify in the Government ‘Gazette’ as the period for compulsory dipping.” The former Government acted on this when the simultaneous dipping was proclaimed in the district of Wolmaransstad and in accordance with this provision the present Minister proceeded to give the order for dipping, but now on this occasion the Natal court has asked whether the Governor-General actually has the right to give the Minister authority to fix the time and the period within which dipping must take place because as the regulation says the Governor-General shall make the regulation and the court came to the conclusion that the Governor-General does not possess the right of delegation. Therefore it was illegal, but for this the hon. Minister can surely not be blamed. The Minister acted on the advice of the legal advisers, just as the former Government did. The regulations were not made by him but by the former Government and he acted in accordance with those regulations, and if hon. members wish to be reasonable at all then they must not attribute the blame to the hon. Minister but simply see that it rests on a pure technicality with regard to which the legal advisers erred. I take it that the decision at which the court arrived is correct. Now I must just say this, that if one looks at the practical side of the matter then it is clear how little just ground there is for anyone to base a claim for compensation from the State on this. Let us remember this for an instant. It is very clear to me—and everybody must see it—that when this House originally passed the Act it was never the intention that the Governor-General should issue the regulations. And those regulations are not altered from time to time. They are set regulations and remain just as fixed as legislation and it was never the intention that the Governor-General would go and make regulations by which the dipping should take place between 1st January and 1st April, and then further, that the farmers would have to dip on say the 1st March. Then the Governor-General would have to commit the absurdity of laying down: you must dip on the 1st March and then again fix the period in which it must occur. In my opinion it is clear that that was never the intention, and if this is so then I ask with what right the sheep farmer can claim compensation—if the Minister actually acted in accordance with the Act and if the Act demands in the interests of society that sheep should be dipped to keep them clean. No, we have simply to do with a technical mistake and the Minister by this mistake did something to which he was actually obliged in accordance with the intention of the Act. But to bring home the lack of just cause for any person to claim compensation I just want to direct the attention of the hon. member for Ermelo to something. He and also the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) agree I think that section 1 is quite right and that it must be introduced, because section 1 says that the regulations shall have the force of law. Accordingly the friends opposite say that they support the Bill as it would have been if the technical mistake had not been made and so in that case the Minister will have acted rightly. If they then accept section 1 and next year dipping again takes place and the farmers suffer damage as it is alleged to-day they have suffered, then they will not consider it as an injustice. Why not?

If the provisions are properly carried out.

Precisely. That is the great point on the other side of the House, but they are entirely wrong. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) says that the Act is not properly carried out. Their whole argument is based on that but the judgment of the court is not based on that. The hon. members observe that the Act is not being properly carried out but that is not an established fact. Next year if the Bill is passed at d we have simultaneous dipping, we should just as well be able to say that the Act has not been properly carried out. But it must be proved, otherwise we cannot blame the Minister. If, it can be proved that the Government is not properly carrying out the Act and that damage is caused thereby then the farmers will undoubtedly be entitled to compensation. As far as I know, there is nothing to protect the Government against compensation where damages are caused through its negligence. That is indeed what the Minister has already said, to wit, that this Bill is not intended to remove the responsibility of the Government where the Government through its fault has caused damage, but this Bill is simply intended to say: Look, everybody has acted in good faith if the regulations were valid, and now we just want to confirm the legality of them. If we do not pass this Bill, then the people will simply be able to avail themselves of the technical mistake to demand that the State shall compensate them for something to which they would otherwise be able to make no claim. It is surely quite fair that the House should not permit that. I would just ask whether it is right to give the people that opportunity, seeing that the Minister and his predecessors acted on the assumption that the regulation had the force of law? I say that if I were a sheep farmer, then, at any rate, my moral feelings would not permit me to demand compensation, and this will be the view of 99 per cent. of the sheep farmers.

Not of those who have suffered loss.

Well then I am pleased that there are so few that have suffered loss. What will happen if the House just allows the matter to run its course? I do not think that I say too much when I say that we shall not get 10 per cent. of claims for sheep which have actually died as a result of dipping. We surely know what human nature is, and we shall have claim for quite a number of sheep that only smelt the dip.

The hon. the Prime Minister does not think very highly of the sheep farmers.

Oh no, I have a very good opinion of them. I think that after our wine farmers they come second in South Africa.

And what about the wheat farmers?

Well, I include the wheat farmers among the wine farmers. In the Western Province wheat farming and wine farming are intermingled. It is clear to me that stable farming produces the best class of farmers, and your viticulture and wheat growing and sheep breeding belong to the most established industries in the country. But I start from human nature, and if one can get compensation, then a great deal will be put down to the dipping. We must deal with the matter from the point of view it should be dealt, with. It appears from the speeches that they want to indict the hon. Minister of Agriculture, and, as has already been said, not a single ground can be alleged for making the Minister responsible, and he has done his duty in bringing this Bill before the House and saying: Look, this is the position, and I must ask this House as soon as possible—after we have the judgment of the Natal court—to take the necessary measures for the future.

According to the hon. the Prime Minister, we have to do here with a pure technicality. Here he says a technical mistake was made by the legal advisers who drafted the regulations in conflict with the then existing Act. The present Government acted under those regulations, and the court has declared its action illegal. Thus we have to do with a mere technical mistake, and the duty of the House is to protect the Minister and the State and to rectify the technical mistakes. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister is quite wrong. It is not only a question of a technical mistake. That a technical mistake was made is clear, but the facts plainly show that there is much more at stake here than merely a technical mistake. The hon. the Prime Minister says that the Minister of Agriculture is not to blame in the matter, that he is not to blame for the damage through the loss of sheep which was caused in the interior by the simultaneous dipping. It seems to me that if there is any blame in this matter, then for the most part it rests in this connection upon the Minister. It is not only a matter of valid regulations, but of wrong, unwise and stupid action on the part of the Minister of Agriculture. He has sinned, and he was warned beforehand. This is not the first time this matter has been discussed in the House. Shortly after the House met we had a debate about simultaneous dipping. On that occasion it was pointed out that the Minister had made a great mistake in proclaiming a simultaneous dipping at an unsuitable time. The Minister has to-day stated that he could not foresee the unprecedented rains and that he is on that account not to blame. We need not go further than the debate of February. When his notice was issued the rains had already come, and our chief argument at the time was that the Minister was not going to work sensibly. We pointed out that the general compulsory dip which he had prescribed would cause very much damage. The sheep were poor, and had gone back in consequence of all the rain, and all the circumstances were such that if his orders were carried out, very great damage would be caused. The Minister did not only have our debate here in the House, but deputations from the Transvaal and the Free State went to see him in Pretoria. They were not people who were opposed to dipping and the eradication of scab. The farmers that, the Minister saw were people who always were in favour of dipping, and supported the Government to eradicate scab in the country. They never made any obstruction against dipping. But when they went to see the Minister they found that he was adamant. He was the great strong man who was prepared to take all the responsibility upon himself. He said: I will put the simultaneous dip through because I have ordered it. We must pay the piper, not the State, but the farmers who have suffered the losses. I say that the Prime Minister is entirely wrong. When he thinks that this is only a matter of a technical mistake. He went to work in an unintelligent, stupid way, and the country is reaping the fruit of the negligent policy that the Minister of Agriculture followed. The first was the abolition of the sheep divisions. The people who for years had been occupied in performing these duties and who could give him the proper advice had to go. He put him-self in the hands of officials who had little knowledge of the circumstances of the sheep industry. I wish to say nothing against the veterinary surgeons, because they are competent to do the work entrusted to them, but they were not acquainted with the facts with reference to sheep farming. For that there were people who had for years had to do with that branch of the work. The Minister of Agriculture discharged them for reasons that he thought sufficient.

The public service commission recommended it.

Yes, that was 2 years ago. It was at the time that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) and others of us were in office and we said that it was not in the interests of sheep farming that that recommendation should be carried out. It would have been a retrogressive step. The present Minister of Agriculture has carried all this out and placed himself in the position that he could not judge maturely and reasonably about the matter. He ordered a general compulsory dip at the worst time that it could have been done. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) has talked about a few sheep that are dead. It is not a matter of a few sheep. Everyone knows that astonishing damage was done more indirectly than directly. When the Minister of Agriculture saw that things were going too far he tried to avoid further losses by not enforcing the second dipping upon the people. But it was then, unhappily, too late. Very great damage has, undoubtedly, been done in the interior, and a very bad feeling exists amongst the people, also amongst those who are not hostile to dipping. The House will remember that the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt, Collins) proposed a motion to the effect that the sheep that had already been clean for 12 months need not be dipped. If the Minister was not so unbendable, if he had not remained so high and mighty and had adapted himself more to circumstances we should not have had this debate to-night. Then the losses would not have taken place. There is very much less scab in the country. The figures prove that it has been reduced to two or three per cent. In districts which are affected it is only a few farms that are affected. Many farms have been clean for years. Everybody had to dip. The Minister took the responsibility upon himself and the farmers had to pay the piper. In connection with the technical point I agree with the hon. the Prime Minister. If it is merely a matter of a technicality I should have no objection to the indemnity. But a great, a first-class blunder has been made by the Minister which has caused great damage. As the Government asks for indemnity we have taken up the attitude that we will agree to the indemnity on condition that a proper enquiry shall be held into all the circumstances. That is what the amendment asks. If there is need for haste and if the Prime Minister thinks that there will be insufficient time to refer the matter to a Select Committee let him give us the assurance that the Government appreciates that the dipping was fixed for a wrong time; that the farmers have been unfairly treated and have a real grievance, and let the Government then give the assurance that it will appoint a commission outside Parliament to investigate the damage that has been done. If the Prime Minister will give this assurance he will not find much difficulty in getting this Bill through the House. But if he does not do this we must insist upon the amendment. The Act has been carried out in a stupid manner, and before we grant the indemnity we must first investigate the matter. Unless the Minister gives us the assurance of a dipping order without discrimination we must insist upon it that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee before a second reading.

The hon. member Standerton (Gen. Smuts) agrees on the technical side of the matter. About the practical side of it he knows nothing. According to his arguments he understands nothing about sheep farming. He has said here that it was not a suitable time for simultaneous dipping. He apparently does not know that that was the time on which the simultaneous dipping had always taken place. He says that the sheep are poor in February. That is just the time which is best suited for dipping the sheep, and that is sufficient proof that he knows nothing about the matter. It is the best time because the sheep have then already been shorn. He presumably wishes that the simultaneous dipping should be fixed later in the year when the sheep have long wool and when great damage can be done. We could not foresee the heavy rains that there were and it was an unforseen circumstance. The hon. member for Standerton could not prognosticate that we should have such heavy rains in the country. In my opinion the hon. Minister of Agriculture acted quite correctly in dipping the sheep at that time of the year.

But many sheep died.

Yes, after the rains some died, but it was chiefly because the sheep had blue tongue and other diseases. In the Free State they died of that and I will repeat that I am convinced that the Minister of Agriculture selected the best time.

One naturally sympathizes with the Minister in having to face a very important debate like this when he is not in his best fighting form. In view of that, one would be inclined to temper one’s remarks; but one cannot close one’s eyes to the fact that a grave departmental error has been committed, which has resulted in grave loss to a large number of people. This error, to my mind, falls into three distinct parts. First, an error of judgment. This, one can forgive; we are all human, and even Ministers are liable to err; and so one would overlook that, but when an error of judgment is committed deliberately, in the face of the most solemn warning, that is a very serious matter, and when you add the third point, that it turns out that the whole action is quite illegal, I think we find that a departmental blunder has been committed which can only be described as very grave indeed. I have here the decision of the court, but all it is necessary to read are the words of the presiding judge in the final summing up. He said: “It is clear that the Minister had no power to prescribe the times and period of dipping,” and he goes on to say that, as regards the individual who was fined, no crime had been committed. In this connection, it would be no exaggeration to state that the Natal sheep farmers have been the chief sufferers, and one cannot say that the sheep farmers in Natal are careless, as a whole; because if you will refer to statistics, you will find that in Natal nearly three-quarters of a million sterling has been invested by the Natal farmers in cattle and sheep dipping tanks; so that it will be seen that they are people who take every precaution against attacks from disease and parasites. The amount which they spend in dipping, I believe, equals, if it does not exceed, the expenditure in connection with the same class of work in the whole of the rest of the Union. I understood from the Minister, as far as I could follow him, that the passing of this short Bill will in no way militate against the rights of farmers who have suffered owing to the losses they have incurred owing to this compulsory dipping.

Yes.

But I do not really know what is meant by the “rights” of these unfortunate people under the law; so far as I can gather, they are confined to those sheep which actually die as a result of the dipping and within a period of three days of the operation. If they control the whole loss, direct and indirect, then that is a different matter. It is impossible to estimate the loss, however, at this stage which has been incurred, as a result of the carrying out of this particular order, for it is cumulative and continuous. It started from the day of the dipping and is going on now, and it will be impossible to say what the final total will be until the farmer comes to sum up his position, and strike a balance, after he has sold his wool next November. The Minister knows that the loss is enormous, and that even £10,000 will not pay the bill. This is shown by the great anxiety of the Government to get this Indemnity Bill passed through the House, but I may mention that I have discussed the matter with one who was qualified to make some estimate of the loss—a very experienced man—and he assures me that, so far as Natal is concerned, by the time you get to next November the losses in Natal, including all the incidental expenses, will be not far short of £100,000. If that turns out to be correct it is, indeed, a staggering amount. And this is entirely due to this dipping at the most unfavourable time possible. Just to press home to members opposite who are inclined to take rather a casual view of this very serious matter I would like to recapitulate briefly what took place before dipping started so that everyone may appreciate the action taken by sheep farmers in Natal to protect themselves. I think it was somewhere early in December that the Minister first announced his intention of carrying out compulsory dipping, at the same time acquainting the farmers of Natal with the dates at which they would be compelled to dip their sheep. At a largely attended meeting of farmers held at Estcourt a most representative deputation was appointed to go to Pretoria to interview the Minister. That deputation, which I introduced, was of a non-party character and included not only members of the S.A. party but strong supporters of the Pact, and all leading farmers-in fact you could not have had a more representative deputation. The deputation impressed on, the Minister that they were not against dipping as they all did that regularly as a matter of routine, but they asked him to consider that the time he has selected could not possibly be worse, as it was the time of the wire worm, of blue tongue, and the sheep were carrying from an inch to nearly two inches of wool; it was also the time near the autumn lambing. Very severe storms occur in Natal about this period of the year, but I admit nobody could have foreseen that we were going to have such an appalling season. The Minister could even then have stopped the dipping and thus have saved an appalling amount of loss.

Did he not do that?

Of course he did not, as is clearly shown in the official minutes. These dangers were pushed home with vigour by the deputation, and further that the winter which would immediately follow would probably lead to further losses from pneumonia. Every member of the deputation spoke most impressively but the Minister was adamant. He said—

The deputation replied that they could not get sufficient blue-tongue vaccine. The Minister met every argument with a non possumus. The deputation returned to Natal and tried to carry, out the Minister’s instructions taking such precautions as they possibly could to guard against unnecessary loss, but every disaster of which the deputation warned the Minister has occurred. That is why we think we have a right to ask that losses which were forced upon the country shall be borne by the country. I was astonished to hear from the Minister that he had received only seven claims for compensation from Natal, but the farmers do not yet know what their losses are or what compensation rights are. They are waiting to know what the Government’s attitude is going to be. I have had from 15 to 20 letters from these farmers, and have replied suggesting that they formulate their claims and send them in. I will read just a few extracts from these. Take the case of Mr. Parkinson who writes—

Mr. Winter writes—

Mr. Rolfe—

Mr. Kirby states—

Mr. Eric Greene, who was in charge of the Morton Brothers flocks, reports—

The Prime Minister says that all the Minister has committed is a legal technical error, and asks for indemnity for all the resultant losses. We maintain that not only has a technical error been committed, but a great error of judgment, a great blunder committed and re-committed in face of the warning of experienced men, now the sufferers and his own advisers, and we think it is right this House should sympathetically consider the losses of these people, which are very severe, and due entirely owing to the personal action of the Minister. These people have suffered in the interests of the country because the bulk of them, if not all, were men with clean sheep. They were complying with the order as a matter of principle, and the Government in the circumstances would be not only wise, but to common justice, to accept the motion moved by the hon. member, and allow this order to be discharged and sent to a Select Committee for further consideration and report.

The Bill before the House has nothing to do with the question of compensation. It is true the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) put a strong argument on the motion introduced by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). The motion of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort has nothing to do with the position taken up under this Bill. I think the hon. member for Standerton knows it perfectly well, and I think the hon. member for Fort Beaufort does also. If one looks at the original Act, section 16, one finds that there are no less than seven sub-clauses giving very wide powers to the Minister alone. In these sub-clauses one after the other he is given the widest powers, but in two of the paragraphs only, viz., (e) and (f), we find the peculiarity of—

That is to say that the order for dipping shall be—

The other powers from (a) to (d) are wider powers than those contained in (e) and (f). In section 23 of Act 40 of 1911 one sees that the Governor-General may make regulations to prescribe the manner in which these things shall be done. It appears that in 1914 regulations were made by the Governor-General, and in terms of those regulations notices have been issued for the past eleven years. I have not the slightest doubt that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort has from time to time, as the late Minister of Agriculture, issued these very notices. Quite recently a gentleman in Natal named Hancock refused to obey the order signed by the present Minister of Agriculture for dipping. The wording of that order was exactly the same as the wording of similar orders, dozens of them, signed by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. Hancock refused, and he was fined by the magistrate, but the Supreme Court held that he could not be fined because the notice which the Minister signed should have been signed by the Governor-General. That is all that that case decided. The court did not decide that the general order was unreasonable or that the time was wrong. It held that the notice which was signed by the Minister could only have been signed by the Governor-General, and that it was, therefore, ultra vires The hon. member for Standerton says that if we had adopted the motion of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort in February last all this trouble would have been avoided. It could not have been, because the exact notices which were issued by the late Minister of Agriculture were issued by the present Minister and were therefore just as illegal.

You do not understand it really,

That is the position. This Bill simply empowers the Minister to issue these orders by taking out the words—

Then there is a further indemnity. That is quite another matter. There is an indemnity for acts done by previous Governments and Ministers since 1911. If you take sub-section (c) of section 16, you will find that the Minister has absolute power to destroy, but when it comes to a question of regulating for the cleansing of stock, he is asked to do so by regulation, and those regulations are promulgated, and what has happened is that all the Ministers since 1914 have issued orders exactly in the wording of the order issued by the present Minister. Then came Mr. Hancock, who refused to carry out this order, and the court held that the notice should have been signed by the Governor-General. This Bill goes no further than to place (e) and (f) on the same basis as the other paragraphs of section 16. Then naturally if we are going to fix that up then you get an indemnity clause which not only covers the present officers carrying out these regulations, but all the previous officers as well. Let us look at the motion by the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) last February—

There is no request here to legalize the order, to make it lawful, and the right hon. member at that time considered the order was perfectly lawful. The House turned down the motion by a very large majority. The whole matter was debated again. The circumstances under which this Bill is brought have nothing whatever to do with whether that was reasonable or unreasonable. The regulations dealing with compensation are dealt with. The Governor-General may make regulations, and I suppose the regulations were made. If not, blame the South African party Government.

You are trying to bar claims for damages.

No. The second section deals with this—

It does not effect any previous judgment, naturally. If there has been any negligence, this does not cover any negligence, except within the four corners of the regulations. The position is this: If any person had acted within the orders of the last 10 years, then he was indemnified. If he went outside those orders, he was not covered by this indemnity. The only cover given by the second clause is, if any person acted within the scope of any order issued by any Minister since 1914, in terms of the regulation of the Governor-General. In that case his acts are validated; but if he went outside of that and caused damage through negligence, he would still be liable. That is the position now.

In spite of this Act?

Yes, it can and does mean nothing else. In regard to the point made by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that if the Minister had been more tractable in February, this legislation would not have been necessary. Is that true? Hancock did not carry out the regulations and let his sheep die; he refused to carry out the regulations. No matter how intractable the Minister might have been, Hancock could have refused to carry out the order, because the Minister’s order was ultra vires.

That is one claim less to settle.

I say the Minister’s order was ultra vires and also all the orders previously, and it seems to me this legislation is very necessary. There is not the slightest reason why, under one section great powers can be given to the Minister to destroy cattle, acting entirely on his own discretion, and, in another case, he should require to do so by regulation. This simply gives the Government powers which they have been exercising all along.

Hon. members opposite have been missing the entire point of this matter. The Natal farmers did not object to the compulsory dipping. What they objected to, and protested against, was the season of the year in which the dipping was to be enforced. One does not need to be much of a sheep farmer to know that with four or five months’ wool on the sheep, it is going to cost you much more than immediately after sheep-shearing. Most of the flocks in Natal are shorn in early October and a few, perhaps, in November.

What is your objection to the Bill?

The indemnifying clause against any claim for damages suffered by the farmers. Not only do they object to that; but also to the Minister over-riding the regulation which provided for the exemption of any flocks which had been clean for twelve months. The regulations say the dipping inspector may exempt such. The Minister directly took that discretion away from the sheep inspector, and said they had to dip every flock. It is quite true, compulsory dipping was carried out by the late Government. In the report of the Agricultural Department for the year ending 30th of June. 1923, compulsory dipping was carried out in 85 districts, but exemption was allowed, and in the annual report of the Agricultural Department for the year ending the 30th of June, 1924, compulsory dipping was carried out in 121 districts, but exemption was allowed.

According to law.

I have a letter from Mr. Hancock, a farmer, whose sole ground for refusing to carry out the dipping order was that he was entitled to exemption under the regulations. He was summoned and fined £3. the magistrate refusing to go into the question whether he was right or wrong in claiming exemption. The case went to the higher court which, however, did not decide the case on that issue, although the point was argued. This is what the writer says—

This is the whole point of the case for the Natal sheep farmers that they were denied the rights under the regulations to obtain exemption. The careful farmers were penalized because of the careless farmers. I don’t know whether the Minister thought he was dragooning a commando from the back veld when he started out to dragoon the Natal farmers, but the latter, mostly, are very careful sheep farmers and almost every one of them dip within fourteen days from shearing, whether there is scab or not. We do it for the benefit of the wool and the sheep, but not because of scab. I do not keep a very large flock of sheep myself, but I handle a lot of sheep during the year as I buy very considerably from all over the surrounding districts. I have several times bought scab, but I have got rid of it very quickly and have been complimented more than once by the sheep inspector on the manner in which I have been able to eradicate scab every time I have reported it. We protested very strongly against the order, and meetings were held and protests were sent up. Then on the point of exemption we took this up very strongly also, and that is the whole point of the case we claim now. On the first reading the Minister of Lands said we should not lose any rights that we have. Any man has a right under the common law to claim for any damage the Government may inflict upon him for carrying out a wrong order, and this House has no right to take that right away from us.

When the proclamation that the Minister had ordered a simultaneous dipping for my district became known, the farmers were unruly in all portions of the district. I immediately went to the Minister in Pretoria, and if hon. members had come and said to the Minister: “Look, don’t issue such a proclamation again,” then I would have stood by them. I can give the hon. Minister the assurance that if he again orders a simultaneous dipping then I shall be very quickly in Pretoria to make representations to him. Harrismith is against it, because the former Minister of Agriculture also applied simultaneous dipping to Harrismith, and the farmers then saw that simultaneous dipping is not the way to fight scab. The simultaneous dipping only applies to certain portions of the country. It cannot be applied to the whole Union, and therefore it is useless. But what I cannot understand is that hon. members there talk about compensation. The regulations have been carried out since they were made. Under the regulations dipping is required. Now we have here to do with simultaneous dipping, which is nothing new. If there was anything new, then I should possibly agree with hon. members. Then the accusation is made that the time was unsuitable. Well, my position is that when I heard of this proclamation I said that it was fortunate that the dipping came at a more suitable time than under the former Government. In December, as a matter of fact, the wool is long and we do the shearing. January is the worst month for rain. The only difference between the last proclamation and that of the previous Government is that the former Minister proclaimed January and February—our worst rainy season—while this Minister proclaimed from February onwards. When our deputation was in Pretoria there were also representatives from Natal. I think that the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) introduced them to the Minister. Well, the fact was that we were actually more opposed to it than they. The hon. member for Weenen has just said that Natal is not opposed to compulsory dipping, but that the dipping took place at the wrong time, but with us it was just at a good time. Natal’s only objection at that time was—I conversed with members of the deputation at the time—the danger of blue-tongue, and the Minister then granted them an extension, and the hon. member has indeed admitted that. The Minister did not proclaim a new thing. The Minister only wishes to make a necessary alteration in the Act with reference to the existing regulations, and I cannot see why we should not meet him. The regulations are ultra vires. That is the only alterations which the Minister of Agriculture proposes to validate the regulations. I do not think that the simultaneous dipping is the right way of fighting scab. I have often said so, and I would like to ask the hon. Minister not to force it upon us again unless it can be done simultaneously over the whole Union, but that is not possible. But what is so remarkable is the talk of all the damage in consequence of the dipping. First there were complaints about the inspectors, and the Minister said: Right you can appoint your own inspectors, and I must say that in this respect also there are no complaints in my district. Recently there were down here a few of the largest farmers in my district; they were asked about the dipping, and replied that the weather was very unfavourable and that the sheep were not in as good condition as they might be, but that there was nothing special to complain about. Somebody from Heilbron was also here, and he complained much about the sheep and that they were so terribly poor. Jocularly it was remarked that if they had dipped the position might possibly have been better. I hope that there will now be no further difficulty in passing this Bill.

I am very surprised at the attitude of the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) who previously was an opponent of simultaneous dipping but who now comes along trying to defend the Minister for what he has done and tries to make out that simultaneous dipping has done good. Seeing that the Minister has intimated his intention of starting simultaneous dipping in the Cape Province and judging by the losses in the Transvaal and Natal, I feel it my duty to join in this protest to-night. The Minister being the prime cause of all this dissatisfaction, damage and loss to farmers, now finds he has acted illegally and comes to this House to get indemnity for his actions. This Bill undoubtedly represents the Minister’s intention to try and indemnify his actions. In regard to clause 1, I can have no objection because I feel the Minister must have power to do what he thinks right; but clause 2 asks for indemnity against the losses that have occurred in the Transvaal and Natal. The Minister says if this Bill is not passed it will mean that illegal actions of ten years ago will come back to the Government and they will be sued for damages for what happened at that time. There I differ with him because the Minister thus admits that this Bill is nothing else but an indemnity Bill. As pointed out by the hon. member for Natal (Coast) (Brig.-Gen. Arnott) the regulations 10 years ago were carried out somewhat differently. The present Minister has over-ridden the discretionary powers given to inspectors to exempt farmers whose sheep have not had scab for a certain period. I know of previous simultaneous dippings that have taken place in my district carried out under these instructions and exemptions were granted. I do not think it an honest action on the part of the Government to destroy the case of the farmers who now come and ask for compensation. The Minister cannot deny that he was given very sound advice by this side of the House, by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that he was adopting it at a wrong time.

What wrong time?

What wrong time? When it was raining, as was pointed out by the right hon. member for Standerton. I feel that the Minister had been given good advice at that time; but refused to accept it, because he was obstinate and wanted to say he was the man of action; who was going to eradicate scab. The time selected by the Minister was undoubtedly most inopportune, as I will show by wires sent by the chiefs of the Minister’s department, advising him to withdraw his orders. The first wire was sent by “Merino” in Capetown. That must have been at the time this debate was taking place in the House. The wire reads—

Any man who has any practical knowledge of farming knows that if a sheep has been dipped it is wet to the skin, and to allow the sheep to remain wet for ten days is to murder the sheep, and the Minister’s chiefs, therefore, asked him to withdraw the order. The wire proceeds—

The Minister was advised by his own people; but when he came into power he said, I am not going to be guided by my head officials; I am going to do what is right.

What is the date of that wire?

17th March. The wire proceeds—

He was trying to get the Minister back to what the old Government had always done to exempt certain cases.

And continue to allow scab to run rampant.

I do not think the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet is representing the feeling of progressive Graaff-Reinet when he speaks like that. This is the reply of the Minister—

There we have it—

I want to read further—

but if not, and even in exceptional cases they are to be dipped. I put it to the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler), if his sheep had been dipped, and there were incessant rains for ten days, whether he would like the Minister, to dip them after that time. I think the Minister should be brought up for cruelty to animals. I want to continue these wires; they are very interesting. Here is one—

The Minister replied from Pretoria on March 20 as follows—

So that sheep which were not clean at the first dipping were to be killed. The Secretary for Agriculture sent the following telegram to the principal veterinary surgeon, Scab Section on March 21—

The principal veterinary officer telegraphed from Pretoria on April 1 to the Secretary for Agriculture, who was then in Cape Town, as follows—

I wonder where this compulsory dipping comes in. The telegram proceeds—

The Minister is glad to hear about wire worm. To dip sheep suffering from wire worm is nothing but killing them. If the Minister knew his business he would give a man exemption before he killed his sheep by having them thrown into the dip. Then he comes to the House and tells the House the sheep died because they had wire worm. The Minister’s action was not one to be proud of. The telegram continued—

There is good advice given by the Minister’s head official—

We can understand his great reluctance. It is an easy matter to put a man out of the way if he goes against the Minister’s order—

The Minister, when he knew the conditions were so bad, and he was advised by his own heads of veterinary officials, he insisted on having the sheep dipped. It is all very well to say he makes limitations. Do you mean to tell me it is not possible to isolate these sheep until such time as they were cured?

As a farmer, you ought to know you cannot.

After this very urgent wire by the Minister’s head official, the Minister replies—

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