I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

There are just two points I want to refer to which have been raised during the course of debate, and to which I have not previously replied. The first is the question as to the appointment of servants who were on the daily paid staff before 1912, and who have been, or will still be, appointed to the clerical staff. The question has been raised as to whether these servants will come under the terms of section 8. Under the existing Act it is clear that it is not intended that they should come under section 6. That being so, I propose dealing with them in some way under clause 8. If that is not the case under the Bill I shall deal with it in another place and put it right. The other point is the position of the pensioner who may be temporarily employed in the railway service, and who, having been retired on pension, the rule applied in the public service will apply here also. In the general service the position is that the pensioner who is re-employed receives the same emoluments to that office which he would ordinarily be entitled to, but discretion is given to the Treasury to abate a pension if they think fit. It seems to me that is quite a good principle. In the railway service it very seldom happens that pensioners are employed again. When they are, it seems sound that the rule in the public service should apply. As far as I know these are the only two points which have been raised which I have not dealt with during the debate. May I say that I think the House will agree that in passing this Bill we are doing justice to our servants. We are giving our railway, harbour and steamship servants all the opportunities which they have long asked for, and the rights for which they have pressed very strongly. I think I may safely say that to a very large extent their requests have been met in this Bill. That being so, it is only right that I should say that our railway and harbour servants should realize that they should now concentrate all their energies and powers to serve the country in this big State under taking. The country has the right to expect from them—as we have had from the bulk of our servants in the past—loyal service. We are just entering upon a time of particular pressure; very shortly the traffic on the railways will increase to a very large extent and it will undoubtedly tax the powers both of the management and of every individual railway man, to cope with this increased traffic. I think I am speaking on behalf of every member of this House when I say that we feel confident that all railway men will be prepared to strain every nerve to do justice to the country they have served so well in the past. I move the third reading.

I do not wish to hold up the Bill, but I would like to thank the Minister for the statements he has made. I am sure they will give great satisfaction. Firstly, in regard to the position of the daily paid men the Minister’s statement is absolutely fair and just to these men, and if the Bill is not sufficiently clear he has undertaken to make it clear. Then in regard to pensioners it is a very fair provision. The only thing we want is that pensioners shall not be exploited and advantage taken of the fact that they are on pension. With regard to his concluding remarks there is a Dutch proverb which says—

and the corollary to that is—

I agree with what the Minister has said, and I am sure they will give him the same loyal service that they have given to his predecessors.

I cannot allow the third reading to go through without once again raising my voice on behalf of the boatmen who work between the ships and the pier. They work to the age of 60 and no provision of any kind has been made for them. They are left out in the cold. This Bill is an improvement on the last, and the last Bill was an improvement on the one before. I hope the next Bill will help these men who have no protection whatever.

May I refer to the position of these boatmen. While it is true that these men are employed on casual work and as such they are treated under the terms of the Bill as casual employees, at the same time the hon. member must remember that we guarantee these men ten days work every month whether they work that or not. As I have indicated before, we have just met the position of these boatmen by giving them free passes, a thing they have never had before, and we have also dealt with the position of their wives and families. Further, it is not as if we turned them off when they retire without any gratuity. It has been the practice in the past, and will be in the future, to grant them gratuities where justified. While I cannot allow them to come on to the permanent staff we are not unmindful of the good service they have rendered in the past, and are giving at the present time.

The gratuity just about pays their funeral expenses.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I certainly do think that the attitude of the Prime Minister this afternoon—

The hon. member must not discuss the resolution which was passed by the House.

I am referring, incidentally, to the fact—

The hon. member must not discuss the resolution of the House.

I am sorry. When the debate was adjourned I was discussing the fact that, in spite of the urgent representations made by the head officials to the Minister, to recall his proclamation, he insisted on this policy of destruction of his, and I feel, on the evidence of those documents which I have read, that the Minister insisted on sheep being dipped even after a first dipping and incessant rains which followed. I feel that was a great mistake, and led to the great losses which have been mentioned. The Minister could easily have withdrawn this order, even if sheep at their first dipping had been infected as the first dipping would have arrested the scab for some time, and they could have been dipped again when better climatic conditions prevailed. The last instruction given by the Minister was this—

This was on the 2nd April. It is essential that we should have a Select Committee, as one hears rumours of cases where inspectors came to farmers in the Utrecht district of Natal, where the fat sheep were taken out and dipped, and those in poor condition were allowed to go without dipping. This is the kind of dipping we protest against.

Rumours or facts?

I am positive these are facts, and a Select Committee could enquire into them. I heard of a further case in Pretoria where 400 sheep had to be dipped, and there were 400 gallons of water and two packets of Cooper’s dip. The dip was mixed with the 400 gallons of water, and the sheep put through, and when the water was too low for the sheep, pure water was added and the sheep passed through. That is the type of dipping of which we complain. An hon. member refers to Tarkastad, but it just shows his ignorance of the facts; because compulsory dipping does not take place in Tarkastad to-day. You can imagine the detrimental effect which a simultaneous dipping like this will have over the whole country. As stated by the Minister and his officials at the time the dipping took place, they had blue-tongue and wire-worm, and it was the lambing season, which shows that the Minister acted most obstinately. It was nothing more than a policy of obstruction. The Prime Minister said last night that if farmers were allowed to make claims, he was sure there would be claims where the sheep had never smelled dip. I do not think it is worthy of the Prime Minister, to cast such a reflection like this on the sheep farmers. I resent it most strongly, and I think the rest of the farmers in the House will do likewise. The Prime Minister has stated that he feels that, even morally, if the sheep had been killed by dipping, these people should not claim. He should remember that the sheep farmers main existence is his sheep, and if he loses them, he is going to the bankruptcy court. Some hon. members have been trying to show that there has not been much loss; but evidence has been quoted which is in conflict with this. But the Minister has learned by experience, and is now evidently very careful in the Cape Province; because I understand he is consulting farmers as to a suitable time for dipping. Why did he not do it then? What he is doing in the Cape is evidence that he acted hastily in the Transvaal and Natal. I feel that the Minister’s main reason for taking this hasty and ill-considered step was due to the fact that he has abolished his sheep division.

Ah!

And he gratified his political spite against certain officials by dismissing these people and disorganizing his whole department. The Minister of Lands challenged me and stated that certain figures which I had quoted were not correct. I said that, because this whole department had been disorganized, scab had been on the increase. The Minister denied this, and gave me a piece of fatherly advice, and said I should not make incorrect statements. The Minister is the very person who on that occasion made an incorrect statement as will be appreciated from the figures I intend to quote. Well. I asked the Minister of Agriculture, at the beginning of this session, what the infection of scab was on 31st August, 1924, and his reply was—

On January 31st, 1925, the number of infected flocks was 2,056 an increase of 865 flocks. I put it to the House who is responsible. The Minister finding that scab was on the increase and having done away with the sheep division of the Agricultural Department, thought he would eradicate the disease by simultaneous dipping. I am not against compulsory dipping if carried out properly on the lines followed when the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) was Minister of Agriculture. The amount of scab in existence when the present Minister issued his order did not necessitate the dipping of all the sheep. Why did the Minister not concentrate on the infected areas as his predecessor did, and with due consideration to local and climatic conditions? For compulsory dipping you must have proper supervision, and I doubt whether you can get that when dipping is going on all over the country. The Minister claims indemnity on a technical point. If that were correct I would have no objection to supporting the Bill, but against that the fact remains that congresses of farmers protested against the Minister’s act, and his own head officials when dipping operations were actually in progress, advised him to withdraw the compulsory dipping order. He refused. Consequently all the damage is due to the Minister’s personal obstinacy and nothing else.

The Minister of Agriculture thought fit yesterday to imply that I should not oppose the Bill because the Newcastle Farmers’ Association passed a resolution to carry out the dipping themselves. It is necessary that the House should know under what conditions that decision was arrived at. When it was mooted that the Minister was going to have compulsory dipping, he was asked whether he would not allow those areas which were free from scab to be exempted from the operation of the order. The Minister replied “No.” The chief veterinary surgeon met the farmers at Newcastle, and they asked him whether he would not exempt those farmers which had been free from scab for a year. The reply was that the Minister was determined to have compulsory dipping right through, and the farmers were advised that there would be simultaneous dipping without exception throughout the whole of the Union. The chief veterinary surgeon advised the farmers to make the best of it, and to carry out the dipping themselves, which eventually they were induced to agree to. They were “sold a pup,” for afterwards they found that the order was to be confined to Natal and the Vrede and Harrismith districts. But Utrecht, which has a greater number of sheep in it than Newcastle, although it is in the Newcastle constituency, never agreed to but consistently opposed the compulsory dipping being applied to clean farms. The Newcastle farmers also understood that the Protectorates would also come under the dipping order, for that is where the grave danger of scab lies. I have a letter in which the president of the Newcastle Farmers’ Association says distinctly that the Newcastle farmers were “sold a pup.” I am astonished to find that the Minister is seeking in the Bill to obtain indemnity from this House against any claim by these unfortunate farmers who through the Minister’s obstinacy have sustained losses. The Minister knows very well that he has made an unholy mess of this affair, and now he asks the House to clean up the mess, to drag him out of the mud and to leave the farmers in the mud. Can anyone expect any farming representative to agree to that portion of the Bill which states that farmers shall have no right to make any legal claims for the losses they have sustained? The farmers of Utrecht sent a deputation to the Minister, and they were told in a cold-blooded manner that they were nothing but a lot of political agitators. They were intimidated and told they would have to dip. They put the position to the Minister quite clearly, telling him that the time of the year was most inopportune, and they asked the Minister to call the farmers of Natal together so that they could discuss the matter and come to some understanding as to the best period of the year for simultaneous dipping. These farmers, however, did not take up the attitude that they were totally against dipping. I do submit that the Minister has taken up an attitude with regard to this dipping matter like that of a drill sergeant just appointed to the position, the attitude of the bully. Had the Minister had any sympathy towards these farmers, the sympathy they expected, the position would have been quite different. These people would not have had the heavy losses they have had to-day. When he got into power the Minister told the farmers he was going to be their friend, and the farmers expected the Minister to be their Moses to lead them through the wilderness into Canaan, but instead of that he has been an inverted Moses leading them back to the bondage of Egypt. I would like to point out to the House that the trend of all Pact legislation is to disregard the rights of individuals. If the farmers had not got any legal rights to claim for damages they have suffered, why is it necessary in this Bill to provide that they shall not be entitled to obtain any judgment against the Government after the 12th of May? It would be just as well to read some of the wires showing the losses which have been sustained. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) said there have been a loss of a few sheep. I will read a few wires from the farmers themselves who have had heavy losses. This is from the secretary of the Farmers’ Association at Botha’s Pass—

This is from a letter from Mr. F. Knight, Utrecht (translation)—

This is a wire from Naude Bros.—

This is from Gert Maritz, Utrecht—

This is from Mr. C. Palmer. Utrecht (translation)—

This is from Mr. Klopper, Utrecht (translation)—

This is from Friend Bros., Utrecht (translation)—

From F. Meyer, Newcastle (translation)—

From Dik Uys, Utrecht (translation)—

I cannot understand the attitude of hon. members opposite. Why do they sneer and jeer at the losses these unfortunate people have suffered? Is that the right attitude?

It is because they are a farmers’ party.

I wonder if they are prepared to go to the Newcastle area and do their sneering and jeering there? When we point out the losses they have suffered, we are received with sneers and jeers, and they call themselves a farmers’ party. I expected some of the members opposite to show some sympathy to these unfortunate people. I would like to say that according to the figures given by the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards), the estimate of the loss—and I don’t think it is overestimated—is £100,000 within the province of Natal. What is going to be the result of it? We have it from the wires referred to by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) that 25 per cent. of the farmers have not dipped at all. That is in the official documents and wires. Twenty-five per cent. have dipped twice and 50 per cent. have only dipped once. I don’t know how many sheep farmers there are opposite, but apparently there are very few. Those few will know that one dipping is of very little use. This means that it has cost in losses, etc., £100,000 to effectively dip 25 per cent. of the sheep in the province of Natal. A greater farce and a greater mess has never been created in this country by any Minister of Agriculture. I have no hesitation in saying it would have been impossible for any Minister to have created a greater loss, however incompetent he was. The whole of the trouble has been caused by the unfortunate attitude which the Minister of Agriculture took up. He took up an obstinate attitude and would not listen to anybody. He had deputations of experienced men from the Utrecht area, some of the biggest farmers in Natal, who told him the position, and told him that there would be heavy loss, and they also told him that February and March were the rainy months in Natal. The majority of farmers in Natal clip during the months of October and November. Had the Minister taken the farmers of Natal into his confidence he could have come to some arrangement with them to dip this coming October and November after they had clipped, and there would not have been these unfortunate losses which have been suffered. But what happened? The farmers not only advised him that he was making a mistake, but during the time when the dipping was actually taking place his own technical advisers, his own officials, practically implored him in so many words to cancel this dipping order, but he took up this obstinate attitude—

With what result? With the result that he has got the farmers of Natal up in arms. He could very easily have dealt with these farmers in a quiet and decent manner, and there would not have been this trouble that we have to-day. I think it is just as well to again refer to the wires which were referred to by my hon. friend (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) last night. The first wire was received in March by the Minister, and in that wire the technical advisers or the officers of the department said—

Why didn’t the Minister, when he got that wire, immediately admit, like a man, that he had made a mistake and be agreeable that this order for a second dipping should be cancelled? But what did he do? He sent this wire back—

The dipping of all sheep continued. He got another wire from the officials in Natal, and these were the terms of it—

The hon. member must endeavour not to repeat what has been said and read on a previous occasion.

I take it I can refer to these wires?

The hon. member can refer to them, but I do not think it is necessary to read them all again.

In these wires, owing to the abnormal conditions, it was strongly urged upon the Minister that authority should be given to exempt clean flocks. It is made perfectly clear to the Minister that the department were convinced that they would incur responsibility by rigid adherence to the present policy, and it was difficult to justify the enforcement of the second dipping. When that wire was sent to the Minister, why didn’t he then immediately see that, in order to save further heavy losses to these unfortunate farmers, a wire was sent back to the department to cancel the compulsory dipping? In another wire which he received after that, the Minister was advised by the department to cancel the notice in the “Government Gazette,” because it was impossible to give effect to that notice, and yet he still continued to be adamant. He said this—

What does “exceptional” mean? The whole position was exceptional. Why did not the Minster, when his department advised him that heavy losses would be suffered, immediately cancel the dipping and allow the dipping to take place at some future date? I go further, and I ask the Minister what is going to be the position of the people of Natal in view of the ineffective manner in which this dipping has been carried out? I hope the Minister when replying to the debate will tell us what the position of these unfortunate people in Natal is going to be. Are they going to be compelled again during this year to go through the same process? Why the Minister should have departed from the regulation which gave power to the stock inspectors to allow exemption where sheep had been clean for one year, I cannot understand. There would never have been this objection and mess if the Minister had allowed that discretion at the outset. He took away that power and compelled these unfortunate farmers to carry out a dipping order which they knew, and he knew, when the heavy rains started was bound to result in heavy losses. As I have said, I have no objection to the rectification of the law so as to give the Minister the power to issue an order, but I certainly object to the present Minister having that power, because if he is going to act under these powers in the way that he has done in the present case, I am afraid that many of the farmers in South Africa are going to be in for a very bad time. I do say, with all sincerity, that the Government should recognize that the losses that have been sustained in Natal and in other parts of the Union have been due to the action of the Minister. Had it been simply a right, which we technically have owing to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Natal, we might then have looked at the thing from another angle, but in view of the fact that these losses could have been obviated if the Minister had only given ear to the deputations which went to him, and subsequently to the wires which were sent to him by his own officials, I do submit, and I ask hon. members on the opposite side to recognize, that these unfortunate farmers have suffered very heavy losses due to the obstinacy of their own Minister, and are therefore entitled to be compensated.

When one sees the smokescreens that are raised by the other side one cannot arrive at any other conclusion than that the phrase “Kemp is on the march,” which became proverbial during the elections, is again being employed to stampede our sheep farmers. When one hears the speeches from the opposite side it looks as if the Minister of Agriculture is doing nothing but putting a political movement on foot to destroy the people of Natal. Let me say at once that I sympathise sincerely with the people who have lost stock because I know what the losses from drought meant to us.

Why are hon. members laughing then?

I am so sorry for the hon. member, he is surely still a young member of this House and his skin is very thin. Let me tell him this that if he wishes to make a success of his political career he must see to it that he has a thick skin. These regulations we are talking about were drawn up by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), and those regulations were applied in the past in cases of drought and other misfortunes that afflicted our country; and we remember how often the member for Fort Beaufort, when he was Minister of Agriculture, came to us and asked us across the floor of the House if we would assist him to get more drastic legislation through the House. And in any event I promised him my support. Why? Because it is a scandal to any farmer in South Africa who still has scab in his sheep, and it is the more scandalous for Natal which is not similarly exposed to drought as other portions of the country are. We in any case gave our support to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort because we wanted to be quit of scab. There is at the present time a world competition in wool. We must compete with countries in all parts of the world. In Australia scab has been eradicated. Now as regards wool we are today on an equal footing with Australia. For some wool we get better prices than Australia, but unless we decide to eradicate scab once and for all—on which we have already spent hundreds of thousands of pounds—then we shall remain behind in the world competition and “gallant little Natal” had better take careful note of this.

But don’t compel us to dip if the sheep are clean.

If districts are clean for six months the Minister has nothing to say. In the midlands of the Cape Province the hon. Minister will not apply the regulations because there scab is a thing of the past. We succeeded in getting quit of scab and it gave no trouble, and Natal, which has evenly distributed rains, will be able to succeed much easier. There is an agitation amongst the tax payers of the land who will no longer permit that £200,000 should be spent every year in eradication of scab. A Select Committee constituted from both sides of the House came to the decision that that £200,000 should no longer come out of the treasury but that the farmers should pay it themselves.

Is that in the Act?

I hope the hon. member has not forgotten his Dutch. I am speaking of the agitation and in connection therewith about the Select Committee. It was the Select Committee on public accounts that came to the conclusion and it was supported not only by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) but also by the advisory board of the agricultural union and the proposal was made to levy a tax of £5 for every 1,000 sheep, clean or scabby. But the hon. member for Fort Beaufort is sitting as quiet as the grave.

What the hon. member said just now is incorrect.

Does not the hon. member remember it? We have the agricultural journal, which at that time stated definitely what the position was. Does not the hon. member recollect how in his eagerness to eradicate scab a man was compelled at Victoria West not so long ago to dip 18 times in three years? This matter was laid on the Table of the House in a studied manner to avoid trouble. The poor fellow, Erasmus de Wet, suffered so much damage that he was in the insolvency court and was sentenced to imprisonment. And that is not the only case. We asked the hon. member for Fort Beaufort to have that matter investigated in an impartial manner but he refused. Under the protection of the regulations the Department takes over the flocks from the farmer and the owner then has no say, they undertake to clean the sheep and in spite of those regulations the man was treated like that.

What about us in Natal?

You ought to have dipped when the time was suitable and have eradicated the scab. The former Minister of Agriculture often came to us and asked whether we would assist him in taking drastic action against scab and we agreed. But in his too great keenness he had a Bill drafted and published in the Government “Gazette” to which I would just like to call attention. I am however glad that that Bill never saw the light of day because it would have meant ruin not only to the Natal farmers but also to our farmers in the Western Province. Just listen to section 3. It provides that for the first offence against the Act a fine of up to £100 can be inflicted, for the second offence up to £200, and for a third up to £500. And not content with that he must undergo a double investigation and for each sheep on which a scab tick is found he will have to pay an additional fine of £2.

And the hon. member is so in favour of the eradication of scab!

I say that we can congratulate ourselves that the hon. member for Fort. Beaufort is no longer Minister of Agriculture because under that Bill all rights of ownership would have been taken away from the wool farmers. £2 had to be paid for every scab tick whether there was rain or not. Sir Thomas Smartt says this is not so. I just want to read out section 12—

Was that not adopted by the agricultural union?

In what connection is the hon. member speaking about the Bill under discussion?

It has a great deal to do with it. A number of smoke screens have been raised by the other side about what the present Minister has done under the existing regulations. And in connection therewith I am just pointing out the drastic legislation the former Minister of Agriculture was prepared to pass. There was a time when we in the midlands protested most strongly. That was during great droughts, and a deputation even went to the former Minister to ask for exemption from dipping in the circumstances, but the Minister replied that the order must be carried out. I remember how that the sheep were so weak that they had to be dragged to the dipping troughs and had to be carried back again, and the compensation was very little, and in some cases nothing at all was paid. But now we are thankful that we are free of scab. I repeat that we have to do with a world competition in wool, and I fear that if we do not eradicate scab as soon as possible, that we shall lose the reputation which we have with regard to wool. The Minister has been accused of crass ignorance. I am very sorry about it. We farmers, as representatives of the wool districts here, will certainly stand by the Minister in the maintenance of this Act to finally get free from scab. Many “experts” have spoken. I think it was the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) who said that sheep were shorn in November, and that they had wool in February from two to three inches long. I shall buy that kind of sheep. I didn’t know about them. If it is so, then they will have wool twelve inches long by the end of November when they are shorn again. Now I shall go and fetch some of those sheep. This proves that the hon. friend who talks about the reluctance in the application of the regulation knows nothing about the position. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) has made a tremendous fuss about the telegrams. He says that many telegrams were sent to the Minister to warn him, and he has read out some of them, but they all say that they leave it to the discretion of the Minister.

The hon. member is wrong.

I am sorry for the hon. member, because during the by election he went to Graaff-Reinet and said things about which we on this side of the House and his leader had to blush. He stated that on account of the abolition of the sheep division the fighting of scab had become such a fiasco that the Minister on that account had to apply simultaneous dipping.

That is so.

If the abolition of the division really caused an increase in scab, then there must have been a tremendous increase of scab, and then I think the regulations ought to be much more strictly applied, because I think that not only the farming population but the general public of South Africa will not permit us to go on in that way, spending hundreds of thousands of pounds year after year on the eradication of scab without success.

Last year it was only .43.

It is sheer nonsense to say that scab has increased because the sheep division was abolished. The hon. member for Weenen has said that £750,000 was spent on dipping tanks in Natal. If there are unfortunately more places in the north-west where there is scab, then I hope we shall be in the position to expend such a sum on dipping tanks, but then I am certain of it that scab will disappear. As to the loss of wool by dipping, the hon. member is also wrong. There is no dip of any kind which, if it is of proper strength, will cause sheep to lose their wool. Another statement made that the value of the wool had decreased by 25 per cent. in the case of sheep that had two or three months’ wool is also incorrect. In that case the dip will have no injurious effect, but it is presumably only the sheep of the hon. member for Weenen that have wool two or three inches in length. I am going to see those sheep anyhow. We know that unhappily, from the 8th December until to-day, wool has dropped 15d. Not because there is an accumulation of wool, the consumption of wool is still 33 per cent. above the production, but the fact is there. Whether it is the financial position, or whatever the cause, I do not know, but as the position is to-day we shall go back in the future if we do not deliver of the best and cleanest wool. If we do not take care to get quit of scab, then we shall have once more in the future to throw away surplus wool. We on this side represent farmers. This is the farmers’ party, and I say so emphatically and quite candidly. I represent one of the best sheep districts, and I say that it is of the greatest importance to get rid of scab.

The last speaker said that had the South African party been in power, things would have been ten times worse, and he has misquoted the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) by stating that the former had said the wool had grown three inches in three months. We are sheep farmers on this side of the House, and we know what we are talking about. The hon. member for Weenen said “lbs.” and not “inches.” The other day another hon. member opposite confounded columns with inches. I am very sorry indeed to think that hon. members opposite are treating this serious question as a joke. What hope have we of eliciting any sympathy from the Minister when he has a jeering crowd behind him? They are out of sympathy with the terrible losses incurred by sheep farmers. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) said that the whole country was clamouring for simultaneous dipping so as to increase the output of wool. But simultaneous dipping has had the reverse effect, and the tragedy is that the sheep have lost their wool through this cruel and stupid blunder. It is no use the Minister trying to shelter himself behind a technicality. He was warned by the farmers and by his professional officers, so the responsibility is entirely his. The Minister says he merely carried out the regulations which his predecessor had done. But previous Ministers of Agriculture were practical farmers. Sheep do well in a dry season, and the worst weather for sheep is heavy ram. Even those farmers in Natal who did not dip lost 100 per cent. more of their sheep than they did in a normal season. One can imagine the losses sustained by farmers whose sheep were dipped and were not dry for 14 days. The Minister of Agriculture said yesterday this Bill in no way prejudices the claims of those who have suffered under compulsory dipping. But what tribunal is to decide this, and does the Minister think that the mortality in sheep is the greatest loss? That is the smallest loss—the heaviest loss has been the loss of wool. In the first place this is a loss to the farmer, and in the second to the State, and the full extent will only be revealed when the next export of wool takes place. Our wool cheque will be reduced, and we shall have so much less money in circulation. The Minister cannot determine these claims by means of a Select Committee. We want a commission, for we shall only know what the full extent of the losses are after the shearing and lambing season. If has been said that 25 per cent. of the wool has been lost. One way to ascertain the loss will be to take the average number of lambs and quantity of wool for the previous three years. There is no condition so exasperating to the farmer as when he suffers loss in carrying out the order and feels there is no redress. The Prime Minister has moved for an all-night sitting and has run away. I am sorry he is not in his seat, for I take strong exception to the remarks he made yesterday when he said that in regard to sheep farmers preferring claims, some might do so for other reasons and claim as dipping losses. That is a dishonest appellation to apply to the sheep farmer, and the Prime Minister has no right to brand sheep farmers as dishonest men.

He did nothing of the kind.

I took his words down.

You are twisting his words.

The Prime Minister said it was human nature to do so.

The Prime Minister has no right to brand sheep farmers as dishonest men. On a previous occasion the Minister of Agriculture, with his face all wreathed with smiles, said that he had telegrams from prominent men in Natal in favour of simultaneous dipping. They had not then dipped their sheep and today, all they talk about is what compensation they are going to get. No progressive farmer is opposed to compulsory dipping if it is done at the right time, which is within a month of shearing and not when the sheep are carrying three or four months’ growth of wool and not when the stormy season is on. One would think there had been a resurrection of Napoleon and that he had assumed the guise of the Minister of Agriculture from the attitude of my hon. friends. This Government has been in office eight months and they have made a terrible mess of the sheep industry and the fruit industry as well. The loss in the sheep industry will outweigh that of the fruit industry.

Nonsense.

Facts are very ugly things. I am sorry my hon. friend, the member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) spoke as he did yesterday. I have a great respect for him and he is numbered among the practical sheep farmers of the House, but the whole tenour of his speech was to endeavour to smother conviction. Members on that side have been well whipped and have come to heel. If this matter is not settled satisfactorily, there is nothing that will recoil with greater force on the Government than this unjust treatment of farmers. How can the Government, after the loss caused by this bad judgment of the Minister, how can they bring in this Bill and not compensate the fanners? This will recoil with great force unless he withdraws the Bill and sends it to a Select Committee.

Hon. members opposite who have taken part in this debate remind me of the German word “schadenfreude” which we can translate by the words, joy at others misfortune. They are really very glad about the losses that have been suffered. They can hardly refrain from laughing about the matter because they imagine now that they have a weapon with which they can fight against the Government in the country side to try and save what can still be saved there where their party is already commencing to disappear. When one hears the noise on the other side one would think that every sheep farmer had suffered heavy losses. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) was one of those who stated this. But he only mentioned one instance. What about all the other sheep farmers? Did they, then, not have losses?

Of course; I only gave one example.

Why did the hon. member not mention them? There is, apparently, only one farmer who suffered damage and it must still be proved. But the hon. member for Ermelo only represents one district in the high veld. It is remarkable that in Carolina and also in Wakkerstroom a terrible amount of damage has not been caused. I happen to have received a letter from one of the sheep inspectors in Carolina. He is one of those remaining who were appointed by the former Government and he states that the dipping went off very well in spite of the unseasonable weather and the heavy rains. The S.A.P. are glad that losses occurred. They know that it is all so much play acting here, and they know that in ordinary circumstances damage would have occurred among the sheep as a consequence of the rain.

How much the more then coupled with the dipping?

In the high veld people dip anyhow every year in March and April, before they trek to the low veld with the sheep, and the Minister did not compel people to dip a second time in all circumstances. I received a telegram from people who asked me if it was obligatory to dip for the second time and the Minister personally drafted the reply to them for me that it was not obligatory if the rains actually made it impossible, and that exemption could be obtained from the chief veterinary surgeon in cases where the sheep were too weak.

What is the date of that?

30th March. It shows very clearly that the Minister of Agriculture was not out to kill the sheep by dipping. He said that where the sheep were too poor. Do hon. members want to try and make me believe the nonsense that it was only the case in Carolina? Therefore, I say that hon. members opposite are simply using this to make political capital. I have here before me the regulations which were issued by the predecessor of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort in connection with the dipping of cattle and they are the same that the present Minister of Agriculture issued. I happen to have them in English, and they state that when the weather is bad or when the stock is very weak the dipping can be postponed with the consent of the Magistrate. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) and the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) have both laboured the point that the Minister would not accept the advice of his officials. The predecessor of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort again made the mistake that he would only accept the advice of the officials and not the advice of the farmers concerned in connection with east coast fever at Barberton. When east coast fever broke out in the low veld all the farmers’ associations begged the Minister to proclaim compulsory dipping in all the infected districts. He refused and only adopted the advice of his officials. One of the farmers then said that the Minister at that time was “a dear, lovable, stupid, lazy old man.” When one listens to the present member for Cradock it looks as if he is a chip of the old block. I, however, go further. If the Bill does not go through then I think our farmers in the low veld will have an action against the Government for the cattle that were killed by dipping under the regime of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. Only when the plague had spread over the whole area did we get general dipping. That is precisely what hon. members want to happen again. They want scab first to spread over the whole country and then we shall have general dipping. We want to have the sheep dipped in time so that the disease can be stopped. If that had been done at the time it would not have been necessary to have had compulsory dipping in all the affected and surrounding districts. When the dipping was proclaimed they killed more cattle by dipping than what died from east coast fever. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort then went there. It was just shortly after the marriage between the Saps and the Unionists. It was during the honeymoon and he acknowledged that the regulations which had been issued had not been carried out well and that the officials were guilty of the burning of the cattle. If this Bill does not go through then we will sue the Government for the torts of the former Government.

When I hear the arguments of the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood), then I do not know what to think of him. I read the other day in “Die Burger” that the hon. member for Barberton was a young man who had a great future in politics, but if I listen to his arguments, then his future looks fairly dark to me. He has conducted his argument in such a way that he himself became confused and wandered away from sheep to cattle. He had to fall back on cattle. He talked about the regulations of the former Minister. They were possibly the same, but they were always carried out in such a way that there were always consultations with the people of the district to which they were applied, and it has never yet been proclaimed that there would be a simultaneous dipping throughout the Union from the Limpopo to Table Mountain. Then he reads out the telegram. My hon. friend should listen a little to what I will tell him. Remission is spoken about under certain conditions. If that is now the policy of the Minister of Agriculture, why did he proclaim simultaneous dipping to eradicate scab? What is there in it then? Is it then his ambition to make the whole Union dip just because there should be dipping? I speak of the eastern Transvaal. I do not know whether the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) knows the conditions there. I could not make out this from his speech.

Hon. members opposite have all the knowledge.

I will only say this, that the dipping did great damage in cur district. In the first place the sheep were much weakened, and we shall have to take a lot of trouble to avoid damage in the winter. We had rains before the dipping, and that had already caused the sheep to become weak. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has warned the hon. Minister of Agriculture, and said, let us just dip the sheep that have had scab within a year. Now I should like to ask the Minister where he gets the right from to go and dip and kill sheep which have been clean four or five years, and then to refuse to pay damages? I ask if this exercise of very autocratic powers is right. That is what hon. members on this side insist on, but hon. members opposite get up and say that we are talking for political purposes. I have here a statement by someone from the Carolina district. He says that he had 550 sheep, that the sheep were weakened by the rains, and that in consequence of the dipping he lost 250. He now asks what he should do. He says that he thinks that he will send all the skins to the Minister, and in his letter he says, further, that he always thought that under the new Minister the conditions would be much better. But that he now sees that the Minister is only occupied in ruining all the farmers.

Who is that?

Johannes Petrus Grobler. Yes, I am not ashamed to mention his name, but that is the position there. I have received other letters. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) has talked about a few sheep that have died, but he forgets that a few sheep cost a few pounds. A man here writes that at the first dipping little damage was done, but that at the second dipping he lost some of his best rams and six thorough-bred ewes, which cost from £7 to £10 each. Those letters are from practical farmers. The one adds that my friend, the Minister, is ruining the farmers. The Minister and I are friends, but if he goes on in this way a shadow will come between us. The point is that the Minister is very ambitious, and his ambition is a little too great. I am also in favour of the eradication of scab, but we cannot do it by killing all our sheep. I said the other day that I would be glad if the hon. Minister will consider a little the position in which he stands. He was always a general and accustomed to give orders, and when the matter was put before him of a simultaneous dipping, then that idea was still in him. The idea of the general, but if he is honest then he must get up and say that he has made a mistake by which he has caused damage to his people. I have also just received a letter from someone in Heidelberg. He says that the people there begged and besought the Minister to give relief, but they were forced to dip, with the result that their sheep were exposed to great mortality. I just wish to add that Nationalists and S.A.P.’s were all against it. I feel strongly about the matter. I am not out to make propaganda. I was recently in the Transvaal, and I saw there that people of both parties were embittered against the Minister.

The hon. member is joking.

The letter goes on to say: If we should have an election to-day, then in consequence of this sort of thing the Government would know all about it. The fact is that you can do everything with a man, but you must not go and intentionally cause damage and then pass an Act preventing him from going to the courts. This Bill must go to a Select Committee, then the people who have actually suffered damage will have an opportunity to get satisfaction. As I view the Bill, it is nothing but an indemnity Bill. That has also been admitted by hon. members opposite. I am much disappointed with the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister in this matter. He said that the result would be—if we do not pass this Bill—that people whose sheep had only smelt the dip would apply for compensation. Have hon. members opposite so little trust in the farmers? I do not think that the farmers would be so dishonourable. It is nothing else than an insult to the farmers, who are represented by hon. members opposite as well as by us on this side. We should be very honest in this House. Here stands a man who is honest both inside and outside the House. I say that the regulations were issued—

By the former Minister.

Leave that for a moment. He did not use autocratic power in respect of the dipping.

He said, notwithstanding the terrible drought, that we were to dip in the north-west.

I would just like to ask the hon. member to go to the Transvaal and Natal and see what the position is there. I want to be honest and I do not wish the Minister to act in this militaristic manner. If the previous Minister had introduced the Bill to which hon. members opposite have referred then we would have fought it. But hon. members opposite just approve of everything that the Government does. The Bill must be referred to a Select Committee and enquiry must be made and where a man has honestly suffered damage on account of the dipping the Government is compelled to pay and may not shield itself behind a piece of paper. I just wish to ask what happens to people who did not dip because they had no notice of it. Will they be punished?

That cannot be done.

Then I want to mention another case. I know of someone who was appointed as inspector to dip sheep at my farm. The lambs were very weak owing to heavy rain and I permitted them to undergo the first dipping but I said: let the other lot go because they have been clean for six or seven years. The inspector then said that they must be dipped because it was the order of the Minister. The animals had to be carried back and one-third of them died. In the night rain came and the cattle died. We know that if sheep are dipped and they cannot dry properly it is very difficult to get them through, and if they have to be dipped again 14 days later then they die. The Government and the officials are responsible and they are obliged to pay. I support the motion: to send the Bill to a Select Committee to find out what people have suffered damage. Certainly if a man has scab punish him, but don’t kill sheep that are clean. I only wish to say to the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) that if a sheep’s wool is three months old and it is dipped that the quality of the wool will diminish. That is my experience, and if the wool is nine months old when the sheep is dipped the damage will be greater, and he will never get the same price for the wool as if it had not been dipped. An expert in these matters has stated that on the occasion of the first dipping in the Union the damage on wool of from three to nine months’ growth alone was about £130,000. I cannot understand that hon. members opposite shut their eyes. It is their own people that are suffering and it is not honest to defend the matter. As soon as one says anything here then it is said that we are talking in the interests of our voters, and dragging in politics. Well, the party on the opposite side did its best in the election in Bethal and the Minister of Agriculture made nice promises to all, but what has he got? He then had much sympathy with the farmers.

I still have that.

So much that you are ruining them. I don’t give a thank you for that kind of sympathy. I hope that the Bill will go to a Select Committee.

This is the first occasion for 14 years that I have heard the hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) standing up for the farmers. I am astonished that he is such a champion for the farmers for once. The hon. member states that the Minister who was always a great champion for the farmers now intends to ruin the farmers. But the Bill is specially to protect the farmers.

How long have I already been sitting in this House, and why? Because I look after the interests of the farmers.

Because the hon. member tells the same stories to his electors that he is to-day telling the House and they believe him. I feel sorry for farmers who lose sheep but it is not the fault of the Minister. The year before last I had to have my child vaccinated against small pox, but it had no small pox. It is the same in the case of sheep that are free from scab and have to be dipped. That is the way of the world. The one must suffer on account of the other. My experience in a clean division is that people with clean sheep were forced to dip to induce the neighbour who was not precise to dip as well. I also kicked against the Scab Act at the time. I was one of those who wanted to throw the inspector in the dipping tank. But I was just as wrong as the hon. member for Bethal who to-day talks against the regulations and goes against the dipping of the sheep. Just as there are dishonest, people among all classes there are also dishonest farmers. I know of a case where a farmer hid a scabby sheep under a case and when the inspector was gone he released it again among the flock.

Was that in Riversdale?

Yes, and there are such farmers all over the country. And the best is just to let them all dip in order to get rid of the disease. But now the hon. member for Bethal and also the hon. member for Standerton come and say that the simultaneous dipping was not prescribed at the proper time. But what is the proper time? Will the hon. member tell me that?

The right time is in the summer, but one could see at the beginning of the year that it would rain heavily, and therefore the Minister should have countermanded the simultaneous dipping.

So I see, that the Minister ordered the dipping at the right time, namely, in the summer. There were unfortunately heavy rains, and now hon. members come here and say that the hon. Minister has done a stupid thing. How could the Minister know that heavy rains were coming, and that damage would be suffered?

Why was it necessary to dip the sheep?

Because the sheep were not clean. My district did not dip. Riversdale, George and Swellendam are clean and if the hon. member came there and talked as he has talked this afternoon, the farmers would ridicule him. We must eradicate scab, and not spend money on it annually. The whole fight of the South African party is for the purpose of making political capital. The sooner hon. members go to the people and say that we are all very sorry that the damage was suffered, but that we must eradicate scab, the better. Because we must do that if we want to compete with the beautiful wool of countries such as Australia. A commission of enquiry has also been demanded. I think the best commission of enquiry is this Parliament. All the members have been chosen by constituencies over the whole country, and we all know how things are in the constituencies. Why then all this talk? It has been started with no other object than to make the people think that this Government has treated them unfairly. The hon. member for Bethal has only spoken to try and stir up the farmers in Bethal against the Government.

Pay out the people and they will vote for you.

Who has to pay for votes? The hon. member for Bethal says that the Prime Minister has insulted the farmer. Will he deny that there are dishonest farmers?

He said all.

He did not say that. The Bible teaches us that there are dishonest people in all classes. The position will be as the hon. the Prime Minister has said, that the people will make all sorts of claims. I hope that this will be the last member to accuse the Minister of such things. The people certainly will not believe it.

I did not intend to take part in this debate, but in as much as the hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) has mentioned something about my constituency, I want to say a few words. In the first instance I want to say that I was in my constituency last week, as also in the constituency of the hon. member, and of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), and wherever I went I did not receive a single complaint about the simultaneous dipping. The sheep that I saw were all in very good condition. They were better than I expected, and that is why I am so surprised at this attack. It seems to me that it is only another attack on the Minister of Agriculture. I am deeply sorry that hon. members waste the time of the House so, while important work remains to be done. The people look to us to work. Every progressive sheep farmer knows that scab must be eradicated, and the only way to do this is by simultaneous dipping. We are thankful that the Minister carried out the simultaneous dipping, and scab has practically disappeared with us. It will be a great thing if we can say some day that scab no longer exists in our country. It will mean better prices for wool and more satisfaction. We cannot go and exempt certain people. If a district is infected, then all must dip, because if there is only one sheep left that is not dipped and that is scabby, that is enough to infect the whole district once more. All must therefore be treated alike. There will naturally always be some damage sustained, but practical farmers will not complain about losing a few sheep if they get a clean flock. I know of a very unfortunate case. I think that it is the same case to which the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) referred, where a certain Jacobs lost 1.500 sheep. It is a very unfortunate case, but it is the man’s own fault, because he mixed the dip wrongly. He is a clever farmer, and therefore I am surprised that he made that mistake. Instead of first throwing in the mixture and thereafter treating it with water so that it binds well, he went and threw in the water first and thereafter the mixture. The mixture did not bind, with the result that it floated on top of the water and caused the damage. Another reason was that he dipped the sheep when they were heated. Everyone knows that if you first heat the sheep that they are then not in a condition to be dipped. In most cases where there have been losses it is through negligence of one kind or another. No we must support the Minister. He is doing his best to eradicate scab. We must not go like hon. members opposite and say that the Minister looked for trouble and that he now has it. That is not an argument for sensible people. We know that he has protected the interests of the farmers in the past, and it is our duty to support him as much as possible.

I will not detain the House long. Hon. members opposite are only wasting the time of the House doing an injustice to the country. It was proved in February at the opening that an agitation had been set on foot to baulk the Minister. It is just an agitation against the Minister, otherwise we should not to-day Have all these telegrams and letters. We must support the hon. Minister as much as possible. The Free State is almost free from scab. There were places where scab had only existed a year, but the people concentrated their powers upon the eradication of scab and succeeded very well. Only a few instances now exist and those are mostly introduced from other parts. I think that it is absolutely wrong and an injustice towards the country to make up the people against the Act. An hon. member has said that the hon. the Prime Minister insulted the sheep farmers by saying that some would file all sorts of baseless claims. He has himself proved the truth of the Prime Minister’s words by saying that expensive rams had been killed by dipping. The rams must have been very weak and it was simply contributory negligence. You can only get losses from dipping if the dip is very bad and there is bad weather. A man who kills thoroughbred rams by dipping is no farmer. That is a proof of what the Prime Minister has said, that if we give the opening all kinds of claims will be made. I would like to advise hon. members to follow the example of the Free State to advise the people to eradicate scab and not to egg them on against the law. It is the greatest nonsense that wool of two to three months’ growth will be injured by dipping sheep. That may happen if the wool is of ten months’ growth and if the sheep are not in good condition. What I have here said in connection with the dipping of sheep I can prove as the representative of one of the largest sheep districts.

I did not wish to take part in this debate because I knew hon. members would say that I knew nothing about sheep, but I want to speak about the fact that we are here dealing with an Indemnity Bill. I think that we must all sympathise with the Government which in its first sitting has to introduce an Indemnity Bill. My thoughts go out to the time when the, former Government were compelled to introduce an Indemnity Bill after the revolt on the Band and to the way the party opposite went on and fought against that. Bill. At that time it was the duty of the Government to act as they did. They could not help themselves because they had to maintain law and order in the country. To-day indemnity is asked for what a Minister has done. I will not go so far as to say that he did it wilfully, but I think that he was too hasty. He wanted to put everything right at once. He took a lot of inspectors by the neck and threw them out of the service. He thought that he had imperial power in the country. If he will honestly come forward and say that he acknowledges making a mistake then it would be different. He cannot get past it that he has made a mistake because here he is asking for indemnity. But why should the people be prevented from instituting actions? If there was ever anything unfair then it is this Bill which the Government has introduced to take away the rights of the people. Therefore I feel very sorry that the Minister has done it; but one has to pay for your mistakes. We must allow the people to go to the courts with their cases to ascertain if they are right. I have listened with attention to hon. members opposite who have defended the Minister. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) has simply put all the blame on the farmer Minister and said that he is responsible for these regulations. I also represent farmers and this matter concerns me as well although I do not represent the great wool farmers who go everyday to the Government for help. I think that the Minister has made a great blunder. In his haste he thought that he was the great man who could do what he wished. That comes from too much haste. The Minister has not been a Minister long and he has already to come to the House of Assembly to ask for help. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) has proposed that we should further investigate the matter. What dishonesty is there in that? Why cannot the Minister accept it? The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. van Rensburg) says that we must not waste the time of the House. Who is the cause of that? The Opposition bring up an honest and fair proposition and why can the Minister not accept it? I can with the greatest candour vote against this Bill. I hope that the Minister will go so far as first to further enquire into the matter. Don’t let us take away the people’s rights. Why has the 12th May been fixed as the date of limitation of the people’s rights? It is not right to try to represent the matter as if we wished to make political capital. We are trying to bring the obstinate Minister to his senses, to acknowledge that he has made a mistake. I hope that the Minister will accept the motion of the hon. member for Ermelo.

I feel exceedingly complimented that the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels) should have hailed my rising in his customary manner. I have, hitherto, refrained from returning the compliment, but I wish to give him fair warning that if this sort of thing continues, there are other people who can groan in this House as well as himself. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture have explained that this Bill aims at indemnifying the Government against action which has been declared to be, technically, outside the Stock Diseases Act. That, although partly correct, is not the whole story, because, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Natal (Coast) (Brig.-Gen. Arnott), the essence of the trouble in Natal has been not the technical difficulty alluded to by the Minister, but the fact that the Minister took away the discretion for the exemption of clean flocks from the sheep inspector, To get to the rights of the matter, I think we have got to refer to the Minister’s own order, so that we may see the extent to which he has totally disregarded every sort of protest. In fixing the time as he did for dipping, he disregarded the elementary experience of even the worst sheep farmer in the country. In his dipping order in relation to the province of Natal he said that the dipping was to take place under regulations published under section 10 of Government Notice No. 1703 of 1919. Now, that section of the Government notice very clearly provides that the owners of clean flocks, free from infection for 12 months, are entitled to exemption. The Minister had no more right to take away that exemption than he had to go and slaughter the sheep himself out of hand. It was part of the law, it was an inseparable condition of the law as it stood at that time, and in that respect it was no mere technical irregularity in the promulgation of the regulation which robbed the owners of clean flocks of their legal right to exemption. So that in endeavouring to take indemnity to cover his illegal action, and the damage which, in the main, arises from his over-riding of this valuable privilege conferred by the law, he is under the plea of a technical irregularity, endeavouring to take indemnity for very serious misdoings on the part of his department. He cannot avoid, however specious his arguments may be, that conclusion. Every communication that we have received on that subject has been from owners of clean flocks, who maintain that but for the fact that the Minister compelled them to dip when the law allowed them to be exempted, they would have been in possession of their flocks to-day. The Minister seems to regard this as a very small matter and he, in company with the men who are skilled in sneering, on the other side of the House, makes light of the losses. We had the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) again sneering at “gallant Natal,” because, forsooth, some of the best farmers in the country have lost their flocks, some of these farmers actually being Nationalist in politics. These hon. members are unable to forbear from sneering, although serious losses have taken place and these losses are directly attributable to the monstrous irregularity perpetrated by the Minister. Section 10 under which the Minister purported to act in issuing this order, very clearly lays down that where sheep kept or depastured beyond the limits of any native area have been free from scab for a period of not less than twelve months preceding the time fixed for compulsory dipping, the Minister may, by writing under his hand, exempt such flocks from dipping. It was held by the court that the Minister’s action was technically wrong, that he had acted illegally, and it, therefore, became unnecessary to decide this further point as to whether the Minister had any right whatsoever to take away this power of exemption. That power of exemption was taken away deliberately; and to those who have sought to use their stock argument that it was the previous Government that was guilty of the promulgation of this regulation, and, therefore, by inference, guilty for the misguided action of the Minister, I would say that in the past the returns of the agricultural department show that compulsory dipping was always accompanied by the exercise of this power of exemption, and in fact the annual reports of the Department of Agriculture show the number of exemptions that were granted whenever compulsory dipping was put into force by the late Government. What did the Minister do when he issued this wonderful notice, of his? He said that the dipping was to take place between 15th January, 1925, and 15th February, 1925, in the first place, completely disqualifying himself for the reputation which some of his followers would attach to him of being a practical farmer. He, furthermore, in the midst of unprecedented rains, extended this period, requiring people to dip up to 31st March. I have taken the trouble to get out the rainfall returns for Natal, and I find that the normal rainfall in Natal is always heaviest during the months which the Minister selected for compulsory dipping there—abnormal rains having fallen in January, February and March. He was not satisfied with the way in which things were going during February, because of the rains, and he extended the order to the end of March, during which month we had in Natal over 15 inches of rain. When the Senior Veterinary Officer, Natal, reported that the first dipping had been followed by 10 days continuous rain, and recommended the granting of extension to avoid serious losses, the Minister declined to accept the recommendation, and following the example of the Minister of Justice, who in his now famous circular said no exemption should be granted “except in exceptional circumstances,” he refused to modify the compulsory dipping order, and directed the official to enforce the order “except in exceptional circumstances.” His phrase “except in exceptional circumstances” shows how unworthy it was for him to shelter himself behind the official. When he was given the facts and shown the danger s he was confronted with, he shouldered the thing off on to his unfortunate officials, by saying—

Let us consider what the unfortunate official was to regard as an exceptional case. The general rain throughout the province was to the extent of 15 in, March. Was he able to say there was any heavier rain in one district than in another? The rain was coming down just as in the time of the flood, and he was told to exercise discretion only in exceptional cases. In other words, unless he was able to show that there were exceptional circumstances in an individual case, this merry work must go on. The senior veterinary officer for Natal pointed out that there had been continuous rain for ten days, but despite this the Minister still clung to his sheet anchor of “exceptional cases.” Had the official taken the responsibility of granting exemption in any large number of cases simply on the ground of the heavy rains, the Minister would not have accepted such a reason as an “excentional” one. We know the unfortunate attitude the Minister has taken up in regard to the officials; he has shown a very high handed attitude which is not serving the interests of the country. I speak with a certain warmth on this subject, because I feel strongly in regard to the manner in which my constituents have been treated. You have a class of man who, throughout the history of the Union, have never appealed once to the Government for any consideration, men who have never been on the poor law relief of this country, so to speak; men who are resourceful, who have been able to see every trouble through without running to the Government for doles or help; and today, when they come forward with a reasonable appeal, what does the Minister say? He says, or this House and the Government say, you shall have “won’t go home till morning legislation,” an all-night sitting to force this Bill through. In the elegant words of the Minister of Justice, “we shall shut your mugs.”

The hon. member must not use these words in this House, even in a quotation.

I am only desirous of using language that will not offend the ears of hon. members. I now deal with the result of the Minister’s action. We have had a body of members sitting in that corner this afternoon dividing with laughter and sneers every effort that has been made on this side of the House to indicate the extent of the losses that have fallen upon farmers through the compulsory dipping order. To put it on ordinary grounds, if the Minister had washed his hands of any blame, as he seems to wish to do, and even if we permitted him to do so, there would still remain the circumstance that we had an unprecedented flood in March, and that many sheep have died from the after-effects of dipping. Flood distress relief is a common thing in this House, as also is drought distress relief. What do we find in this case? We see as an indirect result of a flood and a Minister of Agriculture, these terrible losses among farmers. Are we to show no consideration whatsoever? We on this side have constantly been willing to meet the case of men suffering from flood and drought, but to-day we meet with nothing but sneers from that side. Before I go on to the effects, I want to refer to a few remonstrances from people of whose opinion I should like to see more notice taken. From the time of first appointment the Minister seems to have declared war on the Agricultural Union. We have here remonstrances from farmers’ associations and agricultural societies on this subject I should like to read one of them—

This is from the district of Harding, Natal—

That resolution was forwarded to the Minister. A similar resolution was passed by the Ixopo Agricultural Society and other agricultural societies. The main Agricultural Union of Natal passed this resolution—

The point I wish to emphasize is that I am not pleading on behalf of men whose sheep have scab and who wish under the cloak of protests of this sort to gain exemption. Every one of the remonstrances and protests have been from people who firmly desire to eradicate scab, and who have done their utmost to carry out that object. These are the people who have received no consideration. I will read from a letter from the chairman of the Flock Owners’ Committee in the district of Richmond, in order to show the effects of the Minister’s action. He says—

This letter is dated the 14th May—

I was informed by telegram that the veterinary officer, a very able South African from the Orange Free State, who qualified in America, had reported fully on the losses of the Richmond district, and I asked the Minister whether he would consent to lay the report of these losses on the Table of the House. He replied, on Tuesday last, that that would be done as soon as possible, and although I have repeatedly asked the Clerk of the Papers whether I may have access to these reports, and I am aware that these reports were seen by a member of the other place, in the Minister’s office, they have not yet been laid upon the Table. This savours of not altogether playing the game to members who may desire to criticise the Minister upon the reports of his own officers. I have a telegram here on that subject from Mr. Bolton who has been a heavy loser—

And they remain there notwithstanding his promise to lay them on the Table of the House. It would give this committee some further insight into the actual effect of this dipping if I read another letter of a man whose flock has been free of scab for fifteen years—

This letter is dated 10th March—

This has been borne out by reports since sent to us—

These factors were surely present to the mind of the Minister, or we must write him down as an extremely thoughtless and unobservant Minister of the Crown. A man who takes such risks as these and who insists on his instructions prevailing against the advice of his technical officers and the people on the spot, and of the farmers who were going to lose, should have known that he was embarking on an extremely ill-considered and ill-advised course, and should not now ask for indemnity. I have a further telegram from Mr. Roy McKenzie—

Mr. R. B. Gold, in another district, telegraphs—

This man has a very small flock, probably 300. He can ill afford to lose 66 from his flock. All the comfort he will get—all the comfort that I can convey to him—is that as far as every loser was concerned, their claims were simply-laughed out of this House. I have a further telegram from the High Flats Farmers’ Association—

This association is about to send to me details of their losses, but apparently, with the prospect of an all-night sitting before us, they will not have the satisfaction even of knowing that their losses were communicated to this House. I should like to read a telegram which the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) received, showing that there was not only this overbearing attitude on the part of the Minister, but that there seems to have been considerable neglect in replying to special applications for exemption. Mr. Adendorff, on the 16th of April, telegraphs—

This was after Mr. Hancock had appealed to the Supreme Court—

The hon. member for Newcastle was told by the Minister’s department that, where circumstances justified it, exemption would be granted. This was a case in which a farmer applied for exemption; but apparently the rejoinder of the department was a threatened prosecution, and although a fortnight had expired, he was unable to get any reply, and he had again to telegraph to the hon. member for Newcastle. There is one point more with which I wish to deal. The Minister of Lands, when he introduced this Bill, remonstrated with some of us for objecting to leave being granted for the introduction of the Bill; but we evidently knew our Minister of Agriculture rather better than he did himself. With the Bill in his hands, he told us that it would take away no rights which existed under the statute at the present time; and in reply to the hon. member for Newcastle, he stated that it would take away no civil rights whatsoever; but the reverse is the case. This Bill sets out to lay down prescription against any causes of action that have not been concluded by May 12th, and this is going to operate very harshly in respect of such losses as I have indicated here this afternoon. The only losses that are recoverable are those contemplated in the regulations made under the Act that occur within 48 hours of the dipping, and there are a number of conditions that have to be fulfilled before these claims can even be recognized. These losses are limited to 2 per cent. of the number of sheep dipped, or of any one flock at any one dipping, so that the men who suffered these unprecedented losses would be limited to the 2 per cent. laid down under the regulations. They are not allowed to have compensation for more than 2 per cent. There are other conditions; the farmer must report the loss without delay; he must afford the department an opportunity of making a post-mortem examination; and must use an authorized dip. The Minister is embarking on an effort to muzzle a large class of people who have suffered unprecedented loss at his hands, and whose pecuniary loss is directly attributable to the Minister’s own misguided action, and I appeal to him to reconsider his decision. We have no wish to be constantly bringing up grievances; we appeal to the Minister to show consideration to the people who have suffered at his hands, and not to be led away by the almost fulsome adulation of his half-section, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, who, with a beatific look in his eye, said that if anyone deserved well of South Africa, it was the Minister of Agriculture. Any Minister who would, deliberately, proceed on the course which the Minister has taken in regard to compulsory dipping and his present indemnity must forfeit the confidence of the agricultural community. There is not a farmer in South Africa who will not resent the attitude of the Minister in bringing in this Bill at a time when the farmer is just beginning to realize that he should now be “up and doing.” Many farmers are seeking legal advice on the question of their losses, and it is the essence of wrong treatment for the Minister to seek to stifle the farmer, to take a mean advantage of him, and to pass legislation before the farmer has been fully heard and at a time when the farmers’ claims have not had time to reach the Minister. The Minister thinks little damage has been done because he has not been inundated with claims, but the farmers have been endeavouring to ascertain who is exactly to blame for their losses, and they have sought the advice of the veterinary officers, who have behaved in a very praiseworthy manner. In fact, no blame attaches to the executive officers of the department, who have simply obeyed orders, and the blame must be borne solely by the Minister himself. He has preferred to take a course of his own, a course which has been conditioned by stubbornness and want of knowledge and sympathy. Many of us feel that the Minister was ill-advised in dispensing with the services of administrative officers who had long experience of compulsory dipping We remonstrated at the time, but the Minister gave our remonstrances very short shrift. The most we could extract from him was that he had not dispensed with the services of General Enslin and Col. Jordaan because they had been opponents of his in the field. The Minister transferred the control of the department from the able direction of these two gentlemen to the veterinary department, the officers of which, although doubtless able men, had not the same experience in administrative matters as General English and Col. Jordaan. The senior dipping inspectors of each province were also dispensed with. The Minister was rash in dispensing with their services under the circumstances and handing over control to officers who had not the necessary training with sheep.

Did you have any training?

I did not hear distinctly, but if the Minister asks whether I had any claim, I can only say that I speak in an entirely disinterested manner.

Why criticize then?

I prefer not to speak on matters in which I have any pecuniary interest. I leave that to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs who pleads for advertisements for the “Guardian.” May I congratulate the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Bergh) on the keen and intelligent interest which he has maintained throughout this debate. Stretched out as he is he almost resembles one of the casualties of the Minister’s dipping order.

You are enough to send anyone to sleep.

I see the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) has returned to play his role of “mbongi” to the Government. I was beginning to wonder what the Government would do without him, as he must be to them—

He probably remembers the schoolboy’s definition of a falsehood, as—

The hon. member certainly comes under the latter description: as to the first part, I prefer to leave that to higher judgment.

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

I think that if I do not say a few words I shall neglect my duty towards my fellow wool farmers. The time 20 years ago when politicians tried to make party capital out of scab has gone by. We saw that members opposite got up, some of the more responsible members, such as the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) who got up to make political capital out of scab. When the members read the reports of their speeches to-morrow morning they will be ashamed of them. Of that I am certain. I cordially agree with what has been said by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) who is a practical sheep farmer and who has proved that he has the interests of the wool farmers at heart, that we must try to eradicate scab and to improve our sheep.

To kill our sheep by dipping?

That is a very childish interruption. The time for making political capital out of scab is past. The wool farmers to-day all stand by the Minister of Agriculture in his endeavour to eradicate scab. From the time that the Minister came into office I have received letters that say that we must give the Minister a chance and then agriculture will go ahead.

From whom are those letters?

I can show the member the letters. Members opposite are not against compulsory dipping but they are opposed to the time that was fixed. That is the great complaint. The Minister, however, left it to the farmers to fix the time themselves when the compulsory dip should take place. The farmers in; Natal chose their own time. Then heavy rains fell and as a result many sheep died. That occurred, but that is no reason to come and say here that the Minister is following a policy of ruining the farmers. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) said that. I should like to know how many farmers in Cradock will say that it is the Minister’s policy to kill the sheep by dipping. It is an insult not only to the Minister but also to the wool farmers.

I said the actions of the Minister.

The hon. member no longer knows what he said. He is still a little young and has not yet learnt to think before he speaks.

Wait for the meeting.

The hon. member is afraid of the meeting. He has the meeting on his brain.

Where is his brain?

The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has said that I am a school master. I am a teacher to teacher him how to farm with sheep. I have farmed with sheep from my earliest years and I can teach the hon. member a great deal about it. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) has only raised the dust against the Minister to make political capital.

Who is now talking politics?

I am not talking politics. If there are ten days of continuous rain then I wait until the eleventh day or the twelfth day to dip, and then I dip. The position is this. It has rained this year as it has not done for years. In my constituency it rained as it has not done for 80 or 90 years. The Minister of course did not know that that would happen. The consequence of all the rain was that the sheep became sick and very poor. They got blue tongue and thousands of them died from the consequences of that disease. We know that. Now my friends opposite come and tell us that it was not blue tongue. I am convinced of it that the sheep died as the result of that disease but the members say no, the Minister killed the sheep and now he must pay compensation. They are making political capital out of the lasses which the sheep farmers suffered. Is that right? The member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) talks against his better judgment. It is not in the interests of the country. If the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) had known anything about sheep then he would not have spoken as he did. The sheep farmers in Natal understand the position better than he does. When the Minister was informed about matters he said: the sheep that are not scabby and that have already been dipped once need not be dipped for the second time, but the sheep that are scabby must be dipped twice. I would have done the same thing.

Killed them by dipping?

A farmer who understands sheep will not kill them by dipping. All these things are only said to raise the dust. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) has said that he protested against the simultaneous dipping and that it was the intention of the Minister to kill off the sheep. Has the hon. member heard about the congress at Middelburg? Has the member seen what resolutions were passed there? There was a resolution passed in which it was a complaint against the Minister that he had not prescribed compulsory dipping against sheep ticks. I can assure the Minister that we sheep farmers stand by him in his attempts to eradicate scab and they will not allow political capital to be made out of scab. The farmers are opposed that in agricultural matters politics should be introduced and we will not permit it. It has been said that 25 per cent. of the wool of the sheep that were dipped has been lost. It is a surprising statement. My sheep have been free from scab for years but after the last shearing about two months subsequently I dipped them and I am only sorry that I did not do it twice. My experience is that dipping makes the skin of the sheep very nice and soft and clean, and that it makes the wool grow very nicely. The statements of members opposite in this connection are wrong and they must know that if dipping does not take place the sheep will not only lose 25 per cent. of their wool but 75 per cent. as a consequence of scab.

Do you dip with five months’ growth?

Oh yes, it will do no harm to the wool. The member knows that quite well, if he is actually a sheep farmer. Or is he possibly not a sheep farmer?

He is the son of a sheep farmer.

Oh, is he a sheep farmer’s son? Attempts have been made to twist the words of the Prime Minister. It is alleged that he said that the farmers would send him wrong claims. But he did not say that. He said that if claims are permitted to some farmers, there would be occasion for declaring that ail the losses they suffered were the result of the dipping. I admit that that will be said. I also foresee that the members opposite will now stir up the farmers to file claims. If that happens then all the farmers will do it, and we shall have to pay, and the party opposite which is threatening to break up will have another stick to beat us with. I can assure the Minister that all the sheep farmers stand by him, and I want to add that if in any district scab still occurs, then it is the fault of the inspector. In a district where scab now occurs the inspector should be dismissed and a better man appointed in his place.

I should like to point out with reference to the remark made by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) that his memory was not quite good at the moment when he denied what was said by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) about certain contentions of taxing the sheep farmers. When the hon. member was a Minister he drafted a Bill not only to punish the farmers who had scab by a fine inflicted by a magistrate, but also to make them pay a further £2 per head extra for every scabby sheep. It was also the intention to recover the cost of fighting the scab from the sheep farmers. The hon. Minister of Agriculture said a little while ago that he would never have recourse to that. In other words, he will never make the sheep farmers pay for the eradication of scab unless the farmers are unwilling to eradicate the disease, which we, however, cannot assume after the speeches from the other side of the House. As regards the agricultural journal of 1921, and what was adopted by the then Minister of Agriculture (Sir Thomas Smartt), as his policy was a proposal which came from the agricultural union. The proposal was confirmed by the advisory board of the Agricultural Union, and was as follows—

And then the following remark occurs—

Then thus a direct tax would be imposed to cover the extermination of scab. Consequently the following idea was developed—

I think that direct proof was given hereby that if there could ever be a question of a direct tax on the sheep farmers for the eradication of scab, then it was this scheme of the former Government, while the present Government, through the hon. Minister of Agriculture, has expressly stated that the sheep farmers would not be directly taxed but that they will be expected to do their best in their own interests and in the interests of the country to eradicate the disease. Nor do I doubt that the whole House and the whole country, with the exception of a few hon. members opposite, will stand behind the Minister.

I just want to make a trivial observation, and it is that if we are going to commence with a system of compensation we do not know where it will end. All sorts of causes for the death of sheep will then come into the background and everything will be ascribed to dipping. In 1921 I lost 800 out of 1,200 sheep from blue tongue, and if there had been dipping at that time, it might also possibly have been ascribed to the dipping. There will be no end to the claims for damages. And as to the time for dipping, the one will want this month and another the next, and we shall never be able to carry out simultaneous dipping, and yet progressive farmers are certainly in favour of simultaneous dipping and they will, moreover, not complain about small losses that are suffered. We must try to get rid of scab, and if the proper means are used and properly applied, then the losses will be limited to a minimum.

I did not mean to intervene in this debate, but I think hon. members opposite have completely missed the whole gravamen of the charge. The Cape, Eastern and Midland farmers have, for the last 25 years, been anxious to clean the country of scab. Various schemes have been suggested, and I was one of the protagonists of simultaneous compulsory dipping, but there is a great difference between applying stringent regulations in a reasonable manner, and the way in which simultaneous dipping was carried out recently in Natal under the direction of the Minister of Agriculture. We, on this side of the House, are completely in favour of drastic measures, but let them be applied in the right way and at the right time. The right time is when climatic conditions are suitable and the sheep have sufficient wool to cover them, but not so much that harm will be done both to sheep and wool if the dipping takes place at the wrong time. There were the very strongest recommendations from the Minister’s own officials, not to proceed with the dipping in Natal at the time that dipping was carried out. When the present Ministry was formed the Minister of Agriculture said the country was not going to be ruled by officials any longer, out the Ministers, themselves, would govern it in the way they thought fit. The telegrams that have been read have given us sufficient proof that this is exactly what the Minister is doing. I believe every farmer now in this House is in favour of eradicating scab by drastic means reasonably applied, but hon. members opposite vehemently oppose strong measures when in opposition. The agricultural conference, for years past, have demanded strong measures to eradicate scab. I am in favour of making a man who is a scabbreeder, pay for the privilege, and also of punishing a speculator who buys scabby sheep on the off chance of being able to get rid of the sheep before the scab is discovered. I would send to prison people like the trek farmer who, finding that he had scab amongst his sheep, put some of the infected sheep over my fence to mix with my flocks. The fines imposed on men who persistently farm scabby sheep are so light that they can afford to pay them and continue to be a menace to other farmers. There are, however, many ways in which the scab law may be stiffened up with advantage. If properly carried out, fining and dipping would clear the country of scab within five years. But the way to do it is not to take a large area of the country with varying conditions of climate and geography, and say for that vast area, that simultaneous dipping shall take place on a fixed date. If the country were divided into suitable blocks, and you concentrated your forces thereon in turn, and refused to allow any sheep into a block until the scab is cleared, you will gradually push it away. What, principally, emerges from this debate, is the sinister effect for the farmers of the country of a Minister of Agriculture who is adamant, who will not take advice, and who has behind him a following that will say ditto to anything he says; a well-schooled following, purporting to represent the farmers, who get up and make outrageous statements with the deliberate intention of trying to make the argument for this side sound like opposition to simultaneous dipping. There is not one man occupying a seat on this side who is against simultaneous dipping for the eradication of scab, but we propose to fight this measure and any other measure introduced to act as an excuse or a shield for a man who rejected sound and reasonable advice and is as obstinate and arrogant as the Minister and carries his portfolio in the manner it is carried by the Minister of Agriculture. We intend to oppose it in no uncertain voice. It is the intention of the opposite side to let it get out in the country that we, as a party, are opposed to the eradication of scab. We are not, and never have been, but we are out to see that the Government is carried on with a minimum of friction and discontent. I wish you to get well into your heads that we are not going to sit here, servilely saying “ditto” to things which are not for the good of this country. I am speaking not as a Natal farmer but as a Cape farmer and a sheep farmer. The farmers of South Africa are, on the whole, a law-abiding lot of men, they wish to be a progressive body of men. Much of the opposition to scab laws in the past has been offered through ignorance and want of knowledge. Most of us want progressive measures. I told your Minister the other day in this House that now was the time to get progressive measures through, because he knows he will have our support and will not have the opposition that we had from the members of the present Government party.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

When the House adjourned, I was saying, in answer to the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden), that I was sure that in the past in the early history of scab eradication much of the opposition to the scab laws of the day was due to ignorance, and I thought that ignorance was being dispelled gradually, and that the farmers would on the whole support the administration much better than they did at that time. As proof of that, I would say that the other day I saw one of the veterinary officers who are at present in control of the administration of scab regulations, and he told me that he had a certain amount of opposition from a few farmers until he explained and proved to them that he was scientifically right in the action he was taking, since which time he had had no trouble from these people. I do not for one minute wish to insinuate or say that the veterinary officers in charge of the administration now are incapable of their work. Theoretically, I believe that the veterinary officers are the right people to have control of the administration of the Stock Diseases Acts, but we do find fault with the breaking up of the sheep division which was doing such excellent work for the country, and which has done such good work for the wool industry, that we are in such a splendid position to-day in regard to wool production in this country, both as regards quality and quantity. I think it would be quite possible to use that division for the administration of this law as was done before. On the other side of the House much has been made of the contention that the Natal members have been fighting this Bill on a technicality, that it is purely a technicality. The charge has nothing to do with a technicality. We are prepared to admit that a legal mistake was made in issuing the proclamation and that it was a mistake made bona fide, but we do say that the arrogance, if I might be allowed to use the word, displayed by the Minister in the discharge of his duties as Minister of Agriculture, his refusal to take advice to repeal his orders, his egotistical attitude in regard to his office—that, I think, is the real objection. It is not the technicality of the breach or the failure to have the thing done within the four corners of the law so much as the manner in which the dipping was done; to put it quite shortly, it is not the matter that we object to, but the method. The matter is one in which every progressive farmer in this country is at heart with the Administration in trying to get right, but we do say that there are methods of putting into practice the regulations and the laws which would have avoided all this trouble and, instead of creating a feeling of unrest and suspicion against the Agricultural Department, to-day the Minister would have had the cooperation and goodwill of the farmers with him. The Minister made much, and so did his supporters, of the fact that in the telegrams which have been read he stated in his reply to his advisers, that in “exceptional cases” they might slacken the regulations.

What did you want to do?

I say they miss the point every time. Why the whole position in that whole area was “exceptional.” It was impossible to pick out cases which you could exempt as being exceptional. The whole condition at the time was one when it was inadvisable to force these regulations under the excuse of this Act. You could not pick out at the moment any cases which were “exceptional” in the area concerned. So far it might appear that all the protests come from Natal. I want to make it clear that the farmers of the Cape Province join in this protest with regard to the method that the Minister has adopted in the execution of his duty. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) spoke on behalf of the farmers of the Midlands and he spoke, I think, reasonably, and made out a very good case. He was jeered at from the opposite side on account of his youth and various other things. This House consists of representatives of the people whatever their ages may be, and if a man happens to be a little bit younger than members on the other side that is not to his discredit, but rather to his credit. I wish to make it perfectly clear once more that it is not to the fact of compulsory dipping being enforced where necessary that we object, but we protect that it is ridiculous to apply simultaneous dipping over a vast area where the conditions differ so much and in all cases, even should they not require to have the law applied to them with such severity.

The hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Struben) might have dealt with the Minister and the subject rather more gently than he has done, and, following the debate closely, one is led to suspect that a large portion of the object that the Opposition have in view is the baiting of the Minister and venting their spleen upon him. We know how certain elements in this country have concentrated upon baiting the present Minister of Agriculture. We had experience of it last year. Of course, the hon. Minister undoubtedly adopted a drastic course. He is now proposing, I understand, to clean the sheep, not clean them out, as some hon. members have tried to say he was, and ask us to believe. It is indicative of the extraordinary political somersault South Africa has performed the last year or two, that we find the present Opposition, which was at one time the Government, bitterly opposing indemnity for the Government. There is a vast difference between the circumstances of the two cases. One cannot help thinking, on hearing members on this side fulminating against this matter, of what transpired on other occasions. It may be because, on this side, on former occasions it was only human life that was involved; the Government then were only killing human beings. Now they are thundering forth their objection to the ministerial action because it happens by certain regulations to have killed some sheep. Doubtless some of the hon. members down there, representing Natal, think more of the lives of sheep than of human life. On all sides of the House it is agreed that dipping is necessary, and that compulsory dipping is necessary. The hon. members down there representing the farmers of Natal have admitted that unless, in a large number of cases, they are compelled to dip sheep they will not do it. What I want to know is why are they objecting to compulsory dipping.

We are not.

You are not? That is what I want to get at.

Not as such.

That is the position I want to establish. Then let us agree that compulsory dipping is necessary. What I understand is that they object to simultaneous compulsory dipping.

No.,

You do not object to that either? Then I have mis-heard the hon. gentleman and his friends. I understood they considered that simultaneous compulsory dipping all over the Union was inadvisable.

Certainly; all over the Union at one time.

Exactly, and I am inclined to agree with the hon,. gentleman; but it must be admitted that drastic measures are required. We have the experience of Australia to guide us in this matter, and we should be fools if we did not profit by our experience,. So it is agreed on all hands that dipping is necessary, that however drastic the remedy may be it was required. Dipping has been proved successful. This being so, what are we to understand from the way these hon. members are attacking the Minister? Only that they see in this Bill an opportunity of venting their spleen upon the hon. gentleman. Having said that, I do not want to express a certain uneasiness of mind. There is something to be said for what hon. gentlemen have been asking this evening. I remember when the Stock Act was brought before this House as a Bill, I, and the party to which I belonged, a small one at that time, agreed that the whole question was one of compensation. It was admitted that we had to take such drastic measures that probably a large number of stock would be destroyed in the process. It was incorporated in the Act that there should be compensation, but the whole question was upon the amount of such compensation. If the Government would be prepared to meet the hon. members who have been speaking yesterday and to-day by giving compensation, their grounds for opposing indemnity would, I think, disappear. I want to ask hon. members if that is so. Would they then be prepared to withdraw their opposition to indemnity?

Yes, certainly.

I am glad to hear it. There is no question that compensation must be granted. The Minister acted in all good faith, but owing to an extraordinary concatenation of circumstances, a large number of sheep were destroyed. I am going to appeal to the Minister. We have no right to expect Natal, owing to the peculiar circumstances in which they found themselves in carrying out the regulation, to bear the whole brunt of the losses in connection with this. I am not going to admit that your sheep in Natal have been entirely clean. I have heard no complaint yet that the first dipping killed all these sheep, but that is not the point; it is very evident that Natal farmers are almost equally progressive with my hon. friends over there in the matter of cleaning their sheep. It is only fair for us to examine it from a national point of view. We have no right to ask the Natal farmers to bear the whole cost of what I am afraid has proved a rather disastrous experiment. The sheep have been killed; there is no doubt about that.

Who killed Cock Robin?

It has been suggested that possibly wire-worm had something to do with it, and the other things which affect sheep in this country. I think all that can be met by a proposal which I am going to put before the Minister. I want to establish, first of all, that Natal farmers should not be asked to bear the whole brunt. The scale of compensation laid down by the Stock Act is totally inadequate; I said so in 1911, and I say so to-day. When you consider that you have a maximum limit of £10 for big stock, it is absurd. I am assured by one hon. member that one of his correspondents—I think, Mr. Winter—was able last year, to get £25 a head for his ram-lambs. These animals are certainly worth something; they must be really good stock, and as the result of our efforts to cleanse the country of scab, we are getting valuable animals now. I am going to appeal to the Minister to appoint a commission to go down there to enquire into the whole of the circumstances. Claims would have to be made to that commission, and when you have established a just claim on the part of any one or all of the sheep farmers in Natal for so and so compensation, then for heaven’s sake let us foot the bill and play the game by these people! I feel very uneasy about asking Natal to meet the whole cost of their losses. The Minister was not responsible for the excessive rain, though you have tried to make him so. We must realize that as a fair position. He wanted to clean the sheep; you wanted them cleansed; but unfortunately a great many were killed. It is our business to pay for it.

It is with some diffidence that I follow the hon. member who has just preceded me. I thank him for his sensible words, and I hope he will sustain that attitude when it comes to voting on the proper side I find myself in rather a difficult position in facing this question. I must say I appreciate very much indeed the complete conversion which has taken place on the part of hon. members on the other side of the House. A few years ago we could not get them to budge. They were declaring that scab was a dispensation of providence and it was ungodly to try and stamp it out. To-day we find—and I welcome it—a complete conversion of that opinion. We find now that these people are the implacable, unrelenting and uncompromising enemies of scab. They say scab is to disappear, and it must disappear at all costs. That reminds me of a horse which, no matter how much you leather him, will not move for some time; but at last he gets the bit into his mouth and bolts, and that is like the party on the other side. They now have the bit in their mouths and that is where the danger lies. This Bill contains two outstanding features. One is that the Government, in order to cover itself for a certain illegal action which it took, is asking Parliament to indemnify it. If those men in Natal have been unjustly treated, and have a claim against the Government—and I think that claim has been fairly strongly substantiated—I think they are entitled to consideration, and I think the Minister feels they are entitled to compensation or consideration, and that is the reason for protecting himself by this indemnity measure in the Bill. That is unfair and unsound, and there I agree with the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). That was the one wise thing he said. In regard to the other part of the Bill, the Minister is taking to himself under this Bill, the right to legislate by order. If that is agreed to, he becomes an absolute autocrat and has a complete say in the administration of the Scab Act in this country.

His predecessors had.

Yes, I admit that. I am prepared to say that the old Act was a very strong one indeed—a very dangerous weapon for any unskilled, inexperienced man; but previous administrations have realized that it is essential to have a strong Act and that we must allow a great deal of discretionary powers to the Minister and his officers in the administration of that Act. I am not trying to deny to the Minister of Agriculture the wisdom of having all this power placed in his hands. I agree with that; provided other conditions are brought into conformity with it; but that is just what has not been done. In this country, we have a great variety of conditions. What applies to one district does not apply to another, and it is essential that we should have, on the spot, men of experience who have administrative ability to carry out the provisions of that Act. That it seems to me has been wanting in recent administration. I remember, just a year ago, when I was discussing this thing, it was told us by the Minister of Agriculture that, in order to effect economy, he was going to have this important branch put into the hands of the veterinary department. He proposed to take out the whole-time officers and have part-time men. I said it was a serious blunder they were contemplating. I have every respect for the veterinary department; but they are specialists, and being so, that brands them as being disqualified for the greater duty of administering the Act. We want administrative ability; we want men who will get the best out of the farmers; men with a knowledge of the country and not simply experts or with an expert knowledge of diseases of sheep. I think that is a reply to the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Fourie). The Prime Minister, the other night, told us the Government of the day acted in conformity with the Act, and that the results that had transpired in Natal were incidental, or, at any rate, that the Government were not responsible for them. Assuming that the Minister did act within the provisions of the law—the Supreme Court says he has not—then we are faced with this fact: that owing to the incompetency of the officers on the spot, or somewhere, a bungle was made. That cannot be denied. Many members on the other side, especially the hon. member fo Albert (Mr. Steytler), at the first reading of this Bill, said he was very sceptical as to certain of the claims put forward by hon. members on this side of the House; that sheep had been killed, wholesale, from the effect of dipping, and he challenged certain members, who are sheep farmers, to substantiate that, I would like to tell the House that a neighbour of mine lost 300 sheep in consequence of a dipping. If one takes the trouble to read the instructions on the packets of Cooper’s dip, they are full of cautions against dipping in inclement weather, and say what is likely to result if such is done. Although it was summer time, the sheep I have referred to were overtaken by very heavy rain. The farmer was one of our most progressive farmers. About two years ago, down in Maclear, sheep were similarly dipped; in November. They were hamels in excellent condition—sheep with which I was connected—and 38 died very shortly after the dipping, also in consequence of rain, and a further 70 were so lame that they could not go with the rest of the flock to England. There is another point I would like to emphasize. There are two kinds of danger which we have to meet. I think most farmers would agree to simultaneous dipping, provided it was undertaken under strict supervision; but we have to bear in mind that, at the present time, the country is approaching a state in which it will be practically clean. Only a few flocks, here and there, are infected, and I think by far the more sensible course to adopt would be to concentrate on these areas which are diseased. It will take a tremendous number of inspectors properly to carry out simultaneous dipping throughout the Union, and we have not the staff. There is also the danger of infection from neighbouring states. From the evidence given before the Select Committee two years ago, it was evident that Basutoland had a larg percentage of infected sheep. The committee recommended that a strong fence should be erected along the borders of Basutoland. I understood from the Minister, the other day, that Basutoland was already taking stringent measures to cleanse itself of scab; hut yesterday, when I asked him whether he could inform me whether dips had been erected along the Barkly East-Basutoland border—he could not tell me. He said he was not aware of it. If evidence was given two years ago that 75 per cent. of the sheep in Basutoland were infected by scab and two years later machinery is not in existence to deal with it, is it likely that Basutoland has ceased to be a menace to the farmers in the Barkly East district? I hope the Minister will pay due attention to these points. It is the duty of the Minister not only to see that the Union is clean, but that the farmers of the Union are not exposed to the constant danger of reinfection from the other side. Speaking for my own district, I say that very few farmers in this House realize the conditions in other parts of the country. It is a very hopeless thing to try to clean sheep in the Barkly East district in the winter months when the snow is on the ground and the water is frozen, and the farmer, who is compelled to dip for scab, is to be pitied. The only way to prevent that is to see that the farmer does not carry scab into the winter, and having done that, it is the duty of the Government to see that he is not infected from immediately across the border. The Basutoland authorities are perfectly willing to do their part.

I am afraid the hon. member is rather wandering from the subject-matter of the Bill.

I am just referring to the danger of the introduction of scab from outside the Union. The Basutoland Government is prepared to join us in erecting a barrier against the introduction of scab.

I represent a constituency which is not directly concerned in the damage which has been suffered by the farmers in Natal and in the Transvaal. But I represent a constituency which has a large number of sheep and where there are first-class sheep farmers who attach great importance to sheep farming and who have made amazing progress recently with regard to wool and sheep farming in general. Although my constituency is not directly concerned in the troubles that have been mentioned here, I wish to say that as the representative of Caledon that on behalf of the farmers there I convey my deep sympathy to the farmers in the Transvaal and Natal in connection with the great damage that they have suffered, I agree with the hon. Prime Minister that from a purely legal point of view we have here to do merely with a technical matter.

Oh, so.

Let us admit it. Before the court laid down the law and declared that the regulations were ultra vires these powers were given to the Government by regulations. Now the Government comes and asks Parliament to incorporate in the body of the Act the powers which it previously exercised under the regulations, and to give the same powers to the Government as a portion of the Act. But if we do this then we have a full right to say to the Government that before we give it these powers which he asks for, and which the court said it does not possess, we wish to first investigate how the Government conducted itself under the regulations. Before we give the same powers to the Government in the body of the Act we can first of all discuss fully how the regulations were administered, and it is our opinion that the administration was bad. We must say that we shall only give the powers to the Government on certain conditions, namely, on condition that the damage which was caused to the farmers by maladministration under the regulations must be taken into account. It is surprising to me that my hon. friend opposite now so loyally supports the acts of the Minister. When they sat here they said that they were the people who would look after the right of the farmer. They said we are the people who respect the innermost wishes of the farmer; we are a democratic party, we look after the interests of all classes, what do we find to-day? The party that then Said that they stood for the rights of the farmers, what do they do to-day? When we get up here to-day and plead about the grievances of the farmers then we are accused of pure party politics. I speak for myself and also for the party sitting here when I say that if it is called party politics to get up here and make known the legitimate grievances of the people, we shall go on making ourselves guilty of it. I should like to have seen what the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) would have done if he had still been sitting here to-day and if the S.A.P. had got into a similar position under the scab regulations. I should also like to know what the Minister of Agriculture would have said and what their opinion would have been about such a Government. Because it is our stern duty to stand up for the rights of an important portion of the people we are told that we are busy making party capital. The hon. Minister of Agriculture has thought fit to act drastically with reference to the carrying out of the regulations. The Minister acted drastically and he has said that it was necessary to do so. What has happened? When it commenced to rain, responsible deputations from all sections of the farming population, from all parties, went to the Minister and pointed out that it was very dangerous for him to persevere in putting through simultaneous dipping. Were those people enemies of the Scab Act? No, they were all supporters of it. They were all people who were anxious to carry out the Scab Act in the strongest way and not to work against it. The hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) was also a member of one of the deputations, and a short resumé of the speech which he made last night is that he said to the Minister of Agriculture: You have done this now, but you must not do it again. Not only was the Minister approached by the farming population of all parties, but at the commencement of the session the Minister was warned here in the House in a serious way that if he did not take into consideration the feelings of the sheep farmers the administration of the regulations would be shipwrecked and that great damage would be caused to sheep farming.

Who did that?

The sheep farmers. I am also a sheep farmer and I represent a constituency with between 200,000 and 300,000 sheep. The Minister has in an unique manner indicated that he did not intend to respect the feelings of the sheep farmers, first-class farmers. I say deliberately that he decided in an autocratic and militaristic manner to maintain his order irrespective of the wishes of the farmers.

But they gave him the discretion?

Discretion! The farmers asked him. The farmers who had been more than 12 months without scab asked to be exempted from dipping. Did he listen to that?

Yes.

No, I speak of Natal and the Transvaal. Why is the Cape Province excluded? If it was good for the Transvaal and Natal why was it not also carried out in the Cape Province? There was a rumour that this would also be carried out in Caledon. Farmers of the Nationalist party as well of the South African party then came to me and said that if the Minister was going to apply it to Caledon at that time of the year we should take up a strong attitude and show the Minister that we would not do it. Now it is represented that the party over there is the democratic “Pact” party; that they consider the feelings of every class. Is there any sign of democratic administration in the conduct of the Minister in connection with the carrying out of the old regulations under the Act? His object was to eradicate scab, but what has he done? He has exterminated the sheep. If he had listened to the fair and just requests of practical farmers then he would not have been in this difficulty to-day.

No he is not in difficulty.

Yes, because he has a majority behind him. But outside the House there is the public. The Prime Minister has always talked about the people outside. There are people outside. When I had the honour of sitting where you now sit Mr. Speaker, I heard much about the people outside. We can also speak about it now. The Minister will find that there is a strong feeling about the administration of these regulations. In my opinion the discussion of this Bill to-day and yesterday is quite justified. It is the only way Parliament has of exercising influence over a Minister if it is not satisfied with his conduct. All this talk about party politics will not frighten us from doing our duty. What we have said is in our opinion in the true interests of the farming population.

I want to make a few remarks as representing a district of the Cape Province where there is probably the largest number of sheep in the province. I want to express the sympathy of this district with the Natal farmers who have suffered such deplorable results from the action of the Minister of Agriculture. We realize the carrying out of this drastic action has produced results that cannot be covered by money values. They have not only lost their sheep, but also the work of years. I hope the Minister, realizing the mistake he has made in enforcing this order in Natal will meet the Natal farmers and give them the compensation they deserve. With regard to the simultaneous dipping, I hope he will realize in future, after what has occurred in Natal, that he should if possible restrict it to sheep that are either infected or have been infected during the last twelve months. I feel that this dipping of all sheep is absolutely unnecessary, it is a waste of money and of farmers’ energy, and it is futile when you realize the conditions we are working under in this country. The difficulty, when compulsory dipping is ordered, is that 90 per cent. of the sheep are clean and only five or six per cent. are affected with scab. I hope the Minister will consider that point very seriously. He is a man of military experience, and he knows that in carrying out a campaign his first object is to find out the enemy and then destroy him. This campaign against scab wants to be carried out under the same principles. Leave the clean sheep alone and go for the man with the infected farms. The Minister knows in those districts where there are infected flocks you will find as many as five, six or ten farms year after year which are never clean. Speaking for my own district there are certain farms that will be clean perhaps for twelve months, but if you look through the returns for the last fifteen years you will find these particular farms are never properly cleansed, and that they are a source of infection for the whole Union. I appeal to the Minister to realize that he must go for the farmer who breeds scab, and give him no rest until his farm is clean. I hope he will see he has made a mistake by his action in Natal, that he will accept the amendment, and will see that these people have adequate compensation for the loss they have suffered through his drastic and unncessary campaign in the dipping of sheep.

Many of the speeches made across there contained jeers at this side to the effect that we were opposing indemnity. That is absolutely unsound criticism. After the occurrences at Johannesburg in 1922, the late Government certainly asked for indemnity, but they appointed a commission to go into the affair and compensate those who suffered through any action which was not their own fault. We are quite willing to give you the indemnity you ask for, but we want compensation to be paid to those people who suffered through no fault of their own. We have had charges thrown out that we are trying to breed scab. That is untrue, and hon. members over there know that we are just as keen to see the country clear of scab as they are. They queried our statement that the losses were due to dipping, and they have taken up the attitude that the losses were mainly due to wire worm and blue tongue. Every member who is a sheep farmer knows that nothing knocks the sheep about so much as dipping under unfavourable conditions. It gives every opportunity for blue tongue and wire worm to do its work. If they had not been dipped the natural conditions would have enabled them to overcome wire worm. You have consistently blamed our Party because you said you were carrying out regulations imposed by this side while in power. The very essence of our regulations was that we gave the sheep inspectors discretion to grant exemption when it was necessary, and it is the overriding of that regulation which has caused the whole of the trouble today. We have had a good deal of criticism and very little sympathy from that side of the House for the severe losses suffered by these farmers. This is due entirely to a lack of knowledge and a lack of sympathy on the part of those who enforce this compulsory dipping. We are not against the eradication of scab in any shape or form. Let me tell you a story of Millais, the great painter, who was once asked how he got his wonderful colours, and he said that it was because his paint was mixed with a little brains. We want the policy of the Minister of Agriculture in the same way to be mixed with a little brains. Although there have been many attacks made in the speeches we have heard there has been little support for the action of the Minister in the way he administered the Act. Not many of the members opposite have supported the dipping which was ordered at the wrong time of the year. We welcome any method to keep down scab, but we want it enforced at the proper time of the year. Sheep should be dipped one month off shears, and most progressive sheep farmers do this. If the compulsory dipping has to be done generally through the country, let it be done in conjunction with the farmers, and one month after shearing, and not when the sheep are carrying four or five months’ wool, and not at a time of the season when every sensible man knows you can expect very heavy rainfall. The Minister prides himself on being a strong man. Every action of his proclaims to this House that fact. He has told us so in the House. The very hall mark of a strong man is one able to admit a mistake, and admitting it to do his best to rectify that mistake. He has made a mistake, and the fact that he comes to the House asking for indemnity for the action he has taken proves that he made a mistake, and these wires from his own advisers which he laid on the Table conclusively showed a mistake had been made. They pleaded with him to stop the compulsory dipping, and he refused. If he had acknowledged the mistake sooner these unfortunate happenings would not have occurred. There is one thing that will go a long way towards eradicating scab, and that is the absolute confidence of the farmers, but actions like this are bound to destroy that confidence. It must destroy confidence when the farmers realize that after an unfortunate action the Government shelters behind an Act of Indemnity, and realizing it, this co-operation between farmers and the Agricultural Department is going to be destroyed, and you will make the eradication of the disease one of the hardest things in the country. I ask the Government to accept the consequences of the action. We admit that the bad weather had something to do with it, but he must realize that the sheep farmers themselves had nothing to do with the matter. They obey instructions and have suffered damage. If the Government is a friend of the farmers and is considering the farming interests, let them come forward in a manly way and say that it is unfortunate this has happened, but we will do our best to see that the farmers have not to bear the burden of it.

After the hollowness of the speeches to which we have listened I do not think it is necessary for me to deal at length with the matter. When one hears hon. members opposite speak one would think that this is the first time that such a thing as simultaneous dipping took place and that this was the first time that damage had been suffered, and that the measure taken by me was something entirely new and that the regulations under which I acted were drafted by the Nationalist Government. An attempt is being made to do harm to the Nationalist party in this way. The party which once was very highly respected, which had all the say, cannot bear it that they are now no longer at the helm and that the people who always opposed them now have a certain amount to say. Therefore they must strive to do that Nationalist party as much harm as possible and to create want of confidence in the party as if the Nationalist party was no longer the friend of the farmer. I should just like to quote something from the report of the head officer of the agricultural department during the former regime. He writes, in his report for 1923—

Now, this is the report of the head of the sheep division who carried out simultaneous dipping under the Government of the hon. members who now so severely criticize the simultaneous dipping. Hon. members say that I will not listen to advice. To whose advice? Ought I to have listened to the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts)? I think that his advice to the Union has always been unfortunate advice. “Let things develop,” was always the advice that he gave. Not only South Africa but also other countries regret that they ever followed his advice, therefore, it cannot be expected of me to follow his advice. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) himself let the cat out of the bag yesterday by saying that when I came into office I abolished the sheep division, and that bad administration is the cause of an increase in scab.

What people are now at the head of affairs?

The hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) always puts his nose into things that he knows nothing about. He knows just about as much of administration as a crow does about religion. But the whole thing is that the sheep division was political machinery. It was used by the South African party and the hon. members opposite now feel sorry for the people who served them so faithfully. Further, hon. members have said that I did away with scab inspectors. I did away with scab inspectors who did not do their duty, and I issued a circular in which I gave notice that if scab broke out again in districts where dipping had taken place and the inspector could not give a good reason why scab had again occurred that such an inspector would then be discharged. But what did the former Government do with people that did not do their duty? I will just mention noe instance which is very striking. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) sits so very quiet. He has not spoken because he knows that hon. members opposite are on a false scent and he is clever enough to know when to remain quiet.

I absolutely sat quiet because I was sorry for you in the position that you are placed in. That is the gratitude I get from you for it. You have been so trounced during the last two days that I was sorry for you.

The hon. member need not feel sorry for me because he does not mean that in any event. He has no love for me and I will not spare him. Just let me show how the hon. former Minister carried out the scab policy. This is the case of the discharge of Sheep Inspector J. S. Ferreira, of Uitenhage. In November, 1923, test inspections were made in the area of Inspector Ferreira by Senior Currie. He found infected flock and he also found that Inspector Ferreira had neglected his duty as sheep inspector in not visiting some of the farms for three years, and in some cases he never visited certain farms. Magistrate Jansen also called the attention of the department to the unsatisfactory work of Inspector Ferreira, and asked that he should be transferred to a different area. The explanation of Ferreira, as to why he had not visited the farms, was regarded as unsatisfactory. He was severely reprimanded by the head of the sheep division for his neglect and it was then decided to transfer him to another district. But on the 12th January, 1924, a certain Mr. J. A. Marais wrote to Sir Thomas Smartt, the then Minister of Agriculture, as follows—

Consequently on 8th February, 1924, a telegram was sent from the Agricultural Department, Cape Town, to Merino (sheep division), Pretoria, to the effect if no steps had been taken as yet to stop the transfer of Ferreira. Hon. members opposite now desire that the Nationalist Government should carry on the policy in connection with scab just as disastrously and play with the matter at the expense of a quarter of a million pounds each year. The Nationalist Government say: “No, we will not go on in that way; we must get rid of scab.”

The sheep are being exterminated.

Where does the hon. member for Bethal come by all this nonsense? He has spoken here this afternoon and could not give one proper proof of death in consequence of dipping. He talks of four rams that died. I will only say this, that it must be a very unfortunate farmer who allows his rams to die in consequence of dipping. There are certain other reasons, and negligence on the part of the farmer. I am sorry for that class of farmer. Natal—the land of milk and honey—which has a regular rainfall and never a long drought—never, according to those hon. members, loses sheep! The sheep there according to hon. members only die as a result of simultaneous dipping. Well, I will just give a few figures for the last few years to prove that sheep in Natal also die without dipping. We find in the agricultural census that in the year ended 30th April, 1921, in Natal 189,521 sheep and goats died. In 1922, 204,223, and in 1923, 268,000. Now I just want to tell hon. members that the number of sheep in Natal is only 1,200,000. In all those years there was no simultaneous dipping and yet so many sheep died. No, the arguments of the hon. members will not hold water. The public do not believe them any longer. Some of the hon. members accuse me of not consulting the sheep farmers. What is the point of view of the agricultural union in the four provinces of which the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) thinks so much. I called their executive committee together, and they were unanimously of opinion that scab should be eradicated. The representatives of the agricultural union of the Transvaal told me that they would support with heart and soul the measures that I submitted to them. And what do we get here to-day? Vague statements about sheep that have died. I am sorry I cannot bring them to life again. A little while ago a statement was also made by one of the hon. members for Natal that a large number of sheep had died in consequence of dipping. The veterinary surgeon in Natal investigated the matter, and it appears that the sheep, died from wire worm, and that the largest portion had already died before the dipping took place. Last week I heard of a typical case on the boundary of Lichtenburg and Bloemhof. There a Nationalist farmer is living next to a South African party farmer. The Nationalist farmer declared that he lost a number of sheep, but he added it was perhaps my own fault, because I sprayed too late, and then the simultaneous dip came and a few died. The South African party farmer also lost a few sheep, but he put the whole blame on the simultaneous dipping. It is the agitation of hon. members opposite. They are trying to stir up the farmers against the Government. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) came with quite a number of telegrams. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) spoke the other day about the kindergarten, but it seems to me that in this case the word suckling is appropriate. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden), talked of the terrible losses in consequence of the simultaneous dipping, and he made a point of it that in my telegram in answer to requests that I received I said to the inspectors that they should use their discretion where sheep were very weak. Does he wish then that I, seeing a large number of the people had already dipped, should stop the further dipping and thereby allow scab to continue its ravages? The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) has shown us this afternoon that he doesn’t even know what is going on in his own constituency. He says that the people there are opposed to simultaneous dipping.

Oh, no, but I am opposed to your kind of simultaneous dipping.

What kind is his then? His simultaneous dipping is: farm with scab. There was a conference in his district of the best sheep farmers, also from the Transvaal, Natal and the Free State in his district. The farmers were dissatisfied because we had not gone far enough, and they wanted us to proclaim simultaneous dipping against keds. Those sort of futile arguments of the hon. member that he uses do not represent the opinion of the people in his district. The best sheep farmers are in favour of simultaneous dipping throughout the whole Union. I told them that it was impossible with the staff of officials at my disposal, and who had to go from one end of the country to the other to get the dipping simultaneous throughout the whole Union. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) further said that I behaved unmercifully towards the sheep farmers. The sheep farmers from Calvinia and Namaqualand I had to allow to trek with their sheep in the drought to where grazing was obtainable. Does he say that I should not have allowed the sheep to trek? No, the whole debate is nothing else but to do the Government harm. The S.A.P. Government did not succeed in eradicating scab, and they are now afraid, because the Nationalist Government are going to succeed. Then hon. members insisted so strongly upon it that compensation must be paid. I expressly stated that an obligation to make compensation under the regulations which were drafted by my predecessor would not be affected by this Bill. I only ask for validation of the regulations. The regulations say—

If the loss is less than 2 per cent. then the department regards the loss as so small that it is not worth the bother, but if the loss is more then compensation will be paid.

Only if the sheep die within 48 hours.

Does the hon. member expect that the Government must remain liable for 12 months? The hon. members for Natal are so dissatisfied but it was precisely the farmers of Newcastle, Natal, agreed to simultaneous dipping. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has also referred to the dissatisfaction. He represents one of the largest sheep districts in the country. He has not mentioned one case of damage in the district of Standerton. There are no cases. From the whole of the Transvaal where more than 2,000,000 sheep were dipped, only three claims for compensation have been filed. From Natal, with 1,200,000 sheep seven claims have come in. The Free State, which has dipped 800,000 sheep has not filed any claims for compensation. I hope that hon. members for Natal will look a little at the example of the Free State. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) has said that there is no scab in his district. He must not be startled if simultaneous dipping is again proclaimed. I shall just give a few figures for Cradock for the years. Up to 1st April, 1923, for that year there were infected 38 flocks with a total of 12,658 sheep and 4,400 goats. Up to the 31st March, 1924, 30 flocks containing 5,721 sheep and 5,087 goats were infected, and up to the 31st March, 1925, 61 flocks with 7,252 sheep and 17,569 goats. If we look at the whole of the large Free State, then we find that there are only two cases of infection now. It is a great honour to the Free State, and I can assure the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) if the Free State remains free and the farmers continue to do their duty the Orange Free State will not again be bothered with a simultaneous dipping. When Natal is clean, it will also not again have a simultaneous dipping. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort made the mistake that he wanted to dip only infected flocks with the result that immediately after the dipping scab broke out again everywhere. That is why we decided in conformity with the views of the progressive sheep farmers such as Mr. Southey and others to follow another method, and ultimately to get rid of scab. Hon. members opposite have said that I should not act like a military dictator. During my whole life since my youth I have occupied important positions. It is not something strange to me, and there is absolutely no question of haughtiness or intention of doing wrong. I wanted to do the best for the sheep farmers of South Africa, and the farmers will in a year be thankful for the measures that I took.

Will compensation be paid?

The farmers of Natal will also be thankful to be quit of scab. I was astonished at the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize). He spoke about great dissatisfaction in his district, Well, if the inspectors in his district do not carry out the policy of the Government, then I will deal with them, but the report of the chief inspector of the hon. member’s district gives me an entirely different impression. He wrote on the 5th March last as follows—

and on the 9th April the same inspector wrote—

I believe that Bethal also falls under that inspector. The hon. member for Bethal complains, but the people of Bethal are thankful. We shall also get on here without the hon. member. The speeches of the Opposition were so poor that I do not believe that it is necessary for me to go separately into the various speeches. The Bill only consists of two sections and I do not see the necessity to refer it to a Select Committee. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) has only mentioned one case of great damage suffered by a farmer named Jacobs. We have this afternoon heard that it was the farmer’s own fault for wrongly mixing the dip. Such a farmer then surely cannot come to the Government for compensation. Do hon. members opposite want the Government to be responsible for everything? Must the Government then also pay compensation for the washaways in consequence of the heavy rains, or for the approximately 30 per cent. damage which was caused by the continuous rains to the cotton crops? I stated emphatically what the attitude was with regard to compensation. I do not think that there is anything further to be said. I feel convinced that the Bill is fair and honest, and I do not think that there will be an hon. member so senseless as to say that the amendment is not necessary, and that it should just be permitted for east coast fever and other diseases to spread and that we should just pursue a policy of laissez-aller. I, therefore, propose the second reading.

Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the motion, and Dr. de Jager called for a division.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—56.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers. F. W.

Boydell. T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Cilliers. A. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet. S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham. A. C.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Grobler. P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Hay. G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Hugo, D.

Kemp. J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Louw, E. H.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Te Water, C. T.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—33.

Anderson. H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Louw J. P.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Nel, O. R.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Rider, W. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Tellers: de Jager, A. L.; Nicholls, G. H.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Col.-Cdt. Collins dropped.

The original motion was put and agreed to.

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

I move, pursuant to notice—

When we were discussing the second reading of the Bill I and the Rt. Hon. member for Fort Beaufort begged the Minister to extend its scope to include small stock, but he refused. I was proceeding to give my reasons to the House when you, sir, stopped me, because the Bill, as it stood, was not dealing with sheep. It will be necessary, therefore, to advance some reasons in now asking for the inclusion of small stock. The Minister is probably aware that for some time past there has been a strong feeling that something definite and serious should be done to try and prevent stock-thieving, I mean thieving in large numbers as against the theft of one animal for purposes of food, particularly the thieving that goes on from the farms on the borders of our Provinces. The matter was discussed at the Cape Province Agricultural Association Congress in 1924 and they adopted unanimously a report which was drawn up by a specially appointed committee of qualified men. It was sent on to the South African Agricultural Union, which, as you know, represents the whole of the organized agricultural industry, especially the farmers, of the Union. That body, in October, 1924, adopted this report unanimously. One of the clauses of the report asked the Government of the day to introduce a Stock Brands Registration Bill, to include both small and large stock. Subsequently to that I have had correspondence from a powerful organization in the Eastern Province in which are represented, in what is called the “United Farmers,” no less than nine Farmer’s Associations. In that area there are some of the most progressive sheep farmers in the country and extraordinarily good stock are bred there. Many of the farmers there are already, they report, using means for the identification of their sheep. There was a unanimous resolution passed by that body. I believe other members have also had requests from associations of farmers to have small stock included. Further, there has been a request from a body, known as the Albany Wool Growers’ Association, for the extension of the provisions of this Bill to small stock. I have here a letter from one of the men who knows more about stock-thieving and its prevention than anybody else in this country, one of our police officers, who is of opinion that one of the best ways of preventing stock theft is the extension of the provisions of the Brands Bill so as to include small stock. I have been asked by farmers on my side of the House why I want this Bill extended to small stock. It is a permissive Bill—permissive in area and permissive for individuals. Here I have a letter from Basutoland which discloses a very serious state of affairs. The correspondent informs me that sheep are stolen from the farmers on the borders of Basutoland, brought up there and shorn, after which, in most cases they are left to stray. He further states that the native law there provides that all unclaimed sheep become the property of the chief in whose district they are found, and that some chiefs make up to 1,000 sheep a year in this way, while most of the stuff comes from the border farmers. Corroboration of that is given by one of our head police officials who is in charge of a certain district and he states that in regard to the allegations made in this letter he has received information of a similar nature from his informers. I submit that, in view of the grave position that has been disclosed and the feasibility of extending this Brands Bill to small stock, and the fact that a large number of the farmers of South Africa are tatooing and otherwise marking their sheep, the provisions of this Bill should be made to extend to sheep. I trust the Minister will see his way to accept this and that the House will give its support to the provisions I ask for. In the draft Bill, which was brought in some time ago by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) the intention was to apply this to small stock, but the Opposition at that time to such inclusion forced him to give up the idea altogether. As I told the Minister the other day, he has an opportunity now to carry this, because he has on this side of the House the support that we were unable to get when it was suggested before by their predecessors in office.

seconded.

I made a proposal at the second reading that I should enquire what the desires of the people were with reference to small stock. So far as I have enquired the people have no objection to it seeing it is anyhow left to the voice of the people to decide whether it shall apply to their division. I only wish to point out that the report of the department of justice also mentions that it is impossible to systematically combat the stealing of small stock if they do not bear a registered mark. Great stock can more easily be found. Therefore I can accept the motion.

I am very pleased that my hon. friend is in a more reasonable frame of mind over this, than he was a short time ago. If he would only realize how much better it is, and how much more sympathetic we are, and will continue to be towards him when he speaks in the manner he has just done, instead of in the heated way in which he spoke a short time ago, I am sure he will appreciate that it would facilitate business very much. I am very much obliged to the Minister that he has accepted the resolution of my hon. friend because I believe that there is just as much justification for carrying out the branding of small stock as for large. I dare say if you go through the length and breadth of the Union, you will find far more cases of theft in connection with small stock than in connection with large. I was anxious for a measure of this sort to be carried some time ago, but found, under the difficult political conditions, that although the measure is a good one, there was an extraordinary amount of party opposition to it. I am only trying to show the Minister that when he comes forward in this way to adopt moderate proposals, we shall not adopt the attitude which was adopted towards us, but shall continue to heap coals of fire upon, his head.

Motion put and agreed to.

House in Committee:

The Committee has power to make provision in the Bill in respect, of small stock and to amend the title accordingly.

Mr. Chairman, I draw your attention to the fact that there is no quorum.

Committee counted, and the Chairman declared that a quorum was present.

New Clause 1,

I move—

Introductory.

1. The provisions of this Act shall apply only to such areas as are proclaimed by the Governor-General under section 1.2 as areas wherein the branding of great stock shall be obligatory.

We are advised that, if this Act is passed, no one will be able to brand except in conformity with the provisions of this Act. There is only one mark that will be affected so far as sheep are concerned, and that is the swallow tail. Farmers mark right up both sides of the ears in front and at the back, and by means of a square. Put on the front or back of the ear you can obliterate all the marks along such portions of the ear. I cannot see the necessity of making this applicable to the tip of the ear. I am quite sure it would be absolutely impossible to keep a record of these marks, and that is why we should like the Bill to be optional. If it is to be made general then there is very strong objection to it.

It is permissive in any case.

In the opinion of the parliamentary draftsman these provisions will apply generally throughout the Union, but I do not know whether that is the Minister’s intention.

On a point of order, there is no quorum.

House counted, and the Chairman declared that a quorum was present.

The draftsman’s opinion is that if the Bill is passed, no one will be able to brand stock except in conformity with the provisions of the Bill. As far as sheep are concerned no one will be permitted to tamper with the point of the ear. So far as the swallow fail is concerned it will prevent farmers from marking their sheep that way. They allow the marking of the front and back of the ear, but these marks can just as easily be obliterated as marks on the tip of the ear.

I am sorry that the hon. member has come with this amendment, because it will render the whole Bill nugatory. He always talks about the terrible thefts that are committed, and the first Bill to stop that he actually wants to render nugatory. I cannot accept this amendment.

I have not seen the amendment of the Minister to section three, but I thought that an amendment to it should be accepted, which is on the lines of the amendment proposed. My great difficulty is whether I can propose it again on section three.

My hon. friend the Minister knows that I and others are prepared to help him in getting this Bill through. What the hon. member for Aliwal North (Mr. Sephton) says is true, the Bill is permissive and can be introduced only through divisional councils or if there are no divisional councils through a form of public meeting as prescribed by proclamation. What the hon. member for Aliwal North says deserves consideration. If a man shears his sheep and wants to put an ordinary distinguishing mark on them or on his cattle, outside this particular brand. I do not think, as the Bill is now drafted, they will be able to do so. I do not think that is the intention of the Minister. I would like to have a compulsory Branding Act for the whole of the Union but the feeling of the country is not yet sufficiently advanced to justify you in having a compulsory Branding Act. As you are only having a permissive Act Clause 3 will have to be looked into. If that clause is passed it means that only certain districts will come under the operation of the Act and other districts not.

Not in cattle.

But we are moving that this Bill should apply to large and small stock. I am very anxious, as I say, to see this Bill brought into operation, because it is the only means whereby you will be able to trace stock thefts in this country, but I would like the Minister to consult his officials and find out whether what I think is correct. I like the people to know what they are doing. If you want to make this Act compulsory I am all with the Minister and will support him, but I do not want to make it compulsory indirectly. I think the Committee ought to know where they are. If my hon. friend will propose making this a compulsory Act I am all with him, but I do not want to make it a compulsory Act without knowing what we are doing.

I am very sorry to be met with this difficulty. It was clearly understood at the second reading that when great stock is branded the iron must be registered. No one is compelled to register but if he brands cattle then he must register the iron. As regards sheep I have an amendment to section 3 that sheep are excluded from all this unless the divisional council has decided that it should have effect.

I am surprised at the attitude of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) because he was formerly Minister of Agriculture, and I think he ought to know what the position is. The chief purpose of an Act on brands is to avoid theft of stock. The second object is to make the brands unalterable, so that the one brand cannot be altered to or into another. When we had here a Bill which provides that the renowned three character system shall be applied then we must prohibit other brands in order to prevent the possibility of altering them. If we allow someone to use a figure without registering it, then the Act loses all its force. I should like to see this Bill prohibiting any brand being used which is not registered. When cattle are stolen the brands are so easily altered. An F can, e.g., easily be altered into B, or a letter can be put in front or behind it. Then it is difficult to decide who the original owner was if such a matter comes before a court. That is why we have the three character system, and that is why the Bill should prohibit the use of any other system. I hope that hon. members in the circumstances will abandon their objections, because they go directly against the Bill and against the interests of the farmers whom we want to protect against theft. The question of ear marking sheep is a very difficult one, as has been mentioned by the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton); it is something which must still be worked out, and it will be interesting to me to see how it can be done. The three character system has been tried in Australia on the ear, but it was found that the lamb grows out of it. Therefore various other systems such as branding on the nose have been applied with some success. But our sheep have little room on the nose, and it can also happen that they may get cancer from it. It has also been tried to tattoo under the tail. But in no case can we guarantee that it will have the same result as in the case of great stock. I hope that all will help in working out a system which will be suitable for South Africa. With regard to great stock I should like to see our departure from all other systems than what are named in this Bill. It will help us against theft. The history of brands is centuries old. It has been developed among various peoples and one of the latest improvements was in the Transvaal. It is an improvement of the system which was applicable in Queensland. In conclusion, I wish to repeat that I should like to see that we should permit no one to use any other system than that mentioned in this Bill.

I regret that I am unable to agree with the Minister. In the Free State we also had a law on branding. It still exists to-day. But there are people who have their private brands. Some of them have had the brand registered, but there are others who have not done so. I had intended to propose the same words in section 3 to make provision that it should only apply in areas who ask for the law to be applied. I see this will be beneficial to the people to brand their stock and to register it but it is not a good thing to make it compulsory.

It is compulsory.

How can it be compulsory? If the people may not have their own brand then I shall not vote for the Bill. I have not received a mandate from my constituents to do that. I represent a district with the largest herds of cattle and horses. The people have given me no mandate. If the position is not put right in section 3 I cannot support the Bill.

I don’t think my hon. friend need have so much fear. I gather that clause 3 is inserted to preserve the three piece mark which the Minister proposes to introduce into the Bill. The object is to have a complete register so as to be able to, trace stolen or strayed stock. I gather inclause 40, sub-section (h), the Minister has power to make regulations providing for marking with different characters. Many stud breeders will place distinguishing marks on the bodies of their animals when they turn them out on to the veld. Perhaps the Minister will be able to go into that and give the committee an assurance on the point when it sits again. Clause 40 makes provision for distinguishing marks entirely dissimilar from those of the three piece system.

The matter is not quite clear to me. I should like to have an assurance from the Minister about the districts that have not yet decided to come under the Bill. What is the position of the man who has a brand but which has not been registered? In 1903 an Act was passed in the Free State which gave a person the right to have his brand registered. Many, however, did not have their brands registered. If the district does not now come under the Bill, what is the position of that private individual? Can he continue to use it?

No.

That is what I understand. But can I as a private person come under the Bill if it is passed?

I should like to know from the Minister what my position is if I buy sheep from another man who has already put his mark on them. If I then put my mark on as well, whose sheep are they?

The Bill provides very plainly that if the divisional council in the Cape Province ask for the application of the Bill, then it comes into force, and in the other provinces, when a meeting of inhabitants ask for it. In the case of small stock it is left to the people themselves.

The Act as it is here will impose on every farmer certain conditions as set forth, that no one shall brand stock except under the provisions of this Act. I understand you will not be able to brand the sheep or cattle except in conformity with those provisions. Is that the deliberate intention of the Minister? It is not my desire.

We are working at cross purposes. I look upon the Act as a permissive Act and it must be put into operation on proclamation, but Clause 3 clearly defines that no farmers can put a brand on their stock, if outside the area, that will be in conflict with the brands in the area where it is proclaimed. It only comes into operation where it is proclaimed, and throughout the Union no owner of stock can put on a brand prescribed under the schedule of the Act.

Business suspended by the Chairman at 10.55 p.m.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; House to resume in Committee on Monday.