Will the evidence be printed by that time?

I am informed that it will.

as Chairman, brought up the report of the Select Committee on Admission of Attorneys Bill, reporting the Admission of Attorneys Bill and the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1917, Further Amendment Bill with amendments. He moved—

seconded.

That date is surely too early. You cannot have the papers printed by that time. I would suggest to the hon. member that he sets the Bill down for this day week.

Very well; this day week (8th June). It will not come up.

Motion put and agreed to.

House to go into Committee on the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1917, Further Amendment Bill on 10th June.

I move—

I think the Minister will agree with me that as I have it would be more positive and not so negative. The House will see that in line 46 I propose to omit “unless” and substitute “where”; in line 47 to omit “proof of which shall be upon him,” and in line 48 to delete “unable” and substitute “able.” As the law now stands it does not mean much at all, and the onus would be upon the auctioneer. Perhaps it seems much the same thing, but my amendment really makes the position stronger. I certainly think it would be more practicable and would have a stronger effect than the clause as it stands now.

seconded.

I am sorry that this amendment has again been proposed. In committee I gave the reasons why this section was specially framed in that way. I then pointed out how the meat exchange in Johannesburg in the past had refused a bid, and that the section has been drawn with that in view. I hope that the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) will not detain the House with that amendment.

Amendment put and negatived.

I beg to move the amendment standing in my name, namely—

I hope, after mature consideration, it will be now recognized that the seller is likely to suffer hardship if this amendment is not agreed to. You can put in “written” consent, if you please to make surer. It is quite simple for a man who is unable to be present at a sale himself to accredit his representative to speak and act in his name, by giving him written authority or a power of attorney.

I wish to second the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben), and I hope the Minister will accept it. It is not a question of the validity of a transaction; it is a criminal offence under this Bill for the auctioneer to sell to anybody in partnership with himself or to sell to himself, even if he has the consent of the owner. Surely the Minister does not want to go as far as that.

He can sell out of hand to him after the sale.

Yes, but why prohibit the auctioneer to sell if the owner is willing?

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) does not seem to realize that the object of the clause is to afford protection against the rings which are formed in regard to the selling of stock. If the amendment were agreed to it would be easy for the auctioneer to say, if challenged, that he had the consent of the owner. The amendment would defeat the very object of trying to prevent these rings selling within the ring, of which we have had very unpleasant examples in Johannesburg. They will continue doing it if the amendment is agreed to.

I wish to move, as an amendment to this amendment—

That would do away with the difficulty of deciding whether an agreement had been come to between the auctioneer and the owner. I think if the clause is left as it is, it will be a hardship on the seller; because in certain cases where the stuff is put up to auction and cannot be sold for lack of a satisfactory bid, the auctioneer may be willing to take it over at a price, and run the risk of a market if he has the owner’s consent. Surely that does not do the owner any harm; there would be no cause for litigation, and all parties would be satisfied with the transaction.

I second the amendment. I think if the word “written” is inserted, as suggested, it will prevent any underhanded agreements. If you prevent the seller giving the auctioneer the written power to purchase at a sale, it might act very detrimentally to the interests of the seller. The seller might send his goods to a market a considerable distance away, and not be able to get the price he wanted, and the auctioneer might be prepared to take the risk and buy it at the price which the seller has fixed, but would be precluded from doing so. If he is not able to do that, the seller would be put to the expense of having the stock sent back to his farm.

I do not think that even putting in the word “written” will make any substantial difference to the whole position. I thought we had sufficiently threshed out the matter in committee. What we want is that the auctioneer, while he is selling by auction, should be nothing more than the agent for the seller. If the auctioneer is bidding at the same time against one ordinary bidders at the sale—because that is what he will be doing if this amendment is carried—he will not be acting bona fide. If the auctioneer wants to act as buyer, there is sufficient opportunity for him to do so after the sale, when he can purchase the stock out of hand.

That is the idea.

No, the amendment implies that the auctioneer can buy during the sale. There is nothing to prevent him buying after the sale.

I do not see any hardship at all on the seller. If he wishes to say beforehand, in spite of the provisions of this Bill, “I want to give the auctioneer permission to buy,” is that not a better method than that suggested by the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Fourie), which is open to the gravest objection. What will happen in practice. Suppose the auctioneer cannot get a higher bid than, say £6 for a slaughter ox, he leaves the bid there and wires to his client and tells him that he cannot get more than £6, at the same time offering the seller £6 or a lower figure on his own behalf when your seller will get a lower price than when the auctioneer can bid openly. Let the owner have a free choice. The suggestion of the hon. member for Somerset is open to the gravest objection, and the hon. member could not have put up a better argument for the amendment. Leave the free choice to the seller, as he is the owner.

I do not know why this amendment is again proposed. We dealt with this matter in committee and decided to adopt it as it is. Now hon. members are again trying to have it altered by another amendment. The House was determined on the point that an auctioneer must remain an auctioneer and not be a speculator, and that is why this section is so worded. The argument of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) is that the stock will have to be sent back if it is not sold. That cuts no ice because that can always happen. I cannot accept the amendment.

The hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Fourie) has said that an auctioneer is only an agent. There he is wrong. Some time ago there was judgment of the supreme court which practically amounted to this that an auctioneer is simply an agent, but recently we had another judgment, and there it was laid down that an auctioneer is not merely an agent. It would be different if everything was sold for cash at a public auction, but at any rate with us in the Western Province things are usually sold on three months’ credit. According to the first judgment the auctioneer was only regarded as agent, and if I sell anything as agent on credit and the purchaser does not pay me I shall be obliged, according to the judgment, before I can sue such person), first to have the consent of the seller who may be living at a distance. Fortunately provision is made for this in this Bill, so that if an auctioneer pays out to the seller and takes all risk for the payment he will also have the right to sue. In the Western Province purchasers come from all parts to the sale. You do not know a purchaser well, and, for instance, knock down a pair of horses on credit and you then agree with the purchaser that your clerk is the owner, and he remains owner until the full amount is paid. The alteration will assist in this connection.

Anybody acquainted with the conditions in Johannesburg will see that the Bill as it stands is of the greatest importance to the seller. It often happens there that an auctioneer has no buyers round him, and if he has the right to buy he can buy for a mere song. I am strong on this point, and I hope that the Minister will not accept the amendment.

With the safeguard contained in the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Henderson) I fail to see the danger apprehended by the Minister and the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Fourie). It is clear from the speeches of hon. members opposite that it is the Johannesburg auctioneers who are being aimed at, therefore why should not the Bill apply only to Johannesburg instead of penalizing auctioneers and sellers all over the Union?

No, no.

I don’t suggest that seriously. The amendment is a great deal stronger than the original clause which provided only for the disclosure of an association or partnership. The Minister, I think, was prepared to accept it until the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) got up.

I was not.

It was my opinion that he was. The Minister says that, having failed in the committee stage to carry our amendment I now try “in another manner” to gain my point. Certainly I do, though not in any underhand way as he insinuates. What is the object of having Bills come forward for consideration in various stages if it is not in order to see mistakes and rectify them. I have tried, but I cannot get him to see the common sense of the suggestions I make. I think you will make a big mistake if you don’t include this provision.

The auctioneer dare not sell to himself or his clerk because it is invalid, ipso facto. Then why put it in at all? If you put in the further proviso you don’t limit the number of buyers. If members say our idea is to get the stuff sold as cheap as possible, I agree. They seem to think it is only Johannesburg that this Bill has been made for. What about the whole of the auctioneers and auction sales in the country at large. From my experience as an auctioneer the farmers are going to lose considerably as a consequence of buyers making a ring against them. They make a ring and fix their price. The onus is on the auctioneer to say that it has not been sold without the owner’s consent. You are not going to help the owner of stock one jot if you do not accept the amendment.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Henderson was put and agreed to.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Struben as amended, was put and negatived.

The amendment in lines 54 and 55, was agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I move—

The amendment is necessary insofar as sales take place through the municipal market. I think every member of the House has confidence in the sales conducted by municipalities, and I see no reason why the provision should be made for the municipalities to make a return. I consider it is quite sufficient for the present system to be carried out. The House should accept the amendment, because a hardship would be inflicted upon the municipalities if they are compelled to make a return under this Act. The sales in the municipal market are bona fide, and I only include agricultural products as defined under Act 35 of 1917, but I have added the word “fruit.” If the House does not accept the amendment it will cause considerable trouble, and will put the municipal markets to considerable expense.

seconded.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

I would point out to the Minister that he is defining fruit here under the two Acts, and it says in the Act of 1922 that “agricultural products” includes fruit of all kinds. While I am speaking I will ask the Minister whether he intends to bring up the amendment that he promised us the other day.

I am bringing that up afterwards.

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

I think the Minister ought to inform the Committee what is the nature of the amendment that he is going to move in connection with the sale of agricultural produce at municipal markets of which he told us the other day.

I am not inclined to accept this amendment as I intend to propose another amendment.

Is it in connection with this section.

No, it is a new section.

I think it would be very useful to the Committee if the Minister would give some indication of the amendment that he intends to move.

Perhaps the Minister will inform the House what his amendment is going to be.

My amendment will be as follows—

The amendment proposed by Mr. Nel was negatived.

Mr. Nel called for a division, but shortly afterwards with the leave of the House withdrew.

Mr. Nel’s amendment is accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5,

I move a new clause to follow clause 4 as follows—

seconded.

I must say I am extremely sorry and disappointed that the Minister has brought forward the promised amendment in the form he has, as we are now just having the same thing over again put into other words by the Minister, as was moved that sales to bonafide consumers should be excluded from this Bill. The Minister is doing exactly the same but he is not using the words “bona-fide consumers he is using the words “not for resale”. How can any market-master, when he has to dispose of hundreds or thousands of small lots, say whether a person is buying for resale or not? It is most ridiculous. Your markets are going to break down and the people who are going to lose by it are very largely your producers of perishable produce and very largely your producers of fruit, and it will hit the consumer as well. If the Minister had brought in an amendment such as we understood he was going to bring in, that is, to exempt sales below a certain value, say £5, it would have been acceptable. I will move an amendment to the Minister’s amendment—,

Just take any of your small towns where they are starting markets for the benefit of both producers and consumers. Many have their morning markets before 8 o’clock, and they sell numerous small lots of agricultural produce, and he has to ask every buyer whether he is buying for resale or not. The thing is nonsensical; in practice it cannot be worked. Here they are going to be ringed round with all this kind of thing and the people affected more than anyone else will be the producers of perishable articles or the consumers. It is going to hit the fruit producer very severely. I do hope the Minister will accept this amendment, because if we had known he was going to bring forward such an amendment as that we have just heard we should have supported the amendment by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel). This I certainly think the Minister can accept, because why should the provisions of this Bill apply to small sales of agricultural produce under £5?

seconded.

I feel I must support the amendment. The Minister promised the House that he would put this matter right at this stage, and we certainly Have the right to see this on the amendment paper. It is very difficult for members—we do not even know exactly what the amendment is—but surely it is not necessary to do this by regulation. Surely we can accept the amendment of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) to exempt sales under £5. Otherwise it is making a farce of the matter whereby every village market-master must look up to see what area he is affected by. I think the Minister may well accept the amendment.

I feel sure that the House will accept the amendment just proposed by the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie). These municipal markets are benefiting not only the producer but the consumer as well. I have heard in this House over and over again Labour members advocate the elimination of the middleman. I hope if we divide on this question that the Labour members, in the interests of the consumer, will support the amendment.

I hope there will be no necessity to divide upon this amendment. I trust the House will accept it, especially when we remember what has been said and the eloquent appeal by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston). We all believed the Minister would bring up an amendment to limit the amount for which account sales would be required to £5, but we never expected it to, be brought up as a regulation. I do appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment limiting the amount to £5 in the municipal markets. As we pointed out before, it is the small consumers that are going to suffer as well as the producers. The market-master or municipal auctioneer will put out small lots of produce into one larger lot, because if he has to write a sale note for every article sold he will find it impossible to do so. Why should it be done by regulation? I hope the Minister will accept this amendment.

I should like to ask the Minister, why this matter should be dealt with by way of regulation. I am sorry I was not here when the previous debate took place, and I am, therefore, not enlightened as to the whole subject matter; but it strikes me, at first blush, as very awkward that a small matter like this, of the purchase of household vegetables, and similar things, on the morning market, all over South Africa, should be dealt with by way of ministerial regulation. It seems to me that this is a matter which affects practically every householder in the country, and you want to have certainty about the law. You do not want to have a regulation of one kind to-day, and one of another character to-morrow. It is a plain, simple matter; why not make a simple exclusion in this Bill. Why not say outright that, in these small matters, the sale can take place without this cumbersome method of sales notes and all that is provided for in this Bill. I appeal to the Minister to look at this matter further, and not to pinprick the public. He may take it from me that the public in South Africa is more deeply affected by these small things than by large matters of principle, very often, and when you pass a law that affects every person who goes to the morning market to purchase vegetables, fruit, and such things, and this is left to the Minister to deal with by regulation, and when people have to make enquiry to find out what the regulation is, and whether they are within the law, you are pin-pricking the public.

The sales on the open markets in our country are held under the control of the market master and we take it that the note he gives us is accurate. The matter is merely that the farmer wants to make it obligatory for his agent to send back to him the note that he gets from the market master. The other side of the House want an exception made in respect of amounts of less than £5. Personally, I do not see the necessity of it. Then the market master in cases under £5 will not have to write out a note, but when he is paying £5 1s. then he will have to write out a note for all the amounts from 1s. to £5. I think that the amendment of the hon. Minister is appropriate, because as his amendment stands he can issue regulations and he can exclude certain produce or markets from the Act, but if he thinks that, e.g., difficulties will arise on the produce market in Johannesburg then he can exclude that market under the Act. I see no objection to its being settled by regulation.

I am sorry that so much is being talked about this Bill. It looks very much like direct obstruction. I stated the other day that I wished to meet hon. members and I have done so as far as I can. In the great city of Cape Town the very thing is done that we here suggest, and if Worcester cannot do it then I can exclude the Worcester market. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) makes such a strong objection to regulations. I do not see why he should be so much opposed to them seeing that he knows that there are regulations for the application of all statutes.

Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause. Upon which the House divided.

Ayes—55.

Allen, J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bergh, P. A.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

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.

Keyter, J. G.

Louw, E. H.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, A. S.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl. J. J. M.

Werth, A. J.

Tellers: van Hees, A. S.; Brand Wessels, J. H.

Noes—36.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Brown, D. M.

Buirski, E.

Chaplin, F. D P.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Giovanetti. C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Louw, J. P.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize. J.

O’Brien. W. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford. R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Watt, T.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; de Jager, A. L.

Question accordingly affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Heatlie dropped.

New clause as proposed by the Minister of Agriculture put and agreed to.

New Clause 5 and the amendments in old Clauses 5 and 6 and the Title put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted; third reading on Wednesday.

There are one or two points I should like to know the mind of the Minister upon. Is it the intention, when adopting the simultaneous dipping, to have it done under supervision? I would like to know, further, whether the orthodox dipping is going to be used or whether other authorized dippings will be permitted. I think other recognized dippings should be permitted, and if we are going to have simultaneous dipping, I should like to see these other recognized dippings permitted under certain conditions.

Certainly the dipping will take place under control. If there are no officials the control will be by persons recommended by the farmers and considered suitable by the department. With regard to dipping, I shall, of course, not proclaim simultaneous dipping for districts that have no scab if it is not necessary. Why should I? Further, it is asked what sort of dip must be used. I leave that entirely to the owners and do not wish to force the use of lime and sulphur, although the Government only pays compensation where that or tobacco extract has been used.

In view of the position the Minister takes up every time we try to press an amendment from this side of the House one is getting shy of suggesting anything. I would like to move now—

It was late on Friday night when the second reading of this Bill was taken, and now public attention is focussed on this matter, we expect a considerable amount of wires and information, and until we get them we feel chary against any action being taken by the Government. On Friday night we finished the second reading stage, to-day is a public holiday, and the public has not had any chance to give us any information. We are at issue on one point. The Minister holds that the losses were comparatively light and very slight; some members on the Government benches pooh-poohed the idea of there being any great losses at all.

I must point out to the hon. member (Col.-Cdt. Collins) that he is now discussing Clause 2, not Clause 1.

The question is whether we report progress now, or after we have passed Clause 1.

The hon. member may proceed.

We certainly expect to have more information to discuss the matter in a few days’ time. I know the Minister would like to get away, and we would like to meet him in his desire. I can assure him that we do not like to keep him here to the detriment of his health. Perhaps he can go on with his other Bill for the time being. We feel that we should insist upon having a little more time for this measure, and that is why I would like to move—

Perhaps the Minister would like the Bill to stand over until Wednesday? He can go on with the Stock Brands Bill, which will probably take him the whole of this afternoon and this evening.

I wish to support the motion of the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins). I am sure, on consideration, the Minister will realize that there is nothing to be gained by pressing the progress of this Bill to-day. To-day is a public holiday, communications are interrupted and a number of us are expecting important communications on the subject of this Bill from our constituents, and I think it is reasonable that we should be allowed to take the committee stage of this Bill at a later date. I would earnestly appeal to the Minister to show some consideration in the matter.

I do not quite understand the reason why members now ask for the committee stage to be postponed. The reason given by the mover is the telegrams about damages, etc., that are expected. Let me repeat that the Government will not run away from its responsibilities if compensation in terms of the regulations can be claimed. Seeing the Government takes up that position, I cannot understand why we are still to wait upon telegrams. It seems to me that members want to waste the time of the House.

The hon. Minister may not make such an insinuation.

I am sorry that I cannot accept the motion.

I hope that the Minister is not going to take up the attitude that he won’t listen to anything on this question, because if he will look at the last issue of the “Farmers Weekly” he will find that in the Transvaal members of farming associations in districts represented by members on this side of the House have asked him that the Government should go into this question, and that there have been considerable losses due to the regulations which the Minister has forced the farmers to carry out. I cannot see any reason why the matter should not be put off to-day. Why the door should be banged against the farmers at the present moment I cannot understand. I would point out that the Minister will get a much easier passage for this Bill if he will listen to certain resolutions which have been put forward. From what we are beginning to hear now, the losses are greater than we had been led to anticipate. I hope the Minister is not barring the door to farmers’ associations coming forward and asking for their members that they should be paid proper compensation. We are also awaiting wires on this question. The attention of the country has been drawn to it and the Minister will find that, if he will only leave this Bill over for a day or two, things will go much more easily than they are otherwise likely to do.

The Minister’s reason for turning a deaf ear to our appeal in regard to losses the other day was based on the assumption that the losses which had taken place in Natal and elsewhere were due to natural causes. If that assumption is a sound one and he has confidence in it, the Minister needs no indemnity whatever. No man can make good a claim against the Government if the deaths have been due to natural causes. The prescription of claims in the manner proposed by this Bill is in that case an unnecessary precaution. I should like the Minister to meet us in the reasonable request we have made, or say that at this stage he will abandon the request for indemnity, on his own statement. It is the right of the farmer to sue the Minister if he has been guilty of any wrong-doing and we intend to stand up for that right.

I really do not see what good it will do to postpone dealing with this Bill for a few days. Hon. members opposite commenced making a noise at the first reading and have actually incited the people in the country. We have the assurance of the hon. Minister that all damage suffered in terms of the regulations will be reimbursed. I therefore cannot see the necessity of postponement. It seems to me nothing but obstruction.

The hon. member cannot say that.

I withdraw the words but I cannot see the reason why an extension should be granted. We are in a hurry to have this Bill passed because there is still much work to be done.

I may say that in regard to this Act of 1911 and the regulations under that Act, I have had some experience of lawsuits arising out of it and if ever there was a mixed-up business it was these regulations and the Act itself. I think that heritage from the past will have to be amended by the Minister before he will be able to make it work successfully. We have had a good deal of trouble in the courts with regard to it, and it is necessary to simplify and amend the whole Act. With regard to this particular point, however, I do not know whether hon. members are suggesting they are cases which should be settled by this amending Act. I am very doubtful. Supposing a man lost his sheep because he acted under a regulation which was null and void. There would be no grounds for an action for damages against the Government. All claims to compensation must rest on moral grounds; you will find there is nothing legal. If a man goes to the courts and says he must have compensation, because he sustained loss in acting under a null and void regulation, I am afraid he will be unsuccessful.

Poor farmers!

I hope hon. members over there are not encouraging farmers to bring actions which are foredoomed to failure, because if they do they will be poorer still through having to pay costs. The point is whether the Government should pay compensation as a moral right, and that is the point which I take it my hon. friend is considering. If you keep your farmers out of the courts, not only in this matter but in all matters, you will be doing them a great service indeed. The next question is why is this law passed. It is undoubtedly passed to give these orders validity in the future that they did not have in the past, to make these regulations proper regulations, under which valid orders can be issued. If hon. members over there think that by not passing this Act they would be pointing the way to successful lawsuits by farmers, I am afraid they are in error in that view. What they should rather insist upon is that where farmers can show a strong case, that that case should be considered by the Minister on moral grounds.

I do not think the Minister of Justice is really being helpful to his hon. colleague. The Minister of Agriculture comes to this House with a Bill seeking for indemnity. The Minister of Justice, who does not seem to have taken much interest in the proceedings hitherto, or to be very conversant with the terms of the Bill, says this is all wrong. No indemnity is necessary, because this is an unnecessary Act. The regulation, he says, is ultra vires, and no person who suffered damage can look to the Government for damages in a court of law, and therefore no act of indemnity is necessary.

Section 1 has nothing to do with indemnity.

There has been no dispute about section 1. The whole House is agreed that there has been a muddle in the past, and section 1 is necessary; the whole point is about section 2. The Minister is not helpful to his colleague when he says section 2 is unnecessary. Then I must put him right on another point. He seems to be under the impression that the Minister of Agriculture has promised to consider the moral claims for loss sustained by farmers. He has given no such undertaking; that is what I wanted from him. I wanted some enquiry so that the Government might see what losses had been sustained, and then act equitably in the matter, but the Minister has been adamant, once more the strong man. He says—

If the Minister of Agriculture will give us an assurance that, apart from the proceedings in this House, there will be an impartial judicial enquiry into these losses sustained under the regulations, under his order for simultaneous dipping, and that the Government will fairly consider, from a moral and just point of view, the claims for compensation, then he will not find much opposition in this House. We know there have been very heavy losses. Hon. members seem to be under the impression that the losses have been mostly in the Free State. Let me assure them that they have been very heavy in the Transvaal.

Col.-Cdt. COLLINS withdrew his motion.

What is the position now, Mr. Chairman?

The motion to report progress, and ask leave to sit again is withdrawn in order that we may pass Clause 1, which has nothing to do with the discussion that has been taking place.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

The Minister of Justice has rather gone into the merits of Clause 2. I have an amendment to that clause. I want to put the position to the Minister. I do not want to say anything definitely, because I have not yet obtained full information, but I understand in a few isolated cases inspectors actually took the sheep and dipped them, without the owners’ consent. The Minister will agree with me that in such cases there would very probably lie an action for damages. That would be very directly affected by this indemnity, and that is why we say don’t let us go on with the Bill. Let it stand over until Wednesday if possible, so that we can go into it again. I move—

There is another point. I take it that there are two things at issue. One might ask the Government to meet the farmers by giving compensation where any of the other standard dips were used, which would assist quite a lot of farmers, and the Government might later on consider the position I have referred to. It all depends on information we are expecting within the next few days.

It is very clear to me from the discussion that the section should be adopted as it stands. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) wishes the matter to be postponed so that information can be obtained whether the extent of the damage is not greater. He will concede that the greater the damage the greater is the necessity of adopting section 2. It looks as if the hon. member will accept this if the amount of the damage is little or nothing. That is not the object of the Minister or of the Government. The position of the Government is that the greater the damage the more necessary it is for the section to be passed, for the simple reason that the damage that has been suffered does not give the farmer the right to bring an action against the Government unless there was negligence on the part of the Government. I would like to point out the inconsistency of hon. members opposite and also of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). They accepted Section 1. Next year the Minister of Agriculture will have the right to do exactly the same thing. He fixes a simultaneous dipping. We suppose that the rains come and losses are suffered. Will hon. members then say that we must introduce a Bill to pay compensation?

No.

No, they will not think of it. It is clear from the speech of the hon. member for Standerton they do not wish that the damage which must be paid for on account of the invalidity of the regulations should be paid. He agrees with me as far as the technical side of the matter is concerned that there are no moral grounds for compensation. They base their moral claim upon what they call the continued refusal of the Minister of Agriculture to listen to the advice of farmers. That will be the same in the future, and no one who does not wish to merely prejudice himself, and who has some thought of the general good, will feel entitled on that ground to institute an action against the Government. A case was mentioned by the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) of a person who refused to dip and the officials dipped his sheep by force.

If this Bill is passed he will institute no action.

Precisely. As some were willing to dip and others refractory, is it right to give only the refractory ones a right to compensation? These are the same hon. members who speak so much about progressive farmers. They want the few people who were refractory to be compensated, while the other 90 per cent. who were willing to dip shall have no claim. Is this fair and just towards the State? What will become of the law of the land? The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has said that the matter must stand over. I want to point out to him that there can only be one reason why more information is desired, viz., to become better acquainted with the amount of the damage. That information will not assist us at all if they are going to give no compensation. If the damage is greater we ought to pass the Bill more quickly because the claims are based on a technicality.

I sincerely hope the Minister of Agriculture will agree to this motion. We have had no fewer than three Cabinet Ministers this afternoon trying to explain this business, and we are in a bigger fog than ever, each having given different versions of the position. The Prime Minister has expounded the extraordinary doctrine that the greater the damage the Minister of Agriculture has done to the farmers the less he will pay them out. I would like to hear what the farmers who have suffered losses will say to this doctrine, which comes from a Ministry that has always posed as the farmers’ friend. The Prime Minister harped on the technical aspect, but we have never been troubled about that; we have never intended to embarrass the Government on a technical matter. If this had been merely a technical error the Government would have had our support, but the damage was done through the obstinacy and arrogance of the Minister of Agriculture. He was implored, inside and outside the House, to listen to reason, but he assumed a Napoleon-like attitude, posing as South Africa’s one strong, silent man, and the result is nothing but bungle from beginning to end. The same thing occurred over the control of the export of fruit. The time has come when the Minister should assume a less arrogant tone in this House: he has made two serious blunders and yet be is still riding the high horse.

He can still take lessons from you.

I should be very sorry to have the reputation for incivility in this House that he has. I never yet heard of him giving a civil answer—it is time we had more civility and fewer blunders.

I think the hon. member had better adhere to the motion.

I thought I was very pertinently adhering to the motion, which is that progress should be reported to enable us to get a better insight into what we are doing. The Minister of Justice says we don’t need the Bill at all; the Minister of Agriculture says we do and the Prime Minister apparently takes a middle course, so we don’t know where we are, and the further we go the more reason there is for taking time to see where we stand. I have information from Northern Zululand that in hundreds of cases native stock was taken by the inspectors and forcibly dipped, with the result that the native has sustained in proportion heavier damages than the white. We are asked to pass an indemnity Bill which seeks to protect the Minister of Agriculture from the result of his own blunders and his own obstinacy. Has the Minister of Defence anything to say about the matter? I see him gesticulating rather excitedly. We are not trying to obstruct the Government in this matter, but to obtain sufficient information to know where we stand.

Personally, I am against giving indemnities to Ministers as a rule, but it does not lie in the mouths of the opposition to oppose indemnities, for it is quite willing to give indemnities for deporting men without trial or for killing men in cold blood, as the Hanekom brothers were. What I wish to know from the Minister of Agriculture is this—if we give this indemnification will he promise if we bring forward cases where men have lost sheep through no fault of their own as a result of compulsory dipping, will he take those cases into favourable consideration? We ought to have a judicial enquiry, so that Government can see what has really happened The “Farmers’ Weekly” reports a meeting of the farmers’ association at Haenertsburg at which it was resolved that the attention of the Government be called to a certain case, and to ascertain if compensation will be paid to the farmers of that area who have sustained heavy losses as a result of dipping. That should make the Minister pause. It is not too much to ask for a judicial enquiry into the whole question. I take it that if I am a sheep farmer and I am told to dip my sheep and if they died within two or three weeks, then I say the Government is responsible. That is the opinion right through the country. Simultaneous dipping is going to be put into force in the Free State next season, and we want to know if we are going to be treated in the same way as the Natal farmers have been. I am speaking for the biggest wool producing area in the country. The Minister has only to say that he will enquire into the matter and the country will be satisfied.

I just want to point out to the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that previously under the same Act and regulations simultaneous dipping was carried out and great damage was also suffered in the constituencies. Our farmers did not put such an agitation on foot and did not go to the court and have the regulations declared ultra vires. We carried out the order of the previous Minister of Agriculture because we wanted to eradicate scab, but then also much damage was suffered, and I wish to ask the hon. member for Standerton whether he is prepared, if in this case, compensation is paid, to go back and pay compensation for damage that was suffered in the past.

I must say that I cannot in the least understand the arguments of the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler). He has got up to-day and admitted that there may be damage. Last week he tried to prove that it was impossible. When he went to the Minister of Agriculture and asked that the consideration of the Bill shall be postponed, he said: no, I am in a hurry, I want to go home. We are here to look after the interests of the people and when we feel that it is our duty to probe into matters in the interests of the people we shall be ready to remain here and not be in a hurry to go home. If I had heard the arguments of the Prime Minister before section 1 was passed I should certainly have objected to it. He had stated that the same thing can be done in the future and that we shall not be able to get compensation. It seems to me that we are not safe in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture. I hope that he will agree to the Bill being allowed to stand over until we have more information about the matter.

I hope that the hon. Minister will not be afraid of the aspersions and accusations which are continually being made and I hope that he will put the Bill through. The remarks of the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) is that if an intelligent farmer dips his sheep, no damage will be suffered. But under the existing regulations the former Minister took complete possession of the unfortunate farmer’s sheep and in the circumstances of terrible droughts the sheep were dipped and under the safeguarding regulations the farmers had absolutely no say at all. I repeat here that however poor the sheep may be if the owner is present and the sheep are properly handled no losses will be suffered. In the past, the administration came and took and dipped the sheep and they mixed the dip themselves, and I say here that sheep were negligently dipped to death. I wish to assure the hon. Minister that the sheep farmers of South Africa, also of Graaff-Reinet, are behind him to eradicate scab.

If the Minister will consider all claims made on the Government which have been established, claims that have to be met with full compensation, there is no need for the motion to report progress. If he does not say that, the motion to report progress is in order. We have not had sufficient information of the deaths which have occurred in respect of this order. The Opposition, therefore, is reasonable in asking for time to be given before coming to a decision on this matter. The Minister will get over the whole business if he is prepared to pay out full compensation to those who have lost sheep, providing they establish the fact that it is due to the dipping order. The order which was given, which caused the death of these sheep, is an order we are now asked to give indemnity for. I am prepared to give indemnity, but I want to establish the position that the Government is faced with the necessity of meeting its moral obligations more than its legal obligations, and where the sheep farmers can show that the order was directly responsible for the death of the sheep, the ruination of his wool, and the failure of his flock, that is a fair statement of the position, and the Government should compensate fully. I consider the Stock Act is inadequate to deal generally with the position. I express to-day, what I have expressed before, that your system of compensation for the stock you destroy in order to protect the rest of the country, is totally inadequate. That being so, surely now is the occasion for the Minister to say he is willing to compensate those who have suffered through his order. If he does that the motion to report progress is unnecessary. If he does not say that the motion is then necessary in order to get the proper atmosphere. It is necessary that the Minister should get little pin pricks from the country on this question. We have had the “Farmers’ Weekly” quoted on hapenings on which they consider the Government should take action which is favourable to the farmers. Not only Natal, but other parts of the country should be treated fairly. Firmness is a qualification we admire, but firmness pressed too far may be obstinacy. Up to the present, I admire his firmness, but do not let him turn me against him on account of his obstinacy.

There are two points here to be considered. One is the actual legality of the order, and the other is the discretion, or lack of it, the Minister displayed in giving effect to the order which is, of course, a matter of policy. The whole desire is that the Government shall not be liable owing to a technical irregularity of that order. That order, had it been passed by the Governor-General, instead of the Minister, would have been all right.

It is too late.

No, excuse me, hon. members opposite are not quite candid in this matter. They are quite willing to admit that this regulation is a right one; they are quite willing to admit that it is purely a technical error in the issue of the regulations, and what they are really impugning today, and have been throughout these debates, is not the regulation itself, but the judgment of the Minister in ordering simultaneous dipping at that time.

And refusing to take the advice of his technical advisers.

Quite so. I am obliged to the hon. member for entirely confirming my point that what you are discussing to-day is not this Bill—

Oh yes.

No, what you are discussing, the hon. member (Mr. Struben) himself put it, is that the Minister did not give sufficient weight, it is said, to the advice of his technical advisers, not in the form in which the order was issued, but in the action which he took. I say again, my hon. friend (Mr. Madeley) is falling into the pit which has been prepared for him there. This clause seeks indemnity on the technical point alone. Any question as to the judgment or discretion of the Minister in issuing this order can properly be raised on the Minister’s vote.

I have not taken much part in this discussion, though it has been an extremely interesting one. My main reason for rising is that I would like my hon. friend, the Minister of Lands, who is really a friend of the farmers, to add his advice to the four Ministers who have already spoken. Four Ministers have already spoken and we are getting into a sea of doubt, as to what the position really is. The Minister of Justice differs entirely from the Prime Minister. The Minister of Agriculture says that he is not going to budge an inch. The Minister of Justice says he agrees with the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) that this is a case in which, if there can be proved to have been hardship, the Government should deal with it in a sympathetic manner. I was pleased to hear what the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) said, and I was also encouraged to hear what he said on Friday, but I was very much disturbed by the manner in which he cast his vote. While I like the sympathy of the hon. member, I would very much sooner have his vote. When the hon. member for Benoni was speaking, the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) said “What about the past?” That question has been raised several times during the whole course of that debate, and I will tell the hon. member about the past. In the past when simultaneous dipping was carried out, the farmers of the district were consulted, a suitable time was taken, and if it was found when an order was issued by the department that representations had been made of a sufficient character to justify one in realizing that the time was not a suitable one, then the Department did not do as the Minister has done, stand on his high horse and refuse to make reasonable alterations.

You in this House accused them of weakness.

The Minister of Defence has quite enough to do this afternoon to try and reconcile the difference that exists between him and his follower who sits down there (Mr. Madeley). What happened in the past was that representations of farmers were considered, the period in which the dip was carried out was considered, the length of wool and the period of shearing were also taken into consideration, and when representations were made that it would be unfair in connection with those progressive farmers, to whom the Minister of Defence has referred, that having kept their sheep for more than a year, they should be penalized by coming under this dipping order, which in their case was unnecessary, all those cases were met in that direction. What we feel so strongly is that a large number of these losses have been due to the extraordinary attitude taken up by the Minister of Agriculture. The hon. gentleman when he became Minister of Agriculture was interviewed in Potchefstroom by a newspaper. I will only read one part of that interview—

The moment I read that, I said “God help the farmers of this country,” because if the Minister is not prepared to take advantage of the years of accumulated experience of responsible officers in his department, then I say “God help the agricultural development of this country.” It was because I was so frightened by this statement, that the first day when Parliament met, with a view of warning the Minister, I put a notice on the paper in connection with this simultaneous dipping, with the idea of preventing the Minister from getting into the unholy mess into which he has got at the present time. If the Minister had got into the mess we would not mind so much, but it is the unfortunate farmers who have got into the mess. I suggested to the Minister in that resolution that any stock that had been clean for 12 months and over should not be subjected to the simultaneous dipping, that I considered the periods chosen were unsuitable periods, and that farmers should be consulted to see what was the most suitable period for carrying out this proposal. Whenever this country has been subjected to 18 months or two years, or, as in some cases, 2½ years of drought, we know that, as sure as the sun shines, on the breaking up of that drought you are going to have unprecedented rains, and during those unprecedented rains you are going to have an enormous amount of disease amongst your stock. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden), who always poses as such an authority on anything connected with the sheep industry of this country, and who occasionally lets himself be led astray, because he resents so much my young friend (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) having taken his place in that progressive district of Cradock, speaks against his better judgment. He said that every progressive farmer knows that no matter how thin your sheep are and what the condition of the sheep and the veld may be, you can always dip them. My hon. friend is a practical farmer. Would my hon. friend take a period of time where you had copious rains to dip poor sheep knowing that very often for a week or a fortnight they would never get dry? I am speaking also as a practical farmer, and I am perfectly certain that the majority of practical farmers—with the exception of my hon. friend, when he expresses views for a particular purpose—would agree with me. It was a most unfortunate thing at the time that these representations were made, that the Minister did not act as previous Ministers acted, that was to sit down and discuss the question with the officials of his department, and if he found he had made a mistake, not to be too proud to recognize it. That was the whole difficulty, and I think that was the point of view of the Minister of Justice. I have never seen the Minister of Justice take up a more judicious, fair or moral attitude than this afternoon.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) made us wait a long time before he spoke. It has, however, come out clearly in his speech where the attack on the Minister of Agriculture comes from. The cause is the abolition of the sheep division, and it is one of the most fortunate things that could have happened for the farmers.

The hon. member may not now discuss that matter.

I am sorry that hon. members take up that attitude when we are anxious for scab to be eradicated. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort is the last person to talk about this matter. It was clear that as long as he was Minister of Agriculture no scab would be got rid of. The present Minister of Agriculture has taken the matter upon him and he will succeed despite the resistance of hon. members opposite. It is said that we are the brake. In the Free State nearly the whole population is Nationalist, and the Free State is almost clean of scab. Natal is prepon-deratingly S.A.P., and there it is that scab is found. When it comes to the eradication of scab we ought to keep party politics out of it and to stand together.

Quite right.

Yes, but your attitude is not right. You are busy opposing while an attempt is being made to eradicate scab. There was no simultaneous dipping at Heilbron and I lost about 20 per cent. of my sheep. Every sheep farmer knows that that happens when we get heavy rains. There was blue tongue, wire worm, etc., but if the Minister is willing to pay compensation we shall hear nothing about wire worm and blue tongue. Under the regulations every farmer has the right to demand compensation when he can prove that there has been negligence on the part of the Government. I hope that the Minister will stand firm, and I can assure him that the sheep farmers and the public will support him to make a success of this matter. I am sufficiently optimistic to say that we shall eradicate scab under his administration. If hon. members opposite really have the interests of the farmers at heart then they ought to leave party politics aside and then we can attend to the interests of the farmers.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan) has said that it will not do to give compensation for all the sheep that are dead. But we only want compensation for sheep that have died on account of the dipping. His attack on us was unfounded. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has given the Minister the advice not to dip sheep that had been clean for more than a year. The hon. Minister then said that if he followed the advice of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that the whole country would be disappointed. Now I want to ask the Minister if we can accept his advice? What would have happened if we had accepted his advice in the past in connection with the importation of Chinese and in connection with the peace at Vereeniging?

The hon. member is wandering too far. The question of the adjournment of the debate and asking leave to sit again is under discussion.

I only put the question whether we can accept his advice. The hon. Minister believes neither us nor his own people. The hon. members for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) and Benoni (Mr. Madeley) have asked for a postponement to get information. I will always support the Minister when he does good work, but when he goes wrong I will be against him. What answers has he given to our criticism? He has indulged in personalities and abused people. That is a policy which I shall not follow.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has got up and sounded the praises of the previous Government. He always looked to the best time for dipping sheep. In Carnarvon the former Government dipped sheep in the middle of the wint r when the water was frozen. That was done twice, but the dip was so bad that the sheep had scab when they arrived at Johannesburg. Then there is the case of Mr. Rasmus de Wet, whose sheep were dipped 18 times in three years by the Government officials. The man’s sheep are dead and he is bankrupt. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) and I pleaded at that time for a commission of enquiry. The former Government would not grant that, and to-day they come here for a commission of enquiry. That is the way that the former Government worked. I have much sympathy with the farmer, and if anything can be done to help the farmer that has lost sheep I shall do everything for him. If the Minister had come here and said that the farmer could make no claim for compensation I should have been opposed to it. But the Minister has not done so. He has said that farmers can claim compensation where they are entitled to it under the regulations. If the din is well mixed a person’s sheen cannot be killed by it. I have not yet talked about this dinning in Natal, but I think that we have talked enough now and it is time to come to the vote.

I do not propose to allow the Minister of Defence to push me off the straight path, just because that happens to pass the shadowy pit that these gentlemen have dug. I am taking my stand on what I believe to be right. He evidently refuses to accept what I consider a reasonable defence. It is idle for the Minister of Defence to tell us that we should wait until the Minister’s vote is before the House. Now is the time, when we are considering the question of an indemnity for the result of orders that are coming under our review. Now is the time to extract a promise from the Minister, to establish what we believe to be right. I believe, in their hearts, the Minister and his friends believe what they are supporting to be wrong. The Minister of Justice expounded what, to me, as a layman, was an extraordinary doctrine. He said it was not necessary to have this clause, which would not apply at all; it would be nice to have it on the statute book; but if it were not passed, it would not matter, because nobody can take action against the Minister for having acted under regulations that are ultra vires. If that is so, why pass this clause? And if you insist on passing this clause, it is evidence that that is not so, and it is evident that damage has been done for which the Minister can be held responsible. The House is being asked to legalize an evasion of the obligation of the Minister towards the sheep farmers of the Union. Before I am prepared to conclude that position, I want a promise from the Government that they recognize it as a moral claim. That is an alternative. If they do not give that promise, I am going to support the motion that we report progress, in order that we may get information from all parts of the country. I am satisfied that the Minister and his colleagues do not know what is happening in the country. None of us know. We have some suspicion and some information but not all the information we require, and I do put it, that this is a matter the consequences of which may be far-reaching, and that we should be careful before giving statutory authority for an injustice to a large section of the farming population of the country. To wind up with. I want to appeal to the Minister as to whether he is prepared to consider the just claims of these people, where they are established as just, and whether they will be compensated adequately and not under the miserable terms of the Stock Act at present in force; but, as they have a moral claim to be treated, namely, that they will receive full compensation for the damage done to them. If so. I am prepared to vote for the indemnity straightaway; but If not. I am going to try to get a postponement of the question, in order that further information may be obtained.

The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) has accused me of being unfair when I ordered the simultaneous dipping. I gave notice to din the sheep in January, February; thereafter. I extended it to March and April, and thereafter, to May. It therefore lasted five months. There was thus plenty of opportunity to dip at a favourable time—

I ask—

I said that if an official had had any of my sheep dipped on a day that it rained—

I asked a question.

He makes an accusation—

I asked—

Order!

I challenged the hon. member to give me one instance where an official acted wrongly and, if he can prove that, then I will immediately dismiss the official, and if an official has acted wrongfully, compensation will be paid. The hon. member could, however, not give a single instance, and he is only making false accusations to this House. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has said that I did not take the advice of experts in fixing the time for dipping. I live in the Transvaal, and I ought to know that the dipping time there is from January to April. I effectively consulted the agricultural union. They said that they supported me in dipping. I said that I would proclaim simultaneous dipping in the summer. I said that in this House, and why did hon. members not object then? Why did not the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) protest against it then? Because he does not know enough about farming. The whole debate only illustrates hatred and spite from the opposite side. The members are sorry that they are now in Opposition. They cannot bear it, and now they are full of hatred and envy, but I am not going to be frightened of it.

We know that.

The agitation is not in the interests of the country. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) said that the House should have more information. But what information does the House expect? Yes, the members of the Opposition expect telegrams about the number of sheep that have died from the dipping. I have already said that if sheep have died and losses been suffered as the result of the acts of my officials or of the dipping that I am quite prepared to pay in terms of the regulations. But the members are not satisfied with that. They want to give the man, e.g. who has lost 100 sheep, the opportunity to say that it is in consequence of the simultaneous dipping, even if the death had quite a different cause, and we shall then have to pay. That is what the members of the Opposition want. They do not care, and they forget that the tax payer has to pay. When a man has suffered damage then I will take his claim for compensation into favourable consideration. I take the case of a farmer in Heidelberg who suffered damage under an order to dip given by my predecessor. I am not sure what the cause of the damage was but because there is a doubt he was paid out. Then there is the case of Natal where farmers suffered damage as they say through having dipped with tobacco extract, one of the best dips. It is alleged that the sheep got inflammation therefrom. I said that I will institute an enquiry, and the company is also very anxious that I should do so to find out the cause. Sir Arnold Theiler is now busy investigating the matter. If the cause of the loss is the dip then the company will pay and if the company refuses to pay then the Government will do so, but in that case I will strike the tobacco extract out of the list of approved dips. There are seven of such instances of damage. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) said that no one was in favour of simultaneous dipping and that I took it entirely upon myself. I will only say that the agricultural union favoured it and that the Nationalist party of the Transvaal at its congress unanimously voted for simultaneous dipping. Shortly thereafter the S.A.P. also held its congress and there not a single word was said against it. It is alleged that I was unsympathetic towards the deputation that came to see me from Natal. It has even been said that I refused to receive the deputation but that is not so. For Natal I fixed the simultaneous dipping in January. At the request of the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) and the deputation I extended it to April and I am not inclined to say that I acted wrongly. I also dip my sheep—

Did they have scab?

No, I do not farm with them as the hon. member does. The Government wants to act justly in connection with the compensation and if there are officials that compelled dipping on wrong days as mentioned by the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) and if farmers have thereby been caused damage then I will pay in accordance with the regulations.

Can we now send in claims?

Yes, if they are correct certainly send them in and I will have them examined. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) said that I wanted to run away but I have no such intention at all. I shall remain here another six months if necessary.

I wish to make an explanation. I did not say that about the Minister of Agriculture because I know his health is not of the best. I said it about the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler).

No.

I am remaining here.

I accept the word of the hon. member.

I hope that the hon. Minister if he will not listen to us will listen to the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) because the arguments of that hon. member were sound. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet has said that however poor the sheep may be if the farmer himself is standing by the sheep will not die from dipping. I ask the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet if on a day like this he would be prepared to dip his sheep.

That I did not order.

The sheep were dipped when it rained, and the weather was bad.

Under the former Government sheep were dipped on bitterly cold days, even when it was snowing.

Attacks have been made on the former Government and it has been said that under that Government scab would never have been eradicated. The hon. Minister at the beginning of the session gave me some figures and from them it appears that scab was only .43 when this Government came into office. Therefore to this extent the former Government succeeded in reducing scab. But I am convinced of it that scab will increase by the methods the present Minister is following. The hon. Minister at the commencement of the session would not accept the good advice from this side of the House. But I hope that he now will listen to good counsel from this side and will accept the adjournment of the debate. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has rightly said that the position may be much worse than we know of.

I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture is getting heated about this matter. If he likes to charge me with political propaganda and that I am trying to cause the sheep farmers in South Africa to make politics out of it, he can do so. But I must repeat a case that I have previously given. I know of a case of a man who dipped his sheep. He was a very efficient and careful farmer and that is proved by the Department of Agriculture which asked him to be one of the honorary inspectors. They were so satisfied he was a good sheep farmer, they asked him to act as honorary inspector in the neighbourhood. I mention it just to show that the man was a good and sound farmer, He dipped his sheep and had a loss of £1,500 direct, and he wants to go to court to prove his loss. So much for the legal provision. The Minister says he is not averse to paying compensation under the regulations, but I have tried to prove that we are often getting compensation outside the regulations. I don’t know that there is anything immoral in that. When farmers pointed out that they were free from scab, the officials of the Department of Agriculture pointed out that there was a good deal of keds in the Transvaal and suggested they should dip their sheep for that, Many of them dipped with McDougall’s and Cooper’s dip, which are both arsenic dips, and the agricultural department, although it did not advise them to use one of these two dips, they did, by implication, allow the use of them. Neither of these dips are on the list for compensation, and if they were used and the sheep died, the Government need not pay out. Surely these men have a moral claim against the Government. This man, as I said, dipped his sheep in one of these dips, either lime or sulphate or nicotine would have been useless. His loss was £1,500, and he cannot get compensation under the regulations.

Then the regulations of your Government were unfair.

I will accept that, but surely the Minister of Agriculture will not shelter himself behind those regulations. The Minister of Justice has taken up the position, that whether we pass this law or do not pass it, the farmer cannot succeed. If a man has big losses give him a chance to go to court to prove it. In cases where, under the Government order, he was compelled forcibly to dip his sheep he would be entitled to compensation. We expect to get information on these points, give us until Wednesday, if not longer. That is not asking too much of the Minister. He could have had his other Bill through if he had done this. The Minister wanted to know if we had sent wires to the country to stir up an agitation. Speaking for myself, I can assure him I have not sent one wire through the country. I am quite willing to argue the merits of the case, but at this stage I want to content myself by merely asking the Minister of Justice to let us go on with the law on Wednesday. I do not care very much whether a man must get compensation for a sheep that died within a week or ten days. I would be satisfied if the Minister said: “We will pay that loss if it was bona fide, say, within ten days of the dipping.” I say, supposing a man lost his sheep within seventy-two hours—

I would be prepared to go into that.

Why not give us a chance to see how the position works out? Let us consider the position. The Minister said that if a man had lost his sheep within seventy-two hours he would be prepared to consider the case. I doubt whether he has the power to pay in such a case under the regulations.

I have already mentioned the case in Heidelberg last year where three weeks after the dipping the sheep died and still we paid out, because it was doubtful if the sheep had not died as a result of dipping. I am quite disposed to consider cases of this kind where the sheep die more than two days after the dipping clearly as a result of the dipping.

We should very much like to know how, after the passing of this Bill, the Minister will be able to pay compensation.

Will the hon. member object to payment?

We should like to know where we stand. If the indemnity Bill is passed, under what Act will the hon. Minister pay out? That is the point I should be glad to have the opinion of the hon. Minister of Justice on.

I think an important item like this requires very careful consideration. I feel that my constituents in Weenen county and the farmers in Natal generally would consider that I was neglecting my duty if I did not express my appreciation to the Minister of Agriculture for one phase of this unfortunate incident which they do indeed appreciate. Of course, they have suffered immensely. They have suffered exactly as they warned the Minister they would suffer, but he appreciated to some extent their position when he told them in my hearing as they were leaving the room—

in view of their bitter experience, they are: indeed most grateful to him for that assurance. I think that next time this compulsory dipping, is applied to other provinces our experience is going to be of great value. We have indeed suffered in their interests; the next time there is simultaneous dipping they will be very differently treated. We are grateful to the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) and the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) for the sympathetic way in which they have spoken on this matter. It is the first time we have had members of the opposition coming to our side and helping us. The Minister has said that those who have suffered severely will not be prejudiced in their claims by the passing of this measure, but when you come to consider their rights under the Act as it stands you will find they are negligible. The losses have occurred after that limit date, whereas, as a matter of fact, some of these sheep are still dying. As an illustration of the damage done: I suggested the appointment of two independent farmers to go and inspect a particular flock (Mr. Parkinson’s). Both are men of considerable experience, and this is the certificate they have sent—

Under the conditions of the law proposed a bona-fide claim such as this will hardly be worth the rendering, and yet it is admitted that an illegal act has been done by the Minister, for which we are quite willing to give him indemnity, so long as the country shall pay for the damage done to the sufferers.

Motion put; and Col.-Cdt. Collins called for a division.

Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—36.

Ballantine, R.

Barlow, A. G.

Bates, F. T.

Brown, D. M.

Buirski, E.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Giovanetti. C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Kentridge. M.

Louw, J. P.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Naudé, A. S.

Nel, O. R.

O’Brien, W. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; de Jager, A. L.

Noes—56.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

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.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mullineux, J.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Swart, C. R.

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.

Tellers: Vermooten, O. S.; Brand Wessels, J. H.

Motion accordingly negatived.

The Minister has not yet laid on the table the papers he promised last Tuesday that he would place on the table. I have already called attention to the unfairness of this procedure. We are called upon to debate this question, and have asked for the papers which the Minister is in possession of, but he withholds them. This is a most unfair procedure, and is similar to loading the dice against us. Surely we are entitled to the information in the course of debate and not afterwards, when if will be too late for us to make use of it. The Minister has laid a good deal of stress upon the fact that people who have lost stock may claim compensation under the regulations, but under the regulations they cannot recover compensation unless there has been a loss of more than two per cent. of the animals dipped, and the loss must have been reported without delay, and the department afforded an opportunity of holding a post-mortem; moreover, a standard dip must have been used, and an affidavit giving full particulars of the loss must have been furnished within eight days of being required to do so by an inspector. I venture to say there is not a single owner who has been able to comply with the procedure laid down by these regulations, and the Minister knows that he is safe in making an offer of that sort, because none of these people have complied with the conditions. We have been given a version of the law by the Minister of Justice, which some of us are not prepared to accept, because it is at variance with the opinion of eminent counsel in Natal, whose opinion is just as much entitled to respect as that of the Minister. We are not inclined to allow farmers to be legislated out of their rights. Any claim after the coming into operation of this Bill will be completely prescribed by this law. I ask you, is that fair? The Minister himself says these losses are due to natural causes, and that he should come here and get a complete exoneration for losses arising from his action is not fair. Many of them have not yet been made aware of the intentions of the Minister. They have a confused idea of what the legislation means to them. Less than one per cent. of the farmers have a clear or definite idea of the extent to which their claims will be jeopardized by the action of the Minister, We are bound to protest against legislation of this kind. Owing to their living long distances away, and the inaccessibility of legal advice, farmers are only beginning to appreciate the fact that they have claims at law. The Minister is earning for himself a bad preeminence, because of the series of high-handed acts, which he has undertaken in the form of legislation during the present session. He is going to bolt and bar the door in the face of people with lawful claims against the Government. He comes here, seeking release from the wrong actions he has committed in face of the protests from people who have suffered, and the strongest possible protests from officers of his own department.

I am much surprised that the hon. member who has just spoken has uttered such a mean accusation.

The hon. Minister may not say that.

I bow to your ruling. It is an unworthy accusation. He said that he had asked me to lay certain papers on the table, and that I refused to do so. He knows that those papers are spread all over the country amongst the inspectors. They must first of all go to Pretoria and then they have still to be translated. That is the sort of accusation we may expect from the South African party.

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

I beg to move as an amendment—

The purport of this amendment is to make it quite clear that this side of the House has no objection to giving the Minister indemnity for all acts except those done under the simultaneous dipping. The contention of the other side is if this law is not passed, the Government will not have indemnity for any other acts or matters, in connection with, let us say, east coast fever, anthrax and many other things. I want to make it quite plain that the only object of this amendment is not to give the Government indemnity for all actions that have arisen from simultaneous dipping. We have debated this matter at length on the motion to report progress, so it is rather difficult to know just which points to touch upon now. The Minister of Justice tells us that, in any case, it would not help the farmers even if they took advantage of the technicality that the Government are seeking to repair. The Prime Minister tells us that he does not wish people to take advantage of this technicality. He also tells us that even where a man would not have a case if this law were not passed, on account of his not having obeyed the order, that is the man he wants to get at and the man whom he does not want to give indemnity Whatever the merits of the different cases are, it is quite clear, I submit, that if this law is not passed and a man’s sheep have been taken by an inspector against his wish and dipped that man would have a clear case for compensation. The Prime Minister also tells us that he does not think that an honest sheep farmer would make use of this technicality. I do not follow his argument. I am sure that if I had had this loss, whatever his opinion might be about the high morals of the thing, I would make use of every point of attack I had on the Government. The position we take up in this matter is that, from the beginning, the Government was warned. The sheep farmers in the country took up this position—

And, in fact, the Minister now admits that if he has to enforce the order for simultaneous dipping next year he would not enforce the order in districts that are clean, and I want to make it plain that I am not seeking to give an action to any man that had scab, but I would say this, that hundreds of farmers who have not had scab, in many cases for ten years, have been forced to dip and I submit that the Government should not now come and stop them from going to the courts and getting justice, if they can get it. We know that the Minister must pay under the regulations, but we do say that under these circumstances and especially on the question of which dip was used the Minister should there meet the farmers. We know that many farmers have not taken the two standard dips and surely the least we can ask, if a man has dipped in arsenic and has used every precaution, notwithstanding what is in the regulations, if he has had losses the Government should pay. I am not satisfied that the Minister might not say to us afterwards, “I would like to pay, but I cannot; I have the Auditor-General and the legal advisers against me.” I would like to put to the Minister of Justice this point. He says, but for this illegality, a man would not have a claim. The lawyers in the House will remember the question of prescription. If a man came to the court and pleaded prescription in an ordinary action you would look askance at him. The sheep farmer says, “I warned you; I did not want to dip and you had no right to enforce it. You enforced it and I have no other ground of action but this ground that you made me dip under an illegal order. I am going to take every advantage I can of that illegal order in order to get compensation.” I cannot, for the life of me, see why that is incorrect or immoral. If the Minister will meet us and say he will have all cases gone into, and where a man has suffered loss he shall be paid compensation, we will be satisfied. If not, I am afraid we shall have to press this amendment.

I should like to ask the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) to be a little more clear. Much has been said during the last few days about the matter and the hon. Minister of Agriculture has clearly explained the matter. Now the hon. member introduces another proposal. Let us well understand now for what compensation is claimed by the farmers. The hon. Minister says that if one of the two standard dips under the regulations was used he would be prepared to consider their claim for compensation. If notice is given within 48 hours he must grant compensation, but he is even prepared to take the matter into consideration if the time is longer between the dipping and the notice of the loss. Now the hon. member for Ermelo says that it is the department’s fault that the farmers have had losses and cannot obtain compensation.

Indirectly.

Now, I just want to know who gave instructions to the farmers not to use standard dips. That is the great point. Did the hon. Minister of the department issue an order saying that they were to dip with an unrecognized dip? That is what I want to know. If they used another dip on their own, then the department cannot be held responsible. How can those people now run to the Government for compensation? I shall be glad if the hon. member for Ermelo will make the matter clear.

Why then, the indemnity?

The hon. Minister asks indemnity for all acts which were done from the time that these regulations were proclaimed for the first time, i.e., from 1914. If that is not done, someone who suffered damage 5, 7, or 10 years ago, if the action is not yet prescribed can come to the Government and claim compensation for any unlawful act which was done under the regulations but which regulations have been declared ultra vires.

What about the opinion of the Minister of Justice?

The member cannot put me off my stroke. My question is whether if the farmers have used dip on their own account which the Government has not prescribed as a standard dip how they can then run to the Government for compensation?

I am afraid my remarks that I made the other evening have been distorted. What I said was this, that I welcomed the complete conversion of what I once regarded as the remschoen party to the state of being implacable unrelenting enemies of scab. It augurs well for the mastery over scab. With regard to the question which has arisen in Natal I think the argument of the hon. member who has just sat down is completely out of court. This question has come before the court of justice already and it has gone against the Government.

Not on the question of dipping.

There was obviously an acceptance of the principle that the Government had done something they had no right to do. If that is so it is up to the Government to pay compensation for any losses that have been sustained. That is the duty of the Government, but it is perfectly fair on the part of the Minister to protect himself against undue liability or losses sustained by dipping; the farmer has to accept some liability himself. I would like to meet the argument raised by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) who is regarded as an authority on sheep and I think very justly so.

You mean he thinks so.

No, I think he speaks with authority when he speaks of sheep or sheep farming.

I do not agree with you.

He said, or conveyed the idea—which I think is a rather mistaken idea—that by the exercise of the uttermost care it was safe to dip sheep even in the lowest condition. Sheep that are low and weak and worn out do suffer and losses are likely to occur although not so many if it is done carefully. We all know that conditions in this country differ immensely; what suits one district does not suit another. It is the duty of the Government to tackle the scab when it is most vulnerable. Every district has its most suitable time for action. In my own district, where I have lived all my life, scab occurs. The proper time to tackle scab, is just after shearing. Every effort should be concentrated at that time to stamp it out. In winter time it is almost hopeless to try and eradicate scab. I agree that the Minister ought to have great power; but this weapon for good can also be a weapon of disaster if placed in the hands of inexperienced men. I hope the Minister will take note of that.

We may in some respects differ in opinion from each other but I do not think that there is a single farmer in the House who will not look after the benefit of the farmer. I am convinced that the Minister, although he has been attacked here, has the interests of the farmer just as much at heart as any member in the House. What then is the object of the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins)? If I understand him correctly he would like, where damage has been caused by the simultaneous dipping, especially amongst the farmers who had clean sheep, certain compensation to be paid to them. That is the reason why I asked him what period he would fix. If we do not do that it is impossible to discuss this matter. When I listen to what practical farmers have said here then the only period, according to them, would be twelve months. The hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) referred to the damage to the wool. We shall thus have to wait till after shearing time. Another farmer has said that the stock of lambs would be damaged. We should thus have to fix a period of 12 months. It is a hopeless position and now the House will never take such a decision. The hon. member for Ermelo has replied: five or ten days. As a representative of sheep farmers I think that it is no more than fair that when people with clean sheep have suffered damage they should get certain compensation. It has been argued that the simultaneous dipping was not fixed for a suitable time. I am certain that no more suitable time could be found for Harrismith. February and March are the best months. Let us now come to another point. I understood from the Minister of Agriculture that he is also prepared to fix a reasonable period to satisfy himself what actual losses were caused in that period. The hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Fourie) asked whether the people who had dipped received instructions from the Minister to dip with a different kind of dip. I went with a deputation to the Minister and we asked him whether we had to dip with the two prescribed kinds of dips. He said that we could use any acknowledged dip but on our own responsibility, because the regulations allow that, i.e., the regulation which he found in the department. Coopers dip is a recognized dip and some farmers used it. I do not see why the Minister cannot institute an enquiry in this connection also. I am in favour of our fixing a certain limit of time and that the Minister shall enquire into the complaints. If he then is convinced of actual losses caused by the simultaneous dipping let him pay the compensation. I therefore appeal to the House to acknowledge that however we may differ from each other there is no farmer who wishes the detriment of the sheep farmers. We are all proud of the sheep farmers and want to assist their advancement. The Minister of Agriculture is just as anxious as any one else to push their interests. I have confidence in him that he will do his best. Nobody expects him to just admit every claim. He must first of all have the matter well enquired into. The objection of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) is that the full value of the sheep is not paid out. I do not think that that is the case. I hope that the hon. member for Ermelo will be satisfied if the Minister investigates the matter.

I rise just to answer a question put by the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Fourie). It would have been better perhaps if his question had been directed to his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, who could have supplied him with the information. He asked why those farmers who have had those heavy losses should have dipped in arsenical dips, when they could have used the safer standard dips. If he had asked the Minister that question, he would have been informed that the Minister himself had issued instructions that in those cases where flocks had been clean for a period of over 12 months, they could use arsenical dips, and that was a necessary order because to dip clean flocks—and some of those who suffered had their flocks clean for a great number of years—in lime and sulphur, is a waste of time and money. So when the Minister issued those instructions to use arsenical dips—

No.

I got that information from the Minister’s own department and I refer him to his own journal on the subject. It was a very necessary instruction; because lime and sulphur do not destroy keds. The other dip which is referred to as a standard one, is nicotine, and those with experience of it know that it is charged with molasses or treacle, and if you dip sheep in it in the height of summer, you are only baiting the sheep for the blowfly, and will incur heavy losses, and those farmers who know what they are about, will not use nicotine in the middle of summer. If the Minister will turn up the “Agricultural Journal,” he will see that the dips which are advised in his own department for keds are arsenical dips, and therefore it cannot be said that arsenical dips were used without official condonation.

Advised, not instructed.

I suppose it was not a definite instruction, but the Minister offers his advice. He recognizes that it is absurd to make the farmers dip their sheep in lime and sulphur when, there was no scab but only keds, and that the only sensible dip you can use for these is arsenic.

I move—

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—57.

Alexander, M.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Brink. G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy. E. A.

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.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Mullineux, J.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, B. J.

Pretorius. J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W J.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Vermooten, O. S.; Brand Wessels, J. H.

Noes—37.

Allen, J.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Buirski, E.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Grobler, H. S.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Zyl. G. B.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; De Jager, A. L.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

The amendment proposed by Col.-Cdt. Collins put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—34.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Buirski, E.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Grobler, H. S.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl. G. B.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; De Jager, A. L.

Noes—60.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conroy, E. A.

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.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Louw. E. H.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Mullineux, J.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, B. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

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. B.

Tellers: Vermooten, O. S.; Brand Wessels, J. H.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

On a point of order am I right in assuming the closure was applied to this amendment only? I have an entirely different amendment.

The closure is on the whole clause with amendments.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

New clause 3,

I move—

I think the Minister should meet us there. I want extension for a month to institute action.

*I have already shown that certain farmers have suffered heavy losses, and in considering whether they will institute action will first take legal advice. Now I do not think that they have had sufficient time to institute action. The Bill now approved makes provision that no action may be instituted after the 12th May. I think that it is not unfair to ask that people who wish to institute action should in any case have time until 30th June. I hope that the hon. Minister will meet the people and give them a chance to obtain advice. I mentioned the case of Mr. Jacobs. He obtained the opinion of an advocate and it is favourable. I hope that in such cases the people will have another opportunity of instituting their action.

Those who have obtained legal advice will Be assisted and the others will not be assisted at all. I just wish to ask whether this amendment is in order. It seems clear to me from what the hon. member has said that the amendment actually wants to alter what has been passed in section 2. The suggested new section is therefore an amendment of section 2.

I just want to say that I had the same feeling when the amendment was proposed. It is so closely connected with section 2, that I cannot accept it as a separate new section. As this proposed new clause is germane to clause 2 which has been agreed to, I am unable to put it to the Committee.

I have a new clause which I think will be accepted by everybody on each side of the House. It will specially appeal to the Minister, because it will put those people right who have suffered, without interfering with the Act. Unless the addition I am proposing is accepted then it follows as a matter of course that those who have lost most heavily will have no redress. Only those who dipped their sheep in one or other of the new standard dips, lime and sulphur or nicotine. It is the men with the clean flocks who have suffered the most, and these men were compelled to use arsenical dips to kill the keds—as lime and sulphur will not kill these; and to use nicotine dips in summer only attracts the blow fly. I move—

I am sure the Minister will accept that.

It appears to me this amendment involves additional expenditure. Unless the Minister tells me it does not, I cannot put it. That is how it appears to me.

Clause 3 and the title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; to be considered to-morrow.

I just want to ask the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) to withdraw his amendment. I am quite ready to meet his difficulties by a new Section 3. If we accept this motion it would be an alteration in the whole framework of the Act, which is not necessary if he practically introduces the same motion under Section 3.

I must thank the Minister for meeting me in this regard. I am very glad that he is giving the House an assurance that the object of my amendment will be fully met. Before we proceed further, I would like to add a few remarks to what I previously said. The present Minister of Agriculture and his predecessor in office both expressed themselves in favour of a general branding act for the Union during the course of the debate. I do not think either of those Ministers can have read the report of the Select Committee on stock thefts which sat two years ago. Had they done so, I do not think either of them would have taken the line that he did. That committee stated, inter alia, that there was a considerable body of evidence to the effect that a compulsory act was not a practicable measure in this country, and the committee concluded by saying—

That was the decision of a committee which spent some months over this matter and took the most exhaustive evidence. It seemed quite obvious to all concerned that an act as contemplated by the late Minister of Agriculture and approved by the present Minister is wholly unsuitable to this country and would not be practicable. Speaking for my own district, farmers are in the habit of classifying their sheep every year. Sheep are used for paying servants and these sheep are taken over by the servants into the Herschel district. It has been suggested that we should not pay our servants in sheep. If we don’t do that the servants will then work for money and buy sheep. If such a branding act were put in force in our district you would have to get control of all the sheep which are going out annually and finding their way into the Herschel district. Over there stock are the currency of their natives. Stock are their medium of exchange, and there would be no possibility of exercising control. We are all keen on stopping stock thieving. A measure of this kind would not be operative at all in the sense that the Minister of Justice would like. Unless you can control the stock and have them registered, it would be a most hopeless thing. I would strongly commend this report of the stock thefts committee to the attention of the Minister. I hope to bring it, later on, to the notice of the Minister of Justice.

With leave of the committee, proposed new heading and clause withdrawn.

I feel somewhat responsible for the position which has arisen, having moved the contingent motion for the inclusion of small stock within the scope of this Bill.

Is not the hon. member (Mr. Struben) speaking on Clause 1?

Seeing that the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) has withdrawn his motion on the understanding that we would be met, what I want to say shortly is that I am responsible for this intention to make the Bill applicable to small stock, but I did that on the understanding that this was a permissive Bill. It seems to me that it would be quite easy to alter Clause 3 so as to make it meet our case, but I would like to know the nature of the amendment proposed to be made by the Minister, before agreeing to the withdrawal of his amendment by the hon. member for Aliwal.

There is nothing before the committee now. I will put Clause 1. On Clause 1,

I move—

Does the Minister propose that the Governor-General be left out of Clause 1 and all the other words remain?

Yes.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I move—

1. (a) both great and small stock in any area which has not been proclaimed by the Governor-General under section 12 as an area in which the branding of both great and small stock shall be obligatory; or
2. (b) great stock in any area which has not been proclaimed by the Governor-General under section 12 as an area in which the branding of great stock shall be obligatory; or
3. (c) small stock in any area which has not been proclaimed by the Governor-General under section 12 as an area in which the branding of small stock shall be obligatory.”

I do not know whether it is quite fair of the hon. Minister to introduce such a complicated amendment. It is difficult for us to follow it. It seems to me that the meaning of the amendment is to also make compulsory the branding of small stock. Now I should like to know how small stock can be branded or marked. As the Bill now reads it is clear to me that if it once becomes law no one in the Union will be able to brand great stock.

No.

Without the amendment as it stands now.

Oh yes.

Yes, what I want to know from the hon. Minister is whether his amendment will obviate that so that every person will have the right to mark his great or small stock as in the past until such time as the Act is proclaimed in a district and secondly how the small stock are to be marked.

I introduced this amendment expressly at the suggestion of that side of the House. The object was that no one should be permitted to brand his stock except with a registered brand. The Bill is now however like the fencing law. If Colesberg asks for compulsory branding and the divisional council is agreeable then the district will be proclaimed. Before that happens every man can go on branding cattle and sheep just as is the case at present. It can be prescribed by regulation how the branding shall be done.

I should like to ask the Minister whether, outside the area that is proclaimed, a farmer can use any brand he wishes, so long as that brand is not registered in the proclaimed area.

He can use any brand except a registered brand.

Yes, precisely.

May I ask the hon. Minister where he provides in the Bill to make the branding of cattle compulsory on the order of his department?

Under the Cattle Diseases Act.

When the Bill is proclaimed in a district is the owner compelled to use the registered brand? Or can he use his own. Can he refuse to brand?

No, the same position is created as under the fencing law.

No, they are not similar cases.

I would like to ask the Minister whether the word brand includes an earmark on sheep.

Yes, you can have a brand in the ear. If the hon. member will turn to the amendments on page 448 of the votes, he will find that provided for.

I think the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) asked whether somebody out of the proclaimed ward cannot use the Government brand. I think the hon. Minister said that he could not.

If he has it registered then he has the right.

That is what I wanted to know.

The point I want to make is, that Clause 3 says that no brand shall be placed except in, conformity with the Act, and in Clause 4 sub-section (2) it is provided that not more than one brand shall be allotted to one owner. In looking up the definition on page 448, I find it states that a brand on small stock shall be made on the ear by means of a plier. Wherever one is farming sheep on any considerable scale, it is necessary to use more than one earmark for the purpose of differentiating between the various flocks in one ownership. I think the Minister, and every sheep farmer in this House, will agree that we must put different marks on the ear to distinguish for instance in one’s flocks the get of various rams one may be using and also for other purposes. Would it not be possible to leave one ear, either one or the other, entirely for the private use of the owner of small stock, to put any brand he likes on it.

I think the hon. member is correct in what he says. It is impossible to say that the sheep farmer cannot place another mark on the ear than the registered one. We once discussed the matter with the Secretary for Agriculture, and he stated that the department could not be content with one ear. It was consequently impossible for the farmer to adopt compulsory brands for small stock, because he had to have a place for his private mark. I just want to know whether the department will be satisfied with one ear so that the other can be left to the farmer.

In section 40 it is provided that it shall be laid down by regulation how marking should take place Hon. members opposite have urged to make the marking of small stock obligatory also, and I cannot now understand the attitude of hon. members opposite. But if hon. members come to me with a proposal to provide for this by regulation, then I will take it into consideration.

I think that the Minister is unfair. He brings small stock in under Section 3 and when we find that small stock cannot be brought under it then it is now our opportunity of speaking our minds. I can give the Minister the assurance that at the committee, mentioned here by the hon. member, the Secretary for Agriculture told us that the department would require both ears. If the Minister cannot now tell us that the department will only require one ear then we cannot accept the amendment, that is why I should like the Minister to inform us.

I cannot see the difficulty. The motion to include small stock came from the Opposition. As far as I understand, the mark will only be for a province and not for a district, so that I think the Government can have one ear and the farmer the other.

Unless the Minister sees his way to make it possible for the owner of sheep to put his own private mark on, the Bill is going to stultify itself by the dissatisfaction and opposition it will create. There is no opposition to the Bill in principle, but we want an assurance that we are not committing the farmers we represent to something that is absolutely impossible in operation. It is still possible to meet the case by stating that under the regulations an owner will be permitted to put his own private marks on his stock without breaking the law, in addition to the branding or marking provided by the Act. The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) is not obstructing, but he and we others here wish to make this a workable Act.

The farmers have been asking for a Brands Act and the country will be gratified at the introduction of this Bill, but the Minister must realize that we are the trustees of the farmers, and I do ask him not to say that we are obstructing. If the Act says that only one brand shall be allotted to each owner, it would be inconsistent to talk about three or four marks on an ear. We are not obstructing, but making an honest attempt to obtain a workable measure.

Clause 3 merely says that no brand shall be used except in conformity with this Act; the brands must, therefore, be of such a kind as are prescribed in the Act. The Minister points out that Section 40 prescribes what can be laid down by regulation. It is very clear that the question which has been raised here should be brought up on Clause 40.

If the Minister will accept that. I will be quite willing to drop my amendment.

We want to know that this point which we have raised in all sincerity will be met.

I have already said that. I think I can meet the hon. members, and if we discuss it on Clause 40, I will be quite willing to meet them.

I assure the Minister that we considered the matter, and the Secretary for Agriculture told us that if small stock were included, the Government would require both ears. Will the Minister give us the assurance that he will only use one ear and will leave the other one for the farmer? Unless he provides that in the Bill the owner will, on proclamation, find that he will not have one of the ears of the sheep at his disposal. Perhaps the Secretary for Agriculture has taken a different view now.

If hon. members wish that the brand should be made smaller and one ear reserved for the private owner, then I can, perhaps, meet them.

That was not my difficulty. We know that a person can make one key and a thousand locks which it will not fit, although it is of the same sort. Here the size of the marks is not the point. A little cut on the right ear and two on the left means something special. We cannot put all on the same ear. Unless we can do this, we shall not have enough marks.

May I ask the hon. Minister whether the Divisional Council will have the right to only proclaim the branding of great stock? The matter of small stock seems still very difficult.

Yes, only for great stock.

Is it possible to anticipate? I want to move it be “great stock and small stock.”

Yes, I have just said so to the hon. member.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On clause 4,

This section says—

I should like to know from the Minister if anyone who has a farm in one district and another in another can brand with the same iron in both districts. Provision must be made about this. Every farmer is proud of his farming and his brand becomes known. If a farmer has to have a brand for each district then he will not know later on where he stands. The man’s iron must be registered in other districts so that he has only one iron.

The Bill is so worded that a man can only obtain one iron. If a man has a farm in Harrismith and he buys another farm in Natal then he can have his Free State iron registered in Natal and use it there. He does not need an iron for every district.

It will stultify the object of the Act. Every district has a separate letter. In our district (Waterberg) the first letter of the mark is W. When we see cattle with a W then we know at once where they come from. If a man comes from Harrismith with another kind of brand then we will not know where we are later on. If we allow that we will get mixed up.

The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) is now speaking of the Transvaal Act. We are now, however, making an Act for the whole Union. We have now no longer to do with districts.

What will now become of all our district brands that we have?

That is dealt with in section 14.

I would like to raise a point with regard to sub-section (3), in which it is stated that the size of the characters must not be less than one inch. I would point out to the Minister that a brand of one inch on a beast is a very small brand.

The clause says “not less than.”

It seems to me that it should not be made as small as that, but should be larger. I do not know of any breeder who puts his brand on the hide of his pure-bred cattle. You put a brand on the horn or in the ear.

I just want to say to the hon. member that many farmers want as small a brand as possible. It is the case with stud stock. That is why it has been laid down that it must not be smaller than an inch. It may be bigger.

I would like to ask the Minister whether the wording of this clause means that it is compulsory to brand all cattle in native locations? The clause reads—

Does that mean that it is compulsory?

I just want to tell the hon. member that it is of course only obligatory if the Governor-General proclaims the Act in force under section 12.

Clause put and agreed to.

On clause 7,

I move—

Do I understand from the Minister that this section is going to be imposed in every native location straight away, and that the natives are not going to have the same rights as Europeans in regard to asking for it?

Not now.

I would like to point out to the Minister that there is not much chance of a Branding Act ever coming into force in a native location. The native does not like Government interfering with his stock at all. I would point out to the Minister that it seems to me that if a brand is to be assigned to each location, the matter is going to be rather difficult, because in the Transkei, at any rate, there are 20, 30, or 40 locations in each district. I think that in that part of the country if you assign a brand to each district there is a possibility of the native falling into line. If the Minister wants this Act to become of effect in the native territories, if he would confine it to districts instead of locations, he may have some chance of success.

Won’t the Minister accept an amendment in the terms suggested by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn), to substitute in native areas the words “magisterial district” for “location”? I can assure him that it is really impossible to make each location declare a separate brand.

I do not know if that will work well. One chief is not disposed to use the brand of another, and a separate iron is necessary for them.

May I suggest to the Minister that he hold this clause back to the report stage in order that it may be discussed with the secretary for Native Affairs. I feel sure it would throw a lot of light on the matter if he would do that. Would the Minister do that? I can assure the Minister we know the native territories and there is going to be very great difficulty over this.

I may point out to the hon. member that no clause can stand over for report stage. What he may do, is to move an amendment at the report stage after the passage of this clause.

I move—

I think this will give time for fuller consideration and remove a lot of misapprehension.

I cannot understand why we should let the section stand over. What information can the secretary for native affairs give more than the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) or others who come much into touch with natives and live in the neighbourhood of native locations? I think it is quite right that every location and every native city should have its mark and the kaffirs expect it.

If the hon. member will look at the following clause he will see you can give different brands a different sign.

A man has not the option.

What is your objection?

I gather from what my hon. friend, the member for Tembuland, said that the magisterial districts may be too small in certain cases and that the word “areas” would better meet the position in the Transkei—

I gather that the hon. member’s objection was that different locations in the same magisterial districts would all have the same brand. That is not the case; each location will receive a different brand.

I would like to point out to the Minister that in native territories these cattle are continually changing every day. In 12 months they may belong to a dozen different owners. We have 26 districts—

We cannot go into the merits of that now.

The motion proposed by Mr. Struben was negatived.

I only wish to say that I am strongly in favour of this Act, and I hope we will have it in force in the Native Territories before long, but I am suggesting something which I believe will make it effective in the native territories. One thing the native holds sacred in his cattle, and if you are going to enforce a brand in each location, you must remember that in one location there may be fifty or sixty kraals, while in another location you might have 5,000 natives. If you could apply this to each district, it would be much more likely to be acceptable to the natives and to be carried out. These cattle go from one location to another, for various reasons, but remain more or less in the same district. The word “location” might be applicable in the Transvaal and Natal but not in the native territories. I have seen the chief magistrate and he says it might be applicable if you insert the word “district” and I am convinced that this should be done to bring the Act to a successful issue in so far as the Transkei is concerned. I move—

Then the Minister can decide for himself whether it should be applicable to a district, reserve or location.

I will accept that amendment.

This amendment, though it is an improvement on the present wording of the Bill, will scarcely be sufficient to distinguish the cattle in a number of these reserves where the cattle are not held in community but by individual owners, and the mere branding of these cattle belonging to that reserve will signify nothing.

Look at the next section.

Each native should be entitled to have a distinctive brand if he owns cattle, and the system of branding should be simple and not complicated by the multiplication of brands and marks.

This measure is only practicable because it is permissive, and it is only because of that many of us support the Bill. Therefore it does not seem to me to be equitable that the measure should be permissive to Europans while it is to become compulsory to the natives.

If the Bill becomes law will the native areas come under its provisions or will it be optional for them in the same manner as it will be for European areas?

I have several times made it clear that the Act is not compulsory for the whites and optional for the natives. What I can do more I cannot see.

The amendments were put and agreed to.

I want to call the Minister’s attention to the location in the district of Wodehouse. The Divisional Council will, perhaps, do its best to have the Bill applied there. Will it also be applicable to the native locations?

Yes.

Is Section 7 then not applicable there?

Yes, it is applicable to that.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I move—

I move, as a consequential amendment—

These amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

I move—

I would like to know from the Minister what part of the hide he proposes to apply these brands. There is provision here for a brand of two numerals and a letter, or alternately two letters and a numeral, and there is also provision for further distinguishing marks for natives who may desire to make application to their magistrate for private brands; so that by the time all the available powers have been exercised a large part of the animal’s hide will be ruined. Surely there can be some more simple method than this. This is a very serious matter for the stock owners, resulting as it will in depreciating the value of the hide. I do take exception to the provisions of this Act in so far as the method of branding to be employed is concerned. I think the animal would have far too many brands on it, which will detrimentally affect the value of the hide.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

I would like to ask the Minister, in those districts where no Divisional Councils exist, does it mean that each field-cornetcy will each have a distinguishing brand?

Perhaps the hon. member will look further down at Clause 3 (b).

I want to point out to the hon. Minister that section 1 the end of the first section, reads that an owner shall be obliged to mark the cattle in his possession or that may come into his possession. This means that I, as the owner of cattle after the coming into force of the Act, must also brand all stock that I buy, and if I sell it again to my neighbour he in turn must also brand it. This is the difficulty. I am frightened that in this way the remedy is worse than the disease and that we shall damage more skins than prevent stock thefts. Now it is proverbial that people always exaggerate, and in my district where there is compulsory branding it is not so strictly carried out. But if it is made compulsory then in the end we get 26 brands on the beast and the skin will be unrecognizable. If I now buy a beast from my neighbour and I get a sale note with his name, then in case of theft I can easily show that the beast with that mark is my property. But if it is not applied intelligently and it is absolutely compulsory, then I do not know where we will land, especially when we have to do with thoroughbred cattle. Then the loss will be great.

I beg to move—

The object of the amendment is to remove most of the objections and opposition to this branding Act wherever it may exist throughout the country. The effect of the amendment would be that the Act may be made to apply either to all specified stock—cattle and sheep and other small stock—or only to cattle, or only to small stock, as each district may decide.

We have that in the Minister’s amendment to clause 3.

No; that is where the point is being missed. The Minister’s amendment does not meet the point. When branding is declared obligatory all stock in that area must be branded under the terms of the Act. The effect of my amendments would be that if, in any district, you only want cattle branded, it need not be made to apply to sheep, or vice versa, at the discretion of the owners, farmers, and councils concerned.

I move—

I wish to point out that it is obligatory to brand cattle over again if they are acquired by a new owner. It is fortunately stipulated that it must be branded from the top, otherwise the police would be in a difficulty to ascertain to whom to report. If small stock are sold four times where are the people then going to brand? It seems to me that the thing would be impracticable. A beast is often sold ten times over, and small stock also often. There are districts where the stock is often sold, and if this Bill is proclaimed there I do not know where space will be found to put the brands.

I fear that I must agree with the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) and that I cannot in any way support the Bill. There are so many difficulties connected with it. Take the objection made by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk). We know how often cattle pass from one to the other. In cases of cattle which pass from one hand to another much damage will be suffered because we know that every brand decreases the value of the skin. And as to sheep, if they pass to the sixth or seventh owner one will not know where to put the brand on the animal’s ear. I should like to known from the hon. Minister how he proposes getting out of the difficulty.

I think that this section refers more to districts where there are infectious cattle diseases. We have experience in the Transvaal in that connection and it was applied there successfully. If we make it clear in this section that it will apply to districts where infectious cattle diseases exist then all will be well. Every district will then have its mark and we shall be able to decide when stock is wrongfully removed from one district to the other. I therefore think that it must be made clear that it will be applicable to such districts.

I would like to give my opinion on this branding of cattle. We are going to do incalculable harm to the leather industry of the country. There is only one place to brand a beast without injuring the hide, and that is on the cheek. As hon. members know, there are only two cheeks to brand on, and when they have finished with these two I don’t know where they are going to brand them without injuring the hide. A man selling a hide to-day without any brand upon it can ask 7s. 6d. to 10s. per hide extra. We have half-a-million head of cattle slaughtered of dying in this country, and I leave it to hon. members to work out the loss caused through branding that number of cattle, the loss when it reaches the tanner. Personally, I am not in favour of the Bill. I think we could do without it, but some members seem to think we ought to have a branding Act in some areas.

Business interrupted by the Chairman at 10.55 p.m.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; House to resume in Committee to-morrow.