as Chairman, brought up the Report of the Select Committee on Amendment of the Public Holidays Act.

Report and evidence to be printed and considered on Monday.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to; Bill accordingly withdrawn.

as Chairman, brought up the Second Report of the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements as follows—

1. (1) Weekdays:
   The use of the reading, writing, smoking and billiard rooms—
   1. (a) On Saturday afternoons and Saturday evenings until 10 p.m.
   2. (b) On non-sitting nights, until 10 p.m.
   3. (c) On days on which this House does not sit, from 10 a.m. until 10 p.m.
2. (2) Sundays:
   The use of the reading, writing and smoking rooms, from 10 a.m. until 10 p.m.

The above-mentioned additional facilities are to be available to members only.

Your Committee further recommends that Mr. Speaker be requested to authorize any expenditure that may be involved in respect of the provision of attendants.

stated that unless notice of objection was given on or before the 8th instant, the report would be considered as adopted.

I move—

Unfortunately when this measure came before the House on previous occasions I was prevented from giving it any attention at all, and this is the first opportunity I have found of doing so. I would like to direct the Minister’s attention to the fact that the Bill debars an auctioneer’s partner or clerk from buying any livestock or agricultural produce at any public auction. Now apart from the fact that you curtail the rights of the subject to a great extent by this provision, I would point out what effect it has in the country. Say you attend a bazaar. The Minister can only exclude bazaars to the tune of £5. Say you attend a town council market. Say a clerk or an employee of an auctioneer or his partner attend the sale, or suppose he attends an agricultural sale, he and his whole staff are debarred from buying a horse. He may attend, but he may not buy. He cannot buy any livestock of any other description. He cannot buy at a public auction in the country, at a market sale or at a bazaar, if the amount exceeds £5. This not only strikes at competition but it encroaches upon the rights of the subject to an enormous extent. Has the practice in the country in the past justified this gross interference with our rights as subjects? Then I come to a more serious part of this Bill, namely, clause 4. It says that “whenever agricultural produce is sold by auction by any auctioneer or other person,” I presume that means any other person entitled so to sell, and I presume a person entitled to sell would be a properly appointed agent of a person. Perhaps the Minister will tell me this. What is the position in the country? You find the farmers go to the merchants and deliver to the merchants’ stores their wool and grain, and they say to the merchants: If you can get a certain price you can sell. Often the produce is there for a considerable period. In the meantime the merchant gets an opportunity of selling, but the position now would be that he dare not buy himself, because he is an agent in terms of Clause 3. The result is that the Minister has now thrown our farming community into the hands of the brokers in the big buying centres. Our farmers are accustomed to deal with the merchants, and look to the merchants for their money, and as the party liable. But the merchant, if this becomes law, has to pass this produce on to the broker, and the transaction is then between the farmer and the broker. We are laying down a law which, of course, will be carried out. As a rule, a law is carried out strictly as it stands, and I am of opinion, judging from the practice in my constituency, that the whole produce business of the farmer and of the merchant is going to be disorganized and placed upon a wholly unsettled basis, because there is no doubt in my mind that if you once make this law that the merchant, who is the agent, has got no right to buy, you strike at the very root of our business system. I would like the Minister clearly to explain to me and to the House how this is going to work in practice, because, as I understand it, it will cause very serious injury to our settled business practice; to the sale of farming produce and to farming business generally.

It seems to me that the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has not read the Bill. The Bill has nothing to do with dealers, but only treats of goods which have been bought at public auctions.

Read section 4.

Yes, that section included. The Bill only deals with public auctions.

It is quite clear that the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius) suffers from what he ascribes to the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige). He appears to forget that the title of the Bill has been amended specially to include transactions outside the auctioneer. I agree with the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige). I feel rather unhappy about this Bill. I think that, in the eagerness of hon. members to protect the seller in Johannesburg, they have done a very great injustice both to the seller and auctioneer in outside sales. I am not going to press the point further than the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) made as regards the auctioneer himself or his partner or clerk purchasing. I do not see why on earth you should limit the seller’s market there. But I again want to call attention to sub-section (b) of clause 3, where an auctioneer would be committing a contravention under this Act if he refused to accept a man’s bid; because he thinks the man cannot pay, and then you put the onus of proof on the auctioneer. The result is going to be that the auctioneers are going to say, in every case, to sellers: We will sell your produce, but you take the risk. It is going to disorganize your whole auction business.

I would also appeal to the Minister now, when he has another opportunity of amending some of these far-reaching provisions of this Bill. He appears to be under the impression that when we venture to suggest some amendment that it is obstruction, and accused me of obstruction when I moved a necessary amendment, and if he remains under that impression he is not going to do the best for the country in his position of Minister of Agriculture. He may be very clever, and he considers himself sometimes to be almighty, but needs to be reminded that there are other people who know a little of the needs of the farmer. I entirely support the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), but I am going to refer to another portion of the Bill where the sales on municipal markets are interfered with. I think it would be well if the Minister would reconsider the matter of meeting some of the objections which have been urged upon him from this side of the House, and which I am sure would also be urged from the Minister’s side of the House if they were not sitting behind the Minister. By his amendment the Minister is going to paralyse the markets, and make it impossible for the market masters to conduct their sales expeditiously, when they have to sell a number of small lots of perishable articles of little value, no market master has the time to enquire from each buyer whether he is buying for own consumption or for resale.

The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) is labouring under a misunderstanding as a matter of fact. Nothing is said here about bazaars. If a person is not paid fees he does not fall under the Bill.

But fees are drawn.

He further says that the poor auctioneer will no longer be able to buy at a sale. He can go and buy if he is not the auctioneer at that sale. After the troubles in connection with the Meat Exchange in Johannesburg a commission appointed by the former Government recommended what is now contained in this Bill. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) remarks that the responsibility rests upon the auctioneer if he refuses a bid. We have seen what happened in connection with the Meat Exchange in Johannesburg. The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) has cast reproaches and made insinuations, and I do not know what he wants.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

The hon. House will see that the Bill makes provision that any judgment of the Court after the 12th May shall be invalid on this point. We have for days been pleading nicely with the Minister. We asked him to send the Bill to a Select Committee before the second reading. We asked for a postponement, for an enquiry, for further compensation, and we insisted upon it that particulars should be obtained of all actions in connection with the simultaneous dipping, but all our requests have been refused. He has obstinately persisted in his refusal to meet us. I just wish to point out now how in this matter absolutely no consideration has been shown to the sheep farmers. We have asked repeatedly that the sheep farmers should be met, but instead of complying with the request we continuously hear hon. members opposite say that we are obstructing. Well, that cuts no ice. Hon. members opposite instead of having sympathy with the sheep farmers say that damage was suffered by incompetence and negligence on the part of the farmers and that the sheep died of blue tongue and other things.

Hear, hear.

Hear, hear. That is all we get from hon. members. It amounts to the same as the statement of the hon. the Prime Minister that if we open the door here then the sheep farmers will commit all kinds of fraud to get compensation.

No.

Yes, he said that even if the sheep had not smelt the dip the owners would claim compensation. Well, I leave it to his responsibility to have such an opinion of the sheep farmers. I am prepared to accept the opinion of the sheep farmers of the Transvaal about my action. All our attempts have so far been in vain, but I hope that the hon. Minister will meet us on this point. All we ask is that the sheep farmers who have suffered damage shall be given until the 30th June to institute their action. I have already given my reasons. I know of a man who first took advice and he was not ready before the 12th May to institute his action.

You are pleading for cases of protest.

Why should not the farmers be allowed to claim compensation? The attitude of the hon. Minister increases the dissatisfaction. Give the people time to 30th June to bring an action. The hon. the Prime Minister has said that if we give them the opportunity they will avail themselves of a technical point to bring actions. The people who were obedient and dipped although under protest must be met. It is quite clear that a farmer who has suffered loss did not have an opportunity of instituting his action before 12th May. If the Minister is not afraid of his action why does he not give the people the opportunity?

seconded.

It seems to me that the member who has just spoken is only trying to raise a smoke screen to draw the attention of the people to something for which the former Government is actually responsible. The regulations with reference to compulsory dipping were issued by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). When he applied them he had the good fortune of not having such a rainfall, and therefore there was not such a fuss in the country. We were then in Opposition, and we said nothing against it because we felt that it was the duty of the House to support any Minister of Agriculture to eradicate scab.

He excluded clean sheep.

That hon. member should remain quiet, because he certainly is not a sheep farmer. In the Free State we can be proud that we have only two cases of scab. The Transvaal cannot say that. I speak as a practical sheep farmer. When in Opposition, whoever the Minister of Agriculture was, we always supported measures that were in the interest of the farmer. The Opposition cannot deny that this measure has been introduced in the interests of the sheep farmers. No one could have foreseen that excessive rains would come. People lost sheep—it has not yet been proved that it was the result of the simultaneous dipping—and it is now said that the Minister of Agriculture acted in a reckless way. The hon. member for Ermelo has however let the cat out of the bag when he said that the farmers outside would judge about the matter. The whole delay is not so much in order to assist the sheep farmers, but with the object of catching votes. Woe to the hon. member who tries to make political capital at the expense of the farmer.

Do you remember the Levy Bill?

I remember it very well, and I hope the hon. member has learnt such a lesson that he never again will introduce such a Bill. The hon. member for Ermelo is more concerned about the votes of the sheep farmer than about their interests. If he was actually acquainted with the position he would have spoken differently. He feels more at home in his office, but I am a practical sheep farmer, and I want to say that the compulsory dipping was only applied in Vrede and Harrismith in the Free State. In my district there was no compulsory dipping; I have just come back from the Free State, and I can assure the House that as a result of the rains I shall retain only 100 of my whole stock of lambs. Any sheep farmer will have to acknowledge if he is honest that sheep cannot stand such rain.

I want to point out to the hon. member that he must not now go into the merits of the case. He must confine himself to the amendment.

I am coming to the amendment. The hon. member wants a postponement until 30th June to give people a chance of instituting actions against the Government. That is not necessary, because we know that we can see within 48 hours whether dipping will have an injurious effect on sheep. The Minister ordered the dipping for March, and now he asks that provision shall be made to give the people time to the 30th June to institute actions. Those who thought that they had claims against the Government had ample time to institute them. It is clear what the object of the hon. member is with the amendment, and I hope the Minister will not accept it.

The last speaker, whose identity I am very uncertain about, speaks as a sheep farmer and at the same time said the dipping order did not apply to him. One expects such a speech from one who has not suffered. He shows a very unsympathetic nature from the speech he has delivered. For him to say that the losses could be determined within 48 hours after dipping shows him to be a very mediocre sheep farmer. Can you tell in 48 hours whether the sheep are going to lose their wool or not or whether the sheep are going to get pneumonia or whether your lambs will be affected. In supporting this amendment—and I hope the Minister will approve of it—I would like to point out to him a new phase in regard to this question of losses due to dipping. The Minister will remember that when he discharged all the sheep inspectors in Natal he put the cattle inspectors to do their work, men who had never worked with sheep. They were anxious to please the Minister and qualify for their new work and they devoted the whole of their time to it, at the cost of neglecting the cattle dipping.

Order, the hon. member must confine himself to the amendment.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the amendment. These sheep inspectors, by neglecting their duty, brought about disaster in many districts, and in one particular district which the Minister will remember, the Seven Oaks district, the farmers through this neglect had the whole district locked up at a time when they were anxious to deliver their produce. The roads were closed and—

Order, the hon. member is not speaking to the amendment, he must confine himself to the amendment.

These arguments, I hope, will move the bowels of compassion of the hon. the Minister. Surely that is another reason why he should give an extension of time. I would point out to the Minister, for his future guidance, that dipping is not the only way to cure scab. If he would prevent this awful trekking which takes place from the high veld to the low veld, a good deal of scab would be avoided.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member again, but be is again not speaking to the amendment. The amendment is in regard to the date from which actions will be taken.

I regret that I am transgressing. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment. Let him think of the unfortunate people who have suffered on account of this dipping. They have lost sheep that have cost them £3, which cannot be bought and replaced. Surely the Minister, as a farmer, must know the severe losses these people have sustained and the heart-breaking feeling that they have. There is nothing more exasperating to a farmer than to comply with the law as these men have done and then to suffer loss and to have no chance of redress. I hope the Minister—and I appeal to him for the last time—will accept this amendment.

It is necessary that the poor people who have suffered losses should have a chance of getting compensation, and I hope that the hon. Minister will accept the amendment. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) has said that when the former Minister of Agriculture proclaimed a simultaneous dipping he had the good fortune that there was no rain at the time. I only want to say that I am certain that if when the former Minister was engaged on the simultaneous dipping, rain had fallen as it has done this year, he would have cancelled his order. The position is that the Minister of Agriculture, when the rains came, withdrew the second order, but allowed the first order to stand. When he saw that the circumstances were unfavourable, he could have cancelled his order. Hon. members have said that the amendment now before the House is for the purpose of catching votes.

You won’t catch any votes with it in Cradock.

Yet the hon. Minister of Agriculture recently said in connection with the Cradock seat that we are sorry that they are in the positions they are in to-day. I think that the hon. Minister of Agriculture is indebted to me because if I had not one seat then I think the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) would now be in his position. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet said at Cradock “I shall become the Minister of Agriculture.” Thus I think the hon. Minister of Agriculture should be thankful to me that I won the seat, but if the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet had been Minister of Agriculture he would certainly not have acted as the present Minister has, because he is an intelligent and experienced farmer.

That has not actually much to do with the amendment.

The hon. Minister of Agriculture spoke about the farmers’ congress at Middelburg and said that the congress had demanded simultaneous dipping. The Minister’s information was wrong. The congress did not demand simultaneous dipping, but only asked for compulsory dipping for keds. I still hope that the hon. Minister will take the matter into consideration because as a farmer he must acknowledge that it is very difficult to find out within 48 hours what losses have been suffered. The position is that the dipping took place in the rainy season, and the sheep had to be dipped again after so many days after the first dipping, and if after the first dipping the rains had set in and the sheep had been continuously exposed to rain and become weakened then they would not be able to stand the second dipping without being seriously injured. It is in that case very difficult to say within 48 hours what damage has been suffered.

We heard enough about that at the second reading.

Yes, but as hon. members do not grasp it I must repeat it again. If a sheep is dipped and rains come after the dipping then the sheep gets an injury and the time that the sheep are in the unfavourable position injures the sheep, with the result that the growth of the wool stops during that time. Hon. members opposite wanted to tell us that it is difficult to lose sheep by dipping. Well, if the chance is so small why then shall we not give the people an opportunity to bring their just claims against the Government? I hope that the hon. Minister will accept the amendment.

I must honestly say that the Minister will do the farmers a very great favour if he does not accept this amendment, because it will save them much expense. Hon. members opposite are trying to incite the farmers to file claims where wool drops off the sheep. It is natural for them to make an attempt to catch votes; they have been catching them for years, but they always miss the catch. We must give them more chances of trying, and then the benches opposite will the sooner become empty. In some constituencies such as the constituency of the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel), the people have been worked up to go about with subscription lists for a test case.

I did not influence them.

No, I will not say that the hon. member has done so, but his attitude was such that he encouraged the people to start the matter. Everybody must give £1 or £5 towards a test case. They will not only lose that money but they will also institute further actions against the Government. They will lose them hopelessly, and hon. members opposite will only be losing more votes.

This is all very interesting, but it has nothing to do with the amendment.

I said it because I knew it was interesting. I am a sheep farmer myself, and I was forced to dip my sheep at the simultaneous dipping, as the result of which I lost no sheep, although I dipped in the rainy season. They however had wire-worm, but I gave them Theiler’s remedy and saved them. I want to advise the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) to use it. No, not for himself. If members had used such a remedy the sheep would not have died in that way. If the Minister of Agriculture has made a mistake then it is that he did not apply the simultaneous dipping throughout the whole country. He should have applied it to every district.

Albert is clean.

There are many cases of scab in the country which are not known.

The amendment proposes the alteration of the date mentioned in the section, and the hon. member must keep to that.

I am as close to it now as I can get. There are cases of scab of which the department knows nothing. I can prove that, because I am a practical sheep farmer. For this reason I think that the Minister should not accept the amendment. In that way he will be doing the farmers a great service. If there was damage through the simultaneous dipping then they had an opportunity of claiming it within 48 hours. Under the former Government 48 hours was long enough. If the Minister opens the door then farmers will file claims for every lamb which died in the winter, because they will ascribe its death to the simultaneous dipping. I hope that the hon. Minister will see to it that a simultaneous dipping will also be prescribed for other portions of the Union.

When the Minister of Agriculture threatened us with the big stick we went and interviewed him, and we begged for mercy. We got no mercy on that occasion. The only mercy we got was the invasion of his legions into Natal, which left our farms very much in the condition of a battlefield. We then asked for justice, and pointed out that the damage done should be paid for, but this was refused. Now the Minister comes before us with a Bill to clear himself for his illegal act, and we ask that while granting that he will give us fair play—and it is necessary to again emphasize that under this Bill there is practically no redress for those who have suffered the most. The principal damage has been suffered by those who had to dip their sheep in arsenical dip, and we make this last appeal to the Minister, to extend to those people the widest possible generosity in dealing with their claims.

He promised that.

He has not; if he promised that it would go a long way, but we want more. We want something in the way of a definite undertaking. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) has adopted very much the same attitude as we have had to face every time we have brought the troubles of Natal before the House. We have brought a very genuine grievance; an instance where, owing to the bungling policy of the Minister, heavy losses have been sustained, and we have been met with this unsympathetic attitude on the part of members on the other side, of whom the hon. member is a striking example. We have been told by him that we are not really concerned with the sufferings of those who have lost heavily, but are more concerned with vote-catching. This is not the first time that this has been charged against us, and it is that kind of talk that is doing the harm in Natal to-day, and it has got to stop. When we come with a genuine grievance we expect to be received with ordinary courtesy and decent civility if not with sympathy. It is necessary to point out, for the benefit of the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy), and others who have not looked into the matter, that this Bill places outside the courts practically everybody who has not already got judgment, and even those who have already instituted proceedings are, by the very clauses of this Bill, prevented from proceeding with their actions. I do think it would be wise and politic on the part of the Minister to extend this thing, so that those who have not registered their claims may have a reasonable period in which to put them in.

I think that the motion of the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) is very fair, and I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will act on it. Hon. members opposite have said that the damage suffered is not great. But what danger is there then, and why must the Act be made of retrospective effect? The Minister knows quite well that it will take time, at least to the end of June, before this Bill will become law, because it must first be dealt with by another place. But it is one of the worst things to deprive people of their rights by legislation.

That is not the case.

What is the cause then? I cannot understand it. Why then is the reasonable proposal to give an opportunity of filing just claims not accepted I do not wish to encourage our people to litigate, because that is an unfortunate thing. I also hope that the House will not go on any longer with this sort of discussion, but that the reasonable proposal will be accepted. The hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels) is never quite serious. He has spoken about vote-catching. The Pact are sitting there now, and we are not out to catch votes.

I said that the hon. member could go on catching votes.

We are not thinking of catching votes. We are trying to do our duty by the country. No, I do not see why the Minister cannot meet the reasonable proposal.

I wish to move the amendment which stands in my name, viz.—

Only as far as the words “commencement of this Act” so that it will now read—

The other portion of the amendment I propose to move at a later stage; because it is unconnected with this section. The proviso is not dependent upon the first portion of the amendment. I move the amendment because there has been insufficient time given for the actual meaning of this Act to become known among the very scattered farming population of this country. We must remember that we have 473,000 square miles of country, and this Bill was only explained for the first time by the Minister in this House on the 29th May. We are only now at the 3rd June, and it seems to me an altogether insufficient time in which to allow the farmers to understand the precise effect and meaning of the Bill. It is quite impossible for farmers in the remote portions of the Union to become acquainted with the attitude of the Minister towards their loss, and I think a very large proportion of them will almost disbelieve that it is possible for a Minister of Agriculture to have so evil a design on the civil rights of so large a class of the community. The Minister proposes, by one stroke of the pen, to take away the rights of people who have suffered severe losses under circumstance which were attributable to the Minister’s own actions, and it is not giving them more than probably twenty-four hours—because very few of them will have known of this thing 24 hours ago—notice of the fact that their claims will be prescribed as from the introduction of this Act. This is the representative House of the country, and the other place is merely a House of Review; so that whoever feels that his rights are being invaded, or threatened, or jeopardized or menaced by this Act is obliged to have recourse to his member in Parliament, and to inform him of his views. As recently as today, quite a number of us have received appeals from our constituents, to do everything possible to stay the hand of the Minister, and ask him to show consideration to the people who have been called upon to suffer a great deal more than they can afford to lose. The Minister, the other evening, took occasion to say that our attitude was largely prompted by a personal hatred of himself.

Hear, hear.

I am sorry the hon. member says that, and I deny it so far as our province is concerned. The Minister will be the first to acknowledge that when he paid a visit to Natal he received courtesy of the highest kind from every section of the community. He was entertained as an honoured guest throughout the whole of Natal, and both public and private hospitality was extended to him. An entirely favourable report of his attitude towards the cotton industry was communicated by the cotton growers of Natal to the British Empire Cotton Corporation, and was rejected in a speech by Sir James Currie, who acknowledged the initiative and efficiency of the Minister. The Minister has no right to say that Natal’s attitude is caused by a personal dislike of him. The Minister, the other day, took occasion to be very annoyed, because I pressed him to place certain papers on the Table.

I must ask the hon. member to confine himself to the amendment.

I mention this because the papers have a bearing on the date, and contain very important information. I am led to understand that they contain a very exhaustive report on the losses in a certain district in Natal, and will serve to show the genuineness of the complaints and the necessity for the farmers being given further time in which to appeal to the Minister’s sense of fairness, or failing that, to have recourse to the courts of law. The effect of my amendment would be to defer the operation of the clause and allow the presentation of claims until the commencement of the Act. That would give us breathing time, and an opportunity for farmers to take legal opinion about their claims, or to represent their claims in a manner which will convince the Minister that their losses are real. We have been deeply disappointed at the manner in which the Minister has received these communications. The Natal members of Parliament have not made a canvas of their constituents on this subject, and whatever representations have reached us have been made voluntarily. There also remain a considerable number of farmers who will not come forward with their claims until they realize that their rights are being threatened by the Minister, or who, through the process of consultation by means of the Farmers’ Association, will be awakened to the situation. Two days ago I received a communication from one of the chief Farmers’ Associations in my division remonstrating against the Minister taking away their rights. That is an earnest of the feeling which is stirring among the farmers, and the Minister would be very ill-advised not to give the farmers an opportunity of presenting their claims. On a former occasion the Minister stated that the losses of sheep were due to natural causes. If that is so no indemnity is necessary, and the Minister should certainly not seek to make that indemnity so prescriptive as he is doing in this section. We are entitled to ask the Minister not to legislate the farmers’ rights away until the date applied for by the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) and myself.

I second the amendment and should like to say a few words on it. I am astonished that the Minister does not rise and accept it. If it is a fact that there is no damage, why then is there this indemnity section? Damage has been caused, difficulties came, it was an extraordinary condition of things and no opportunity is given to the people to make their claim. The Minister says that he has no time for me. But there are people outside who must have an opportunity to bring their claims. I have heard of the laws of the Medes and the Persians which cannot be altered. It seems to me that the Minister wants to adopt that attitude. Give the people a chance. If there are no actions, then it is so much gain. But if there are actions, why should we put a spoke in the wheel and prevent the people from bringing them? Although the Minister has used hard words I hope that he will see that it is very hard on the people to be so obstinate. I do not require any votes. My object is not to catch votes, but only that we should do our best for the people that have suffered damage. I sympathize with them. If the Minister will not accept the amendment, then the responsibility rests on him.

I regret the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) is not in his seat.

The hon. member must only speak on the amendment by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). He has spoken already on the other amendment.

Yes, I agree. I am speaking on that, and I regret the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) is not here. He accused us of vote snatching, and then runs out of the House.

Which amendment is the hon. member supporting?

The amendment of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.

I wish to point out that the Minister cannot accept both of the amendments.

Then in speaking to the amendment of the hon. member for Illovo, I want to point out it has one great virtue, to which I draw the Minister’s attention and leave him to select.

You don’t know your own mind.

I do; you don’t. We are told 25 per cent. of the farmers have not dipped. Are they liable to be prosecuted if this amendment is not accepted.

The amendment with regard to prosecutions has not yet been moved.

I hope the Minister in reply will give us some indication that he is prepared to meet us and create those good feelings which should exist amongst South African farmers.

I ask the Minister to accept one or other of these amendments. Many of the farmers who sustained losses have been awaiting developments in this House before taking action. Many of them do not know to-day what their losses are going to be. They know the actual deaths that have occurred, but they do not know what their losses will be in lambs and wool. I would urge on the Minister to give these amendments his consideration, because I think it must be clear to him that he is mainly responsible for the heavy losses which have occurred. It is his action which has resulted in these losses and I think he should give the farmers ample time to seek redress if they wish to. The Minister, last July, was warned in this House to be careful how he carried out his policy, otherwise he might exterminate a lot of sheep, and he said in reply—

That statement was made as the result of a warning given in this House that damage might result. At a later stage he said—

The hon. member is covering ground which has already been covered. He must confine himself to the amendment.

I am trying to show the Minister that it is his action that has caused the loss and, therefore, he should give farmers a chance to seek redress at law, and he should take into consideration the fact that he is personally responsible for a great deal of the loss. He told the House in July he was not going to grant exemption, and when his inspectors desired to do so, and asked for authority he told them he would not allow it and, therefore, sheep on their last legs were put through the second dipping and were killed. He should not now place obstacles in the way of farmers bringing forward their claims for the losses sustained. After these declarations in the House, he was waited upon by numerous deputations from Natal, who pointed out to him that if he persisted in his order being carried out severe losses would result. There again he had the same warning as was given in this House, yet he told them to go back and comply with the order. That is the attitude he took up, and for this reason I would urge the Minister not to take an unfair advantage of the farmers and deprive them of their legal rights in the way he seeks to do in this Bill. Many complaints have been referred to in this House, and as an indication of the ignorance of some of the farmers and their lack of knowledge of how to proceed in the direction of obtaining satisfaction, I should like to read this letter dated May 16, from Mr. J. S. Hattingh—

This letter was unsolicited by me, and I don’t even know this man, who for all I know to the contrary is a member of the Nationalist party. This man is under the impression that those who have sustained loss must send their claims to their parliamentary representative, who will collect the money from the Minister. I have another letter—

The hon. member must not continue the reading of this correspondence, he must speak to the amendment before the House.

I think it has some bearing inasmuch as it shows the farmers are ignorant of the course to adopt and, therefore, must be given time. I ask the Minister to seriously consider these amendments and grant the sheep farmers time to formulate their claims and bring them before the court.

This amendment of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) gives the Minister an excellent chance of retiring from a position which I think, by now, he sees is untenable. I am sorry that there is an increasing tendency in this House on the opposite side to assume that when a matter is brought forward on this side it is actuated by motives other than those pertaining to the actual merits of the subject under discussion. I believe that is in spirit contrary to the rules of this House, and, what is almost equally important, it is contrary to fact. This matter is brought up by hon. members who have a clear duty to their constituents, to the farmers generally and to the country at large. It is anticipated by the Minister and, I believe, by his friends, that he will occupy his present office for a very long time. I am sure we all hope that he will have the necessary health and strength to do justice to that office and we are more than anxious to terminate this debate and give the Minister an opportunity of getting a much-needed change. It will have been seen that hon. members have stuck fairly rigidly to the points they have been discussing, but my point is this, that if the Minister is going to occupy this position for a long time, and with credit to himself, as we all hope, it is necessary that he should have the general support of the farming community. Without that, no Minister, however strong or however able he may be, will be able to carry out his duties successfully, and, therefore, as a first instalment towards securing the confidence of the farmers, he ought to accept this amendment. It is very important that the Minister should be able to deal successfully with a great menace to farming in this country, and that is stock disease, and it all depends what the attitude of farmers is towards the measures taken by his department if we are going to eradicate stock diseases. I am told that during the last dozen years or so scab alone has cost this country something in the neighbourhood of two millions sterling, and I am afraid that we are still a long way from seeing this country clear from this devastating disease, devastating at all events to the pockets of the sheep farmers. We are all agreed that in the department of agriculture we have got some of the ablest experts in the world. We have scientists dealing with agricultural matters whose knowledge and perhaps skill cannot be surpassed anywhere, but we farmers have one little criticism to make and that is that there is a tendency on the part of the experts to be a little bit too theoretical. We feel that they have not got their ears as close to the ground as we have, and sometimes, in their very desire to carry out the theoretical improvements, they fail practically. I submit that the case which we are now discussing is one in point. I do think that there is no doubt whatever that the farmers, even if they have not a legal claim, on which I am not qualified to speak, have a definite moral claim that no Government can afford to overlook. It would put the Minister on better terms with the farmers generally and his attitude will be clearer and more conciliatory towards them, if he agrees to recognize that his department has made a mistake and that the remedy for that mistake is not an Act of indemnity, but to right it by affording reasonable compensation in all cases where loss can be proved. This is an opportunity for the Minister to prove himself a statesman. I may remind him that a statesman has the privilege of changing his opinions and, occasionally, of changing his party, but the mere politician has to observe a meticulous consistency. Now this is an opportunity for the Minister to prove himself a statesman by retiring from the position he has taken up, no doubt conscientiously, and no doubt believing that it is in the best interests of the country, but I will point out that it is certainly not in the best interests of the department, and it is not in the best interests of future smooth working between the farmers and the department of agriculture to which they look for guidance. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment and, following on, that he will accept the further amendment which will, of course, make the first amendment of any value, and that he will admit—he can do so without any loss of respect—that a mistake has been made and that that mistake should be paid for, not by the farmers who have individually suffered, but by the country, by the department who have issued these orders and carried out this procedure to the great loss of the farmers. It is most important that the Minister at this very early stage of his career should establish that confidence, and, I fear that if he prove obdurate, as I hope he will not, it will add to his future difficulties. He will find from this side of the House that he will get nothing but assistance in carrying out the very onerous duties and functions undertaken by his department if he makes it clear, on the other hand, that he has no other object to serve but the best interests of the agricultural community. I hope, therefore, that he will see his way to accept this amendment and perhaps, later on, the subsequent amendment to be moved by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick).

The hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels) took the opportunity this afternoon to make a personal attack upon me, which I say was most uncalled for. He imputed in this House that I had canvassed my district for the purpose of obtaining figures showing what losses had been sustained, and that these figures were exaggerated. I wish most emphatically to deny that I have canvassed my consituency at all, in fact some of the figures sent to me came from people who do not live in my constituency. He went further and said this agitation was purely for party political purposes. I do put it to any reasonable man on the opposite side, if he had been placed in my position, if he had been asked by the farmers of his constituency to represent the matter in the strongest terms possible, if he had been told what losses had been suffered, would he not have failed in his duty if he had not got up in this House and protested in the strongest terms possible against the Bill which the Minister is seeking to pass? I am sure hon. members would have done exactly as we have done, and very possibly they would have gone a great deal further than we have gone, that is, if they were true to their consituents, and had the interests of their constituents at heart. I do claim that I stand here to plead on behalf of my constituents for those men who have suffered loss, and that it is a most reasonable request that these people should be given an opportunity to institute actions on or before the 30th June. Could anything be more reasonable? Why fix the date as at the 12th May? Has any judgment been given on the 12th May? I cannot believe that any single judgment has been given as at the 12th May. Why those words have been imported at all I do not know. I would like the Minister, when he replies, to tell the House whether any judgment has been given against the Government on or before the 12th May, 1925. If so, will he give particulars of that judgment? I believe I am right in saying that no judgment has been given at all, and I think the country should know that no judgment has been given, that this is nothing less than camouflage. I hope the Minister will reply on that point. I do plead with the Minister, as I believe he must have a soft spot somewhere. I hope he has, because hitherto we have found him most adamant; we have not been able to touch a soft spot anywhere yet. I do hope the Minister will see the reasonableness of the amendment. We all know the Minister would like to be known as a strong man. This is an opportunity for him to prove whether he really is a strong man, because when a man has made a mistake and openly admits it then he is a strong man. If the Minister would meet the reasonable request we have made we would honour him as being really a strong man. I hope the Minister will seriously consider the pleas we have put forward for further consideration and give these farmers who have suffered loss an opportunity of bringing actions. I may tell the House that actions are actually pending. I know of one case in which advice has been given by one of the leading advocates in South Africa, and he has advised that there is a good case. Why should the unfortunate farmer who has suffered loss be precluded from bringing an action for the damage he has sustained? Under the Bill which the Minister is asking the House to pass, these people, even if they have not legal claims, have moral claims, and some have legal claims; and I ask the Minister to unbend himself a little and to show us some little consideration. I only wish I knew where to touch him to find his soft spot. Surely it cannot be said that it is unreasonable to fix the date as the 30th June, instead of as at the 12th of May? Many farmers do not know exactly what the position is; many believe this Bill has already been passed, and if the Minister would only agree to give these farmers up to the 30th June, I am sure he would have the blessing of many an unfortunate farmer in Natal and the Transvaal.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) has this afternoon made such an unworthy insinuation against the hon. Prime Minister, as if the Prime Minister had spoken contemptuously about the farmer. I regret it very much, because the statement is untrue. As regards the debate this afternoon I can be very short. We have very fully discussed in committee what the amendments aim at, but hon. members opposite are not yet satisfied. Yet I do not intend to go over the same ground again. I examined the matter thoroughly during the committee stage. I have repeatedly stated that the point of view of the department is that every man that dipped under the existing regulations and suffered damage can file his claim, and that he will be fully paid out in terms of the regulations. But hon. members are not satisfied. They are commencing an agitation. It is not fair. I am not disposed to go, further than the regulations under which former Governments and I myself have acted. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) talks of the hospitality I enjoyed during my visit to Natal. I acknowledge that and I firmly believe that if I were to go to Natal again to-day I should receive the same hospitality. The views that have been expressed here this afternoon are not the feelings of the farmers in Natal. They are only an agitation of the Opposition to try to put the country side against us. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) has said that I should go further than the regulations and should also compensate in respect of claims which were filed later than 48 hours after the dipping.

If damage was suffered by simultaneous dipping.

I am glad that the hon. member is now clear. I repeat for the umpteenth time the case of Heidelberg, where the person was paid out full compensation, although the stock died three weeks after the simultaneous dipping. In similar cases where it is a just and lawful case I shall always be prepared to take the claims into consideration, even if the sheep did not die within 48 hours. I said from the first day that the Government was not running away from its responsibilities. We understand that the farmers are the backbone of our country, and we shall treat the farmers with all sympathy and fairness. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) has said that the fixing of the date was nothing else than a little camouflage, because there were no cases before the court. What about the Case of the Natal court, where the regulations were declared ultra vires? We want to avoid a repetition of that and, therefore, it has been provided that from this date similar actions shall no longer be valid. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has spoken about the necessity of the farmers co-operating. I have always aimed at that, to get the co-operation of the farmers, and will also do so in future. We shall strive to get rid of scab and of the great expenditure which the fighting of it costs the country annually. I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment.

The letter I read stated that the second dipping was on the 6th March.

I understood it was the 16th March.

Question put: That the words “prior to the,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—61.

Alexander, M.

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, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

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.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Mullinenx, 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.

Snow, W. J.

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.

Wessels, J. B.

Wessels, J. H. B.

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

Noes—38.

Anderson. H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Brown. D. M.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Nel, O. R.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

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.

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 Col.-Cdt. Collins dropped.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Marwick was put and negatived.

I move—

The effect of this amendment is to guard against prosecutions being instituted against farmers who contravened the legal orders of the Minister—because the effect of Parliament validating those orders would be to jeopardise the position of those farmers who had been opposed to carrying out dipping at a dangerous time of the year and who, in absolute desperation, have refused to obey the Minister’s orders. The position now would be that all these farmers who refused to dip, would be rendered liable to prosecution under the Bill. I have had reliable Opinion on this point, and it has been made clear to me that what I have said would be the effect of the Bill. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment as a reasonable safeguard against any further cases arising, such as that of Hancock vs. Rex. I commend the amendment to the consideration of the Minister in the full confidence that he will accept it.

I second the amendment; I hope the Minister will accept it as it is a very simple one and will act as a safeguard against any criminal prosecutions being instituted against those farmers who refused to carry out the simultaneous dipping order. For instance, if an hon. member had refused to carry out the order which he recognized as being illegal, and he said, “I am not going to carry out the order, because it is ultra vires,” he would be perfectly within his rights. We only ask if a farmer took up that attitude no criminal prosecution should now be instituted against him and to provide accordingly in this Bill. If the Minister will not accept this amendment, then I can only say it is quite clear that it is his intention to absolutely dragoon these unfortunate farmers into an impossible position. We have the best advice on this point, that if the Bill is passed in its present form, the Crown would have the right to take action against the farmers who did not carry out the Minister’s dipping orders.

Your advice is wrong. It is obvious that they cannot be prosecuted.

I am prepared to take that advice against the Minister’s.

I think it is perfectly elementary that they cannot be prosecuted.

If it is not the intention of the Minister to institute any prosecution, then why not accept the amendment?

I would like to point out another aspect of the case. It was not out of defiance to the Minister’s orders that some farmers refrained from dipping but because in some parts of Natal the lambing season occurs in the middle of February, and the beginning of March, so the farmers out the dipping order as they desired to save their sheep.

I hope we are at one in this matter. I wonder if the Minister of Mines and Industries has grasped the point. I understood the court decided on a criminal action against Mr. Hancock, because the orders were ultra vires. Suppose the Minister takes criminal prosecutions now against those farmers who refused to dip.

No court would convict.

I don’t think the Minister would be weakening to meet them on this point. The Government asked for an indemnity Act and they got it. Let us have an indemnity on both sides.

I really did not think this point was so important until the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) moved it. It seems to me, as a layman, that we might be getting into a serious position. The Minister knows his reasons for introducing this Act was to validate certain regulations issued by the Department of Agriculture in good faith. The regulations were issued as the Minister’s order, whereas, under the decision of the court, they should have been issued as a Governor-General’s proclamation. This Act validates these regulations. Any steps taken by the Government will be validated, not under clause 1, but under clause 2, which says among other things that any order issued prior to the commencement of this Act in paragraph (e) of section 16 of Act 14 of 1911 shall be deemed to have been issued under the said paragraph (e) or (f), as the case may be, as amended by this Act. Any action having been taken or purported to have been taken by any officer is hereby validated. That point I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice. If it is illegal, the Minister himself pointed out no steps could be taken, but if that illegality or irregularity of the regulations has been made legal and regular by an Act of Parliament, and clause 2 says “any steps taken under the regulation shall be validated,” surely if a man refused to carry out an instruction under the regulation and refused to dip his sheep in the prescribed manner under the regulation for simultaneous dipping, surely it will be possible for the department to proceed against him without the amendment of my hon. friend. I don’t think that is the intention of the Minister, hard-hearted as he may be. I appeal to the Minister to let the Act come into operation on the 30th of September as asked by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel.) The position now is to legalize the simultaneous dipping carried out a few months ago. It is a matter which should be thoroughly cleared up before the Minister refuses to accept the moderate proposal of my hon. friend.

I only wish to say that this motion is unnecessary. People who were guilty of a contravention have been heard or the case has been disposed of, and if there are still any prior offenders before the judgment of the court declared the regulations illegal I do not intend to take steps against them, or to take steps against them in the future. I trust therefore that the hon. member will withdraw the motion.

May I remind the Minister of the reply given yesterday by the Minister of Justice as to why he did not institute proceedings against certain persons suspected of transgressions in Natal which was that the institution of prosecutions did not rest with him, but with the Attorney-General of the province. It is, therefore, idle for the Minister to get up and say it is not his intention to institute proceedings.

The Attorney-General has nothing to do with this.

Either it is a criminal prosecution or it is not. The whole point is the Minister has not the power to institute or refrain from instituting proceedings. I have not taken any part in the discussions of this Act, and I have been surprised at the length of the discussion, but if this is a sample of the Minister’s attitude, I don’t wonder this discussion has been so long. Here you have the Minister saying he has no intention of taking advantage of the law to initiate proceedings against people who have transgressed this Act. If that is so, he could have accepted the amendment. He has stated across the floor of the House that he did not think any prosecutions would be possible if we pass the law as it appears now.

You cannot create an offence retrospectively.

With respect I disagree. Where any law in express terms enacts the validity of a law or regulation retrospectively you say in effect that persons who have transgressed that order at a previous date, though they did it innocently, now, ipso facto, appear to have done it criminally. I would be glad if the Minister would give me his authority for that.

I must ask you for your authority for your wonderful doctrine.

You say in this Act that an order issued months ago by the Minister shall now be made valid as from that date, then any person who, as from that date, has transgressed the order is guilty of an offence.

No. Not unless it is expressly stated. No Minister will draw that implication in law.

Seeing that we are agreed that there should be no prosecution of these people then no harm would have been done in accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick).

I am not talking on the amendment, but on the legal position.

There is room for doubt as to whether your opinion is right. Even a Minister of Mines may be in error on occasions. I venture to suggest that there is room under this section for that prosecution. I need not put it higher than this, if there is any doubt on the question, what harm can be done by accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) if that amendment expresses the intention of the Minister of Agriculture? Why should we not put it in and why should the Minister hold up the House by refusing to accept an amendment which, he says, expresses his own intention and which we think puts right a legal doubt and difficulty? I say again to the Minister of Mines and Industries that I very much doubt if this legal position that he is so cocksure about is correct or not. I say that a law which, in effect, validates an ordinance as from the time of its passing may by implication carry with it this, that anybody who transgressed when it was supposed to be law, but was not law, is thereby made guilty of the offence of transgressing it. Let me ask the Minister of Mines to read Clause 2. It says this—

I say it may be held to be a necessary corollary from that that any person who transgressed that order shall be deemed to have been guilty of the offence of transgressing it.

I had not intended to rise. It was simply a remark flung across the floor of the House, because I at once felt that my instincts were against this very strange doctrine propounded here. I should be very sorry to appear before the hon. member (Mr. Blackwell) as an accused person if this were really his legal conviction. He is speaking now, not as a lawyer and as a possible judge, but as a partizan.

No; I don’t care tuppence about it.

I believe that if I submitted this case to him his opinion would have agreed with my own. He knows, as an experienced lawyer, that it is an elementary rule of criminal law that an offence must be clearly created by the statute. It must be either an offence at common law or it is a statutory offence, which must be clearly created. It cannot be a question of implication. How would you frame an indictment? I have just received this note. I have had no communication with the law adviser, but he is in the House, and he sends me this—

Where you have retrospective legislation like this validating certain regulations, you are not, by implication, setting aside the finding of the court. The Legislature is assuming that the finding of the court was correct, and unless you go further and say in express language that every person who contravened that regulation, which is now retrospectively validated, shall, nevertheless, be still deemed guilty of an offence, you cannot possibly prosecute. The hon. member has referred to the powers of the Attorney-General. He stated that the right of prosecution is vested solely in the Attorney-General. I will make him a wager: Let him submit a case for prosecution to the Attorney-General and we shall judge. As regards the power of the Minister, it is quite true, as he says, that the sole power is vested in the Attorney-General, but he knows, as an experienced lawyer—and that was certainly my experience always when I was an Attorney-General—that with regard to these regulations no Attorney-General dreams of instituting a prosecution unless an inspector comes along and lays a charge, and the inspector acts under the instructions of the Minister. So that it is really an academic point which the hon. member raises. I think that the suggested amendment is really an insult, if I may so put it, to the sense of justice both of the Minister and of any magistrate or judge before whom such a case would come. I am perfectly convinced that none would dream of prosecuting in such a case and, as to the legal position, I do not think any reasonable doubt can be entertained.

I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he intends to instruct his inspectors not to institute criminal proceedings in respect of failure to carry out his order during the period in question.

I have said so already.

Amendment put and negatived.

On Clause 3,

I move:

The effect of this is to lay down that this Act shall not come into effect before 1st September, 1925. The object of that is similar to the object we had in view in moving our amendments on Clause 2, that is to say we wish to give the farming community an opportunity of learning of the effect of this law endeavouring to secure some redress.

The hon. member cannot move an amendment, which in substance, has already been negatived. If that is the sole intention of this amendment, he cannot move it.

I do not say it is the sole intention, I am explaining the effect. The effect would be the same. It would give an opportunity, incidentally, to farmers to know of the effect of this law before it actually came into force. The law itself would be held in suspense and it would certainly give a time within which farmers would know what the effect of the law was and be able to take the necessary opinion and bring their claims before the notice of the Minister. I think the Minister should welcome this period of grace because it will enable him to get closer to the facts of the case than he appears to be at the present moment. It would enable him to revise his ideas with some care and to arrive at a more just and reasonable opinion in regard to the operation of the Act. Up to now the Minister had not shown that he is as familiar as he ought to be with the farming conditions that prevail in Natal, and this would enable him in the interim to recast his ideas and to judge whether the act in its full course should be applied.

Will the hon. member explain to me in what way this amendment differs in effect from what has already been decided upon by the House?

You cannot do it.

If the hon. member will give me an opportunity of speaking I shall show in what way it differs. The hon. member is very fond of interrupting. With his knowledge of the game species probably he knows of the cackling korhaan, the only wild bird with a note as vacuous and insistent as his own. The position is that the effect of the first amendment I moved would have applied to judgments of the court. It would have had the effect of stating that “Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect any judgment until the commencement of the Act.” That refers specifically to judgments. My present proposal is to hold the entire Act itself in suspense until the 1st day of September. There is an essential difference there. I hope the Minister will realize that he is not infallible—and none of us are infallible excepting the Pone, and he only in theory—and I hope he will show a spirit of reasonableness and be prepared, even at this late stage, to hold out the olive branch to the large section of people who are being affected by this Act, and to give us some earnest of his intention that their rights shall not be overridden in the manner which would be the result of his passing the Act without this amendment.

What is the difference in effect?

I have explained the difference, and I cannot go any further to help the hon. member. Perhaps his hat, which he wears constantly in the House, is obstructing his hearing, and that may Rave something to do with his dullness this afternoon. In all earnestness I do wish to plead with the Minister. I have been very disappointed with his attitude towards the whole of our amendments this afternoon, although we have been most conciliatory in our requests to him; there has not been a single word said in respect of which he could take offence. We have endeavoured to express the whole of our remarks in that spirit of appeal that the Minister, I am sure, likes. We have endeavoured to make our requests in a form which we hoped would appeal to his sense of fairness, even at this late stage. The Minister is himself a farmer. He must realize that to introduce a law under the conditions under which this Bill has been introduced is to deal very harshly with the farming community. They are not people who live under circumstances where communications are rapid or easy, and we maintain that a very large number of the people affected have not realized the extent to which their rights are jeopardized; and the Minister would lose nothing, but would gain a great deal by allowing the Act to be held in suspense until the date mentioned in this clause. I am encouraged to appeal to the Minister, because I feel he would like—having been adamant up to now—to give us some evidence that he is not altogether deaf to reason, and is willing to hold the Act in suspense until such time as is mentioned here in this clause. I commend this clause to the consideration of the Minister, feeling very hopeful that he will give it consideration.

The farmers in Natal are very much disturbed by this. This is a letter which I got this morning—

I merely mention this to show that Natal farmers are very much disturbed; they regard it as “distinctly dangerous.” I second the amendment and hope the Minister will see his way to accept it.

Amendment put, and Mr. Marwick called for a division, but subsequently withdrew.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Bill, as amended, adopted; third reading tomorrow.

In connection with Section 12, I should like to point out that it is laid down here that the divisional councils shall have the power to decide by resolution whether this Act shall be applied in one or other ward. The wording of this section quite agrees with a section of the Fencing Act, and I wish to point out that in the Cape Province every ward of the district is practically a small electoral division of its own. Every ward chooses its own representative on the divisional council, and the position in a division is, therefore, in a division with say six wards, and, therefore, six representatives, that five members of such a divisional council all five not elected by a particular ward, can decide against the representative of that ward to apply the Act to that ward. It has been said that this Bill rests on a democratic or permissive basis, and that the people are given the right of deciding. But in this instance that is not the case. I only wish to say that we all have experience in connection with the corresponding section in the Fencing Act where for a ward which with at least ten to one against, it was decided by the divisional council to make the Act applicable to the ward, notwithstanding the protests of the people of the ward. In the other provinces the majority of the farmers in a ward will decide whether the Act will be applied to a ward or not. But in the Cape Province I think that we feel that the divisional councils should not be given more and more powers, and that we are departing from the idea that the divisional council is a body which is entrusted with the duty of looking after the roads and bridges. Otherwise we shall hereafter reach a position that at a divisional council election the question will not be whether a man understands about good roads and bridges, but whether he is for or against jackal-proof fencing and for or against branding or spraying. I think that it will not affect the Act if I move—

The manner in which a ward shall decide whether it will make branding compulsory or not is laid down in Section 3. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. E. H. Louw) has spoken about divisional councils, but I suppose that in the Transvaal and Free State where the districts are divided into wards the decision will be taken as laid down in Section 3. In that section “owner” is several times spoken of and that word there has various meanings. In one case we read “owner of a holding.” On another place only “owner,” so I read: “On a request signed by at least twelve owners of holdings.” Now this word holding is defined as “a farm or other place where great stock are kept.” Thus any erf where dairy cows are kept also fall under the word holding, and if, in a village, someone keeps a cow for milk, then he has just as much say as a farmer in a district that has many cattle. Elsewhere the word “owner” is used as meaning an “owner” under the Act, and that is a person who possesses great stock, but also a person in whose name a branding iron is registered. Thus, anybody, even if he does not possess a single head of cattle or horse, can go to the magistrate and apply for a branding iron, and as soon as that iron is registered in his name, he is regarded as an “owner,” and can vote at the meetings. That is what the Minister means by “owner,” is it not so?

No.

Well, then I want to refer to Section 41 on page 19. There the word “owner” means “an owner of great stock or of a registered brand.” I further want to point out that in the section under discussion the right is given to persons to vote by proxy. In line 65 we read “by the majority of the owners present or represented thereat.” It is, therefore, not necessary for an owner to go personally. He can send another, but it is not laid down in the Bill what power of attorney, or what document, or what consent such a person should have to be able to vote for the actual owner.

I am prepared to delete the word “representative.”

Otherwise, this point could also be settled by, in Section 40 about regulations, saying that the Minister shall also have the right to settle by regulation how voting by proxy shall take place. But if the Minister is inclined to accept my motion then I will propose an amendment to delete the words “or represented.” Further difficulty may also arise, in my opinion, in regard to sub-section 3. line 66, in explaining the last three lines which read: “On the understanding that not more than one vote is exercised in respect of each holding. We know that besides the “owners,” one or more sons ought to live on the holding who are already big enough to own stock and teams of oxen, and it is, therefore, quite possible that on a farm there may be five or six owners of great stock.

Each one surely has his own share.

Yes, but the definition of holdings speaks only of “farm.”

That can, if necessary, be amended under Section 40.

Good. Then I will propose it under that section. In subsection 4 a district which is not divided into wards, is spoken about. Well, I do not know of such districts, but, perhaps, I am wrong. But it is provided about such a district that—

It is difficult to allow such an expression as “as nearly as possible” in a Bill.

It is for Tembuland, where the division is different.

I do not know why the words “as nearly as possible” should remain. It may lead to differences of opinion. Can it not be stated that the meeting will take a decision for the whole district, precisely as in the case of “wards”? I wish to move—

I just want to point out that the Minister has two amendments on page 447 of the Votes and Proceedings. I do not know whether the Minister wishes to propose them.

I move—

I only want to suggest that the words “as much as possible” should be replaced by the word “mutatis mutandis.” The Bill deals chiefly with the proclamation of complete districts, but sub-section (3) deals with wards, and I therefore move, as an amendment to this amendment—

To add at the end “and to substitute ‘mutatis mutandis’”.

In sub-section 4 (b) twelve owners are mentioned. I propose that that shall be altered into twenty-five owners.

I support the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) and I hope the Minister will delete the clause referring to divisional councils, in order that the voting may be by farmers themselves in every district. I hope the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) will not press his motion to take out the words “or represented.” The Minister wants to get the fullest expression of opinion possible, and it may be inconvenient for a man to attend a meeting. If a man, either by letter or by proxy, wishes to signify his opinion, he ought to be entitled to do so.

I have proposed the point with regard to “representatives” in two ways to the hon. the Minister, namely, to take the word away entirely, or if he prefers to keep the word as suggested by the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), to put an addendum to the section in order to make it clear in what way such a person would be able to vote. It is not said in the Bill. It should be stated whether the_“representative” should have a proxy or a letter to entitle him to vote. As it stands here it is impracticable. If the Minister is prepared to accept such an amendment, I will withdraw my amendment.

I support the motion of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. E. H.Louw.) Is it not possible to exclude small stock as well?

According to the first portion of section 12, a person must put his brand on cattle when he acquires them. Does the amendment of the Minister mean that a second brand is not necessary when a person becomes a second owner of cattle?

Yes.

With reference to (3), I want to support the motion of the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize). It is an important matter, and the person who is interested must be present in person. Subsection 3 (iii) provides that the magistrate shall preside at meetings. I should like to point out that he cannot go to all the distant wards, and ask whether it is not possible to let the field-cornet preside in the absence of the magistrate. I also see an objection if we provide that an owner shall have a vote in respect of a farm, and I propose that in place thereof should be substituted that every owner of stock shall have a vote.

In answer to the last speaker (Mr. Vermooten), I would like to point out that he wants two contradictory things. He objects to an owner being represented by proxy if unable to be present at a meeting, and at the same time he says it is difficult for the magistrate to be present at such a meeting. I think when such an important matter is being decided by a district, the magistrate can make provision to be there that day. I think you ought to allow representation by proxy, but I am not going to move anything, as a motion to provide that will be submitted by my hon. friend here. In a district you may find that probably the great majority of the stock is owned by two or three men who will be principally affected by the Act, and it is quite possible that a meeting may be called for a date when they cannot be present. There may be very good reason for their absence, floods and what not, and if a meeting is arranged, and an owner cannot be there, he should be entitled to be represented by proxy. I do think that provision ought to be made for representation at such a meeting. With regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Wodehouse (Mr. Vermooten), I think in a matter of this sort, the men chiefly affected, that is, the men who will have the largest number of stock to brand, and therefore the most interest and trouble, should have more say, as pointed out by the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize), than the owner of perhaps only one or two cows. It is not a question of taking away any rights, but I think in a case like this what you may call a plural vote might even be justified. I do hope some of these amendments will not be pressed.

I should like to make an appeal to the committee. The differences are insignificant, and if we go on in this way we shall never get done. Hon. members are anxious that the Bill should be passed, and we now have so many amendments that I think it is time that we should commence to vote on them.

This Bill has so many amendments that if it were a child its own parents would not know it, and I regard it as neither use nor ornament. I move—

I beg the hon. member to withdraw that, because, although it may not be high politics, it is bread and butter politics.

Withdraw.

Do you withdraw?

No, I do not withdraw.

I also ask the hon. member to withdraw. The Minister has met us very fairly; he has accepted many amendments, and has changed a Bill which was an absolutely drastic Bill to a permissive Bill. It lies in the hands of the farmers whether they accept it or refuse it. I do appeal to him to withdraw and not press for a division.

Motion put and negatived.

The multiplicity of brands on stock was a bogey dragged through this House for some time. It was an unnecessary scare. In order to meet that objection the Minister has agreed to move an amendment which will make it clear that it will not be necessary to keep on re-branding stock, provided a legally registered brand is already on such stock.

I hope the Minister will not agree to delete the words “or represented” in section (iii) of sub-section (3), because it very often happens that it is quite impossible for an owner to attend a meeting of this kind, and in that way his vote would be lost. I think the words are very necessary, in order that, where the owner is unable to attend, the manager or someone else should be allowed to vote for him at the meeting. I therefore move as an amendment—

The Bill will lead to difficulties. In the first place each district must have a letter. If then there has to be a letter for every district of the Cape Province how shall we manage it? And then with regard to the fresh branding of cattle when they pass to another owner.

If the hon. member had listened then he would not ask a question.

I know the hon. Minister has the highest and best intentions towards the farmers, but I do not think he is acting quite rightly. I would rather see that he made the laws in connection with stock theft a little more severe.

I move—

It has already been proposed to substitute 25 for 12.

I know that, but that is not enough.

I did not want to insist so much on the deletion of the word “represented” but to make clear provision for the manner of voting. Whether the persons who represent others must be provided with a proper power of attorney or in what way. I am, however, prepared to withdraw my amendment in favour of the amendment of the hon. member for Klipriver (Mr. Anderson).

Mr. de Villiers, with leave of the Committee, withdraws his amendment.

I understand from the Minister’s amendment that an animal bearing a registered brand can pass from one owner to another without any need for further branding. This is to meet what some people call the “bogey” of having so many brands on one animal. I thought, however, that the object of the Bill was to protect owners from stock thefts. If the brands were changed according to the change of ownership, then it would be possible to trace through whose hands animals have passed, and this would help to prevent theft. The Minister’s amendment makes the Bill a farce.

The amendments proposed by Mr. Struben in line 11; and the amendments proposed by the Minister of Agriculture in line 16 and at the end of sub-section (1), put and agreed to.

I appeal to the Minister to withdraw this amendment. I feel that having these words simply kills the whole Bill. If a farmer has not to put any further brand on an animal, you at once nullify the whole object of the Bill. There is no chance of tracing an animal which may pass through five or six owners from the time it receives the first registered brand.

It seems to me that the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) is not consistent. He said the other day that some cattle would have to he branded too much. I met him. Now he is dissatisfied. What then does he want?

I think the Minister ought to realize that the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) wants to help us. It is clear that, under this Clause 12, if provision is not made to the contrary, every owner will have to put on the new brand everywhere in the Union as soon as possible after the promulgation of the Act. Under the amendment of the Minister you are not compelling them to put a new brand on if a legal brand is already on the stock. There are many people who don’t want to keep on re-branding their animals. Having got the law in force, an owner must brand with a legalized brand if his stock is not already so branded, but if so branded already with a brand of a previous owner he may put his own assignee brand on as well. This Act will, in regard to detection of stock thieving, be of help to the police. I know of a case, recently in the Transvaal where—

I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; House to resume in Committee on Monday.

I would like to ask the Minister of Public Health what he is doing about the state of affairs at the alluvial diamond diggings. I have got in my hand the report of the Secretary for Public Health in which he speaks of these alluvial diamond diggings and says—

The Secretary adds—

law.

I would like to ask the Minister, firstly, what he is doing about this matter, and, secondly, if he is, or when he is, going to bring in a Bill consolidating the law in regard to public health.

I would like to ask the Minister to be good enough to inform the House when the Hospitals Commission’s report, which is now, I believe, in his hands, will be in the possession of this House. It would be very informative and very illuminating, I think, if we had it in the course of this discussion. I would also draw the attention of the Minister to the question of the vote in reference to venereal diseases. I see that that vote has been reduced by £4,000, although an amount of £1,000 has been added to it so far as local authorities are concerned, so that there is a net reduction of £3,000. I would like to know if there is any improvement in the position so far as venereal diseases throughout the country is concerned. I find on page 267 of the Report of the Secretary for Public Health and Chief Health Officer for the Union that there are something like. 7,000 cases in hospital and the outdoor attendances number nearly 60,000. In face of that, it seems extraordinary to find that the vote has been reduced by £4,000. I am sure the Minister will give the House some information in this direction, because it is a most serious thing as far as the country is concerned. Of the number of cases in hospital 417 were whites and 7,079 coloured, while the outdoor attendances included 18,906 whites and 43,367 coloured, making a total of about 70,000 cases treated during the year ended 30th June, 1924.

I should very much like to know from the Minister how far his department has got in connection with the fighting of plague. We know that it was bad and when the summer commences it may become bad again. I should also like to know whether the Minister will supply the poison for the eradication of rodents gratis to the farmers. There is a lot of work connected with the eradication in helping the Government and if there are further heavy costs connected with the matter then the people will not be so keen on helping, I think that it is necessary to meet them.

When this vote was under discussion I referred to the high child mortality figures. Fresh figures have been published in connection herewith and it is clear that the figure for the past year is again quite a bit higher than previously. It was 82.11 per thousand last year for those one year old, 91.5 in the town and 70.6 on the country side. It is known that the highest mortality figures are almost without exception always found in the big centres of the town. And now it seems to me that the Minister of Health can exercise great influence on the urban health bodies because I find that the treasury pays annually in the case of local health bodies £13,000 under Section 16 of Act 36 of 1919 and to the district surgeons £83,000. Thus I should like to ask the hon. Minister if he cannot use his influence with the treasury to provide that as many officials as possible shall be appointed by the urban bodies who have experience and have been trained in the direction of preventing child mortality. Then there is another point. I see that the research work at the institute of Johannesburg receives approximately £7,500. No one will deny that that is an exceptionally important institution and it is the only establishment of the sort which is supported by the Government. The research work extends over a large area. I shall only mention here the work in connection with fighting the plague of rats and the cure of cancer. Then I notice in a subsequent vote that the sum of £94,785 is put down for research work for veterinary science purposes. I think the first mentioned figures stand in an unfavourable relation to that which is spent for veterinary science research. Not that the veterinary work is not of great importance but I still hope that the hon. Minister of Public Health will see his way in the future to raise the amount for enquiry in connection with plague which bears directly on human people, because no one will deny that we in the first place must look after our people. I see from the report of the meeting of the public health board a remark about the circulation of tuberculous stock. I will read a short paragraph in connection therewith—

The general world view is that cattle can pass on the infection and I hope that the hon. Minister will do his best to have the restriction regarding movement of diseased stock enforced again.

I suppose this is one of the most important matters on the Estimates, yet I am afraid it will not be possible to work up as much enthusiasm as is shown when the question of stock diseases is before us. I quite sympathize with the treatment of stock diseases, but I am unable to understand why it is impossible to get a tithe of the interest in human diseases that is shown in stock diseases. At the present moment the figures and statistics are of a most disquieting character. The question of the state of the hospitals is an important matter to be considered in relation to this. A commission has been sitting on this and we still await their report, although it was expected at the end of last month. We are standing at the cross roads; we do not know which road to take because we have not yet received an important report which should now be in the hands of members. When the report comes out now it will be too late for us to deal with the matter effectively. Under the circumstances the Minister ought to take us into his confidence and tell us what the policy of the Government is in regard to hospitals and sanatoria as evidenced by this commission’s report; because although we have not had it ourselves it must have been in the hands of the Government for some time and they must have come to some conclusion. The hospitals are completely out of date; we have not got the apparatus. In Cape Town alone a thousand poor people are turned away every year, and they are fortunate people who can get admittance. One hon. member over there mentioned—and I think he startled several members, but he is perfectly right—the figures given by the medical officer of health of Cape Town showing that one in five here suffers from venereal disease. Dr. Higgins may be taken as absolutely reliable on this matter. He says we are not even touching the fringe of the venereal disease problem. In many cases venereal disease is not even treated. Very few people go to be treated. Most people who suffer from this frightful disease do not go for attention. The whole thing is treated in an absolutely haphazard fashion even in a place like Cape Town. Take tuberculosis; the figures there are terrible right through the country and especially in the larger centres. Nelspoort is full, but it is full of incurable cases. The only sanatorium we have to deal with this question is filled with incurable cases. We are a thousand years behind the times in South Africa. There is no adequate attempt to deal with a number of other diseases rife throughout the country; and on looking through reports and figures it seems to me the whole problem is a terrible one. I suppose we have as drastic an Act as could be found in the whole Empire, but the trouble is the machinery is such that it is a dead letter. In England, where there is practically no compulsory legislation, they do far more than we ever attempt to do. That is why I wish to draw attention to this matter on this vote. I feel it is with administration much more than legislation or prohibition that this matter is to be handled. Hon. members must be prepared to see as much spent on the eradication of human disease as on the eradication of animal disease. At present there is no proper proportion at all. If we can spend as much as we do on animal disease then the time may come when the Union will have a clean bill of health. At the present moment venereal disease, tuberculosis, and other illnesses are stalking grimly through the Union. The time will come when, perhaps, you will be able to have a better bill of health, and at the last a clean bill of health; but at present matters are serious, and in the long run we are going to pay heavily for our disregard of the elementary provision which the State should make for dealing with these diseases, and those who come after us will pay still more dearly for that neglect.

I just want to refer to one local matter, namely, the hospital at Reitfontein. I see that there is £3,000 less on the Estimates for that institution. I should like to know why that is. A great work is being done there. There is the so-called chronic sick hospital connected with it, and the nurses there who look after the old people have not even a telephone at their disposal. Although the matter partly falls under the provincial council, I should like to know from the Minister if he can do anything in this matter. They are 10 miles from Johannesburg and have no telephone, with the result that they must walk two miles to another hospital if they want to send a message. There are 100 derelict men with chronic complaints. The least that can be done for the ladies who are doing a great work there is to give them a telephone.

I also think that one of the most important votes is the one under discussion. I want to confine myself to an unpalatable but very important matter, namely, venereal diseases amongst white, coloured and natives. The first point is the effective fighting of the disease where it already rages, and the second is the prevention of the spreading of the disease. We see that £39,213 was spent on venereal diseases, which is £4,226 less than for the previous year, while it is shown in the departmental report that nearly 70,000 cases were treated in the hospitals. We are running a great risk because we have not a population all of one kind. There are the women who are servants in our houses. There is the use by coloured peoples of latrines on our railway trains, and the danger is great that innocent children will catch the disease. To prove this we can quote from the departmental report that 17 cases occurred in a girls’ school, which of course were immediately treated by the town council; that shows us how the matter is growing. Doctors tell us that children under two years are sometimes affected. When we think of this we feel that we have to do with a danger which threatens the national life more than anything else. We must give our attention to child mortality. This disease also causes the loss of thousands of lives. Dr. Higgins points out that all the cases that have been treated do not give us a correct impression of the position seeing there are many cases which are never reported. He estimates that out of every five people in Cape Town one is affected. It is said that the matter is exaggerated. On the 14th of last month a meeting was held in the Alhambra Theatre by the associations for the fighting of venereal diseases, the child welfare society and the municipal women’s association. There Dr. Mitchell said—

Ten per cent. of the population of Cape Town and surroundings have or have had syphilis and 40 per cent. have the other form of syphilis or have had it. If it is not a matter to make one’s hair stand on end then I do not know what is necessary to frighten the people. Fifty-five per cent. of the children that are blind are so as the result of the disease. If we think of the cases of lunacy, of persons that are deaf and dumb, of the number of childless marriages, then it is very saddening. With proper treatment of women during their confinement, such is the declaration of Mrs. Walsh after evidence of cases in Cape Town, the children can be brought into the world healthy. It has occurred in Cape Town in 32 cases out of 64 cases. I now for the moment leave the Cape Province. Dr. Macartney says that 25 per cent. of the Bechuanaland natives have the disease. I give the lowest figure. If we take the annual report of 1924 we find on page 34 that 19,000 cases of Europeans are treated in the country hospitals. It is not said how many of them are treated by private doctors and ordinary apothecaries. In this connection I must say that we should prohibit apothecaries from using all kinds of remedies for the complaint. We know of remedies which are given as effective cures of the disease. It does not look as if syphilis is being cured when we notice the increase. £4,900 has been spent for quicksilver, etc., for fighting the disease. It costs £4 4s. per patient, which means that the medicine could only have been used in 1,100 cases.

The dangerous disease which has been spoken about is especially severe among the coloured people. It is a contagious disease and everyone to-day runs the danger of getting it. In Pretoria a certain amount of protection exists against infection from kafirs, because if one engages a kaffir he must show a health pass, or otherwise go back to be examined. In many cases, however, a native remains for years with the same master and, although he arrived in good health he has possibly subsequently become affected. I shall be glad if the Minister can arrange that natives should be examined every six months or twelve months. The greatest danger is, however, from the women, who work in the houses and mind the children. They are a great danger to the population. Many white people also catch the disease. As to the plague, I must congratulate the Minister with reference to the decrease of that disease in the Free State. The department has worked very hard in combating the disease, and I hope that the Minister and his department will now tackle venereal diseases just as thoroughly as the plague. The stock here in the Cape Peninsula are affected for the most part. About eight years ago every beast that was sent from Cape Town was examined, but that is now stopped and all beasts, whether they have the disease or not, are sent without examination, and arrive in the north with the disease. I hope that the Minister will give his attention to the spreading of the disease.

To avoid repetition of questions on the part of hon. members, I had better give an answer to the questions already asked now. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) has asked what is being done in connection with epidemic diseases and to prevent the spreading from abroad to our country and what arrangements are made between country and country to deal with the diseases. The matters are regulated by international agreement, and from time to time international congresses are held in connection with them. The present position is governed by a convention entered into in 1912. An office has been established in Paris for international public health. There data are collected from various institutions about health conditions throughout the whole world, and warnings are sent to the different countries that entered into the convention. The League of Nations also has a special department which more particularly gives its attention to this matter. The convention of 1912 was, unfortunately, not adopted by us, because we had all kinds of difficulties. Shortly another international conference of this nature will be held. The intention was to hold it in September and provisional arrangements were made by us to be represented there. For various causes the conference has now been postponed until May next. We hope then to be in a position to make our point of view known there. Our position has considerably altered since 1912. Then it was still possible to remain outside such an international convention, and with reference to the examination of sheep, e.g., to make our own arrangements. Gradually, however, we became a country with a large export trade, and it was necessary for us to become associated with the agreement. Then the hon. member further asks if there is any agreement with our neighbours in Africa. He pointed out that a conference was held some time ago between us and our neighbours in Angola, and he wants to know what has happened since that time. I regret to say that the conference did not lead to any agreement, but I think I can say that it is more and more appreciated that the interests of one country hang together with those of other countries, and that the relations between us and our neighbours as regards health matters are constantly improving. Rhodesia not so long ago adopted a health Act which is practically a copy of our 1919 Act, and with reference to Kenia, the same can be said. A short time ago there was an expert in the matter of the spreading of plague from Kenia to study the conditions here, and to have a discussion with a view to come to a mutual agreement. We hope soon to be able to come to a general agreement. Then the hon. member asks what happens with the pass fees on the diggings. Under the existing law that revenue goes into the general sources of revenue. I will discuss the alluvial diggings later, but I can give the hon. member the information that the amount of the fees do not come into the public health chest. Then he asks what the position was with reference to lepers that are not in institutions, but are still spread over the whole country. The position is unhappily that a large number of lepers still go about freely amongst the population. This is not the case so much where whites, but where natives, are concerned. It is very difficult to trace such cases and get them into institutions. If, then, the natives have still to be traced, then they will have had the disease for six or seven years in many cases, and the first six or seven years are just the worst in the disease. The department not long ago sent out a circular to all magistrates and asked them to use every endeavour to trace such cases by means of the district surgeons, the police, and in other ways. Moreover, it is clear that it is so difficult to get the lepers to the institutions, because the impression exists that they are actually prisons and that the lepers have no hope and will be locked up there for their whole life and must expect their death there. The department does everything to make the general public feel more and more that the sooner a sufferer gets to such an institution the better and the more opportunity there is of bringing the disease to a stop. During the last few years a large number of lepers have been discharged from institutions because on account of expert advice there is no danger of communicating the disease.

Were they not cured?

No, but there was no danger of contagion. The department feels in any case that this matter must be tackled in the Union in an entirely new way. In any case leprosy is not so dangerous with regard to infection as it has always been thought. There are, indeed, stages where liability to infection exists, but the danger of infection is not so great by a long way as, e.g., in consumption, and patients die far less quickly from this disease than from consumption. The danger of consumption is, therefore, much greater than that of leprosy. It is necessary that the old laws in connection with leprosy should be revised, and with a view thereto we have also in the last months created a new body—an advisory board—in the matter of leprosy. Representatives of the University of Cape Town and Johannesburg are upon it, representatives of bacteriological institutions and of the bureau of medical research in Johannesburg. That board will go into the whole matter of leprosy and advise the department about the policy which should be followed in the future. I now come to the matter of child mortality. The hon. member for Hopetown has asked whether it will not be well to create a. State organization to fight child mortality. I will just say that state organizations, as a rule, work expensively and not always in the most effective manner, because if such a matter is placed in the hands of the State the interest and enthusiasm of the public diminish. Now there is an association which is extending more and more throughout the whole Union and which especially deals with the matter. That is the Child Welfare Society. It takes particular care to bring down the abnormal deaths of children. The position is undoubtedly serious. Among the whites the mortality figure is 86 per thousand and amongst the coloured and natives the figure is much higher. By people who know something about it, it has been calculated that in a single generation the white population lose about 100,000 by the abnormal child mortality. We are trying to get people into South Africa and we are spending much money, yet all the time we lose so many by the high child mortality. We must do everything we can to prevent this. For the first time there is a vote of £600 on the estimates for the Child Welfare Society to reward slightly the good work that the association is doing for the people and the Government. Other women’s associations also are tackling the matter, and from all sides organizations are offering their services to the Government. Then I think much can be done by information through the schools and especially those for girls to point out that hygiene in private houses is of great importance. Then we have the Lady Buxton Home in Cape Town, where they specially train midwives who can give information to mothers in connection with the treatment of children. It does not appear on the estimates, but we have decided to ask Parliament to vote £1,000 for that institution. Then some members have made enquiries about venereal diseases. The question is asked why the vote is reduced on these estimates. Well, that is only apparent in connection with the Rietfontein Hospital. A decrease of £3,000 is shown, but that has nothing to do with the reception of patients. £1,700 falls under the ordinary saving on provinces, because the costs thereof have been deleted. Then there is a further reduction of £1,380 for a large farm which is connected with the hospital, and for which, during former years, money was necessary which is now no longer needed. A further reduction appears under sub-section F.4. It is a reduction in connection with the spending of money in Kimberley for the prevention of venereal diseases. The position is that the prevention of venereal diseases was formerly carried on there directly by the department, but last year an agreement was made with the committee of public health and they are now responsible. Instead of giving the usual grants the Government now pays two-thirds of the expenditure, so the amount falls back again to Vote F.6. Just a few remarks in the meantime in connection with the prevention of venereal diseases. The position is undoubtedly serious, and it also appears from the latest reports of the department that it is worst in the towns. During the past year in hospitals and by district surgeons about 70,000 cases have been treated. On the other hand, however, the matter may be represented as more serious than it really is. It is naturally specially difficult to find out what the precise position is and all the data about the matter are pure guesses. The only sound basis of calculation more or less is the systematic examination of prisoners. The general information of the department is that the disease is becoming less in Bechuanaland and in the western and northern portions of the Transvaal where the disease was bad, especially amongst natives. The view is that the disease is decreasing amongst those natives because the natives are more and more salted against the disease, but that the disease is increasing in the eastern portions of the Transvaal and in Pondoland where until to-day it was not so very bad. As regards the systematic examination of prisoners the figures are as follows:

And I think that we can well accept that among prisoners the figures are higher than among the ordinary population. What is being done by the department? In the first place a grant is made to the association for the prevention of venereal diseases, which is doing excellent work in this respect especially in propaganda and the spreading of information. In the second place two-thirds of the expenditure of municipal councils on this disease is refunded. The department has the institution at Rietfontein. Further, the remedies are given gratis to district surgeons and in some cases also to other doctors where the department knows that the disease is rife. Perhaps some hon. members do not exactly grasp what the powers of the Government are with reference to the prevention of this disease. Under the existing law the district surgeons and the officials of the department are required to report all cases of venereal diseases to the department. Then the law gives the Minister the power to have an enquiry instituted in local areas where he suspects the disease to exist. That is as far as the powers of the Minister goes to have the disease compulsorily treated. The law does not allow the Minister to go further. In connection with the patient the law provides that a person who has the disease must place himself under treatment by a doctor. If he does not do so he is punishable. The difficulty is to discover such cases. Further, the Act provides that it is punishable for a person to enter into service in a house or in a place where foodstuffs are produced and also if an employer employs such a person knowing that he has the disease. Here also the difficulty exists of finding out what is being done. There is no obligation on the ordinary doctor to report cases. If we wish to go further we shall have to alter the law and place certain obligations on the ordinary doctors. We can compel them to report cases where they know that a person has the disease and does not have himself treated. Then the department can compel the doctors under the law to do so and also the people to have themselves treated. It is my intention to introduce this amendment if we can get an amendment of the Public Health Act through. An ordinary doctor often knows that a person has venereal disease and he has not the right to report the matter. If he does so he can be had up for libel. We then put the obligation upon him but we also protect him against a libel action. I do not know if we will go further than that. The idea was that we should provide compulsory examination for all persons who take service in people’s houses. I do not know if that is practicable. I think that it has already been applied by the old Cape Government on a former occasion but there was too much objection to such an interference with the rights of the subject. I therefore do not know if we shall be able to go so far. I will give my attention to the whole matter during the recess. In any case we shall first have to amend the Public Health Act if we want to go further.

†Then a question has been raised by the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) and also by the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) with regard to the use of arsenate of soda for criminal purposes. They have suggested that something should be done in the way of colouration and odorization of poisons. I can only say with regard to this that the control of the sale of poisons is certainly most unsatisfactory. For that reason we have introduced a clause in the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Bill which deals with this question. There is a whole chapter dealing with the control of the sale of poisons, but unfortunately this Bill has been introduced to the House for three successive years. As far as this year is concerned I have no great hope that the Bill will pass on to the statute-book; I am afraid it will have to stand over until next year.

Why not deal with these poisons outside the Bill?

It is in the Bill now. With regard to the colouration and odorization of poisons, experiments, I understand, have been made, but these experiments are rather disappointing, and the great difficulty is, of course, that farmers insist on using poisons for dipping and other purposes. Anyhow, the whole matter will be regulated by law as soon as this Medical Bill is passed by the House.

Is there anything else they can use instead of poisons for dipping purposes?

That is a question for the Agricultural Department. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and others have raised the question of plague. I do not see the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) here—

Where are they?

He got such a fright at the division this afternoon that he has not come back.

I am glad to see as far as his attitude to the Public Health Department in connection with the plague is concerned, he has undergone a change of heart. At the conference we had in connection with the plague at Bloemfontein he attacked rather severely the permanent head of the department and the department generally, but I am glad to see he has taken up quite a different attitude now. I am especially glad for the words of appreciation he used of the permanent head of the department, Dr. Mitchell. I have been co-operating with Dr. Mitchell in regard to health matters for so many months now, and I can assure the House there is certainly no more devoted public servant than Dr. Mitchell; he has undoubtedly sacrificed a great deal in connection with his work and I am afraid he is sacrificing more than any public servant should be called upon to do. With regard to the present position I may inform the House that since 1st July last there have been 22 European cases of plague and 8 deaths; coloured and native, 89 cases and 59 deaths, a total of 111 cases and 67 deaths. That is a very remarkable decrease on the figures of last year. That is very satisfactory, and I think the very abundant rains have helped us this year very materially; there is no doubt about that. The carrier of plague, the link between the rodent and the human being, is the flea. The abundant rains have worked havoc with the flea population of the country, at least. Undoubtedly the whole position is still very dangerous. As I informed the House on a former occasion, the area where the rodent population is infected has spread considerably during the last year and is undoubtedly still spreading; and as long as that is the case we must look upon plague as a continual danger to the country. We do not expect to have many cases of plague during the winter season, but we must look upon it as dormant, and as soon as the summer season begins we must fear another outbreak. The steps that we have taken in the past and will continue to take in the future are in the first place to get close co-operation between the Health Department on the one hand and local authorities on the other. In the second place we are spreading information as much as we can among the general public. For that purpose we have got a definite publicity campaign, and I am very glad to hear from hon. members, especially in the Free State, that that campaign has been a great success. Then we are training a number of rodent inspectors and we lend them free to local authorities. Then, next we instituted a mobile field laboratory, and Dr. Ingram, a gentleman from overseas and an expert, has been appointed as entomologist in connection with that, and has done very useful work so far. The bacteriologist appointed in connection with this mobile laboratory is Dr. Pirie, who has been connected for a number of years with the Institute of Medical Research in Johannesburg. Then, of course, we always keep in readiness a number of isolation tents and a number of nurses, so as to be ready to pounce upon any outbreak of plague in one or other locality; so that is a guarantee, so far as we can give a guarantee to the general public, that we will deal effectively with any outbreak as soon as possible. The whole position needs watching, but I can assure the House that as far as the plague position is concerned the Department is continually on the watch. Now we come to the question of tuberculosis. The position with regard to that is undoubtedly a very serious one, but I am very glad to inform the House that the position has improved in recent years, and improved very remarkably. I have got the figures here, and I think they will be very reassuring to the House. The period covered is from 1912 to 1922, 10 years, and the death rates are per 100,000 of the population of whites. We have no complete figures for coloured persons in the various provinces, and in the Union. In Natal, in 1912, it was as high as 75 and has been brought down to 20 in 1922; in the Cape it has been brought down from 58 to 48; in the Transvaal from 43 to 31; and in the Free State from 28 to 18 per 100,000. Taking the Union generally it was 50 in 1912 and 36 in 1922. This is the result of a survey that has been made by Dr. Allan, our expert with regard to tuberculosis, and I think these results are really very satisfactory. The chief cause of this improvement is the improvement generally in housing conditions. There is no doubt about that, and this certainly shows that if we spend money on improving the housing of the population, this will be a very valuable and effective contribution to the health of the people. With regard to Nelspoort, I can only say the institution is a very young one, as it has only been in existence for a year; but so far it has certainly done very good work, and it shows much promise for the future. There is room for 92 patients, and it took some months before the public generally, and especially the local authorities, realized the value of the institution, and it was far from full; but for quite a long time now it has been full, and there is quite a long waiting list. One hon. gentleman remarked here to-night that many of the cases sent there are far advanced. Unfortunately that is so. That is because local authorities who send the patients there do not quite realize that the best period to send these patients is in the early stages when something can be done for them. The advanced cases become a burden to these local authorities, and that is why, in the end, they send them. But we are impressing now upon them that they should not send these advanced cases, but the early ones. On the whole, these cases are doing very well. Quite a number of them have improved in health, and quite a number, I understand, have been permanently cured. With regard to leprosy, and more particularly with regard to Robben Island, in regard to which a number of questions have been asked, I can give the House the information that. I intend to carry out the policy initiated by my predecessor, eventually to close down Robben Island. We find that the cost of maintenance there is very high. It is two or three times as high as in other institutions. The number of patients in Robben Island now is only 158. We do not send cases there any more. Of these, 14 are male Europeans, 17 are female Europeans, and 127 coloured. There are no native patients there. These patients are very averse to being sent to any other leper institution in the country, and especially to Pretoria. I do not know what the objection is to Pretoria, but the patients represent that most, or all of them come from the western province of the Cape, and have their relatives, who come to see them from time to time, and they do not want to leave these parts, and in addition they claim a definite promise from my predecessor that they will not be transferred to Pretoria. If that has been a promise on the part of my predecessor I am going to honour it, and I am not going to send them to Pretoria. I am going into the whole question of what to do with these patients on Robben Island. I can just give some rough figures, which indicate what the position is. There are three alternatives. One is to remove these patients to Pretoria. That would mean for the maintenance of these patients in future about £10.000 per annum. The second alternative is to leave them on Robben Island, which would cost us about £27,000 per annum, so that we save £17,000 by sending them to Pretoria; and the third alternative is to remove them to some suitable place on the main line. The patients prefer the latter alternative, and as far as we have been able to go into that question, we estimate that that will cost us £15,000 a year. I am going further into the matter now, and hope, as soon as possible, to come to some definite decision in regard to this. The Leprosy Advisory Board, which was instituted some time ago, will meet in Cape Town one of these days, and I have asked them to go specially into this question of Robben Island.

Should you not ask your predecessor about that promise?

Yes. In any case, if it is possible to keep these people in the Western Province I think that is to be preferred. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) asked about the report of the Hospital Commission. Well, I can only say that I have tried, as much as possible, to expedite the printing of the report; but it is rather voluminous and the printing department has very much work on hand just now. With all the speed that they could put into this work, they have not been able to print it yet. I understand, however, that the report will be ready within about a fortnight, and that is the earliest we can have it.

Will there be any opportunity of discussing it this session?

I do not know, but I think members will have it in their hands in a fortnight. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has asked me to take the Committee into my confidence, and tell them what the contents of the report are. I think it is very inadvisable to do that.

What is the policy of the Government?

It is difficult to say what the policy is until the House knows the contents of the report. I think it would be only just towards the members of that committee that the matter should be brought up and discussed in the House when the report is in the hands of every hon. member.

†*The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) has asked whether the poison for prevention of rats cannot be furnished to the people gratis. My answer is that if we issue the poison which is very effective gratis to the people, they will waste it. It is supplied to them very cheaply at cost price, and the poorest will be in a position to pay the trifling amount for it, which is a guarantee against waste. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) has referred to the spread of tuberculosis by infected cattle. I can give them no assurance about the matter beyond that I will as soon as possible approach the Agricultural Department about the matter to make them appreciate the seriousness of the position and to see whether measures cannot be taken. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) has asked about the supplying of telephones at Rietfontein. I can only reply that this is a matter which falls under the provincial administration and that it is difficult for me to go into such a matter. He has mentioned the matter here, and I do not doubt that it will come under the notice of the authorities concerned.

†With regard to the alluvial diggings, there is no doubt that the conditions are very deplorable and that the population of these diggings has grown to no less than 62,000. Our difficulty of the Department of Public Health is that we have practically no power, unless we act through the local authorities. On the Transvaal alluvial diggings there is no local authority other than the magistrate, with the administrator for hospital matters, and in the Cape Province the local authority is the divisional council. We have great difficulties with the divisional councils. We have had such a case in the Hopetown district in connection with the Braakfontein diggings. The Hopetown Divisional Council says the Government has brought together 3,000 persons, the Government obtains all the revenue from the diggings and, although the divisional council gets little or nothing, it is made liable for very considerable expense to which the divisional council objects. We have had great difficulty in connection with the Braakfontein diggings, where there was a serious outbreak of enteric fever and where hospital accommodation had to be provided. The divisional council refused to do anything, and under the Act I had to refer the matter to the administrator, and with the greatest difficulty I got the administrator to act. Now the divisional council, under protest, has assumed that liability, but it says that under no circumstances will it continue this next year. Everyone will agree that the position is most unsatisfactory, and it is certainly not just to the divisional council that it should be made liable for expenditure for which the Government is really responsible by their proclamation of these alluvial diggings. We went into the whole matter during the recess, and I called together an inter-departmental conference between the Public Health, Mines and Native Affairs Departments, which are all interested in the matter. We have come to an agreement that we will recommend to the Government to introduce a Bill to amend the Public Health Act with regard to alluvial diggings that will relieve the divisional councils and other local authorities of their responsibility in regard to this matter. The local health authority will be the magistrate, who will recover from the owners of property, or the occupiers of houses, the expenditure incurred for which they ought to be made responsible, for instance, sanitary removals, but the rest of the expenditure will be the responsibility of the Government. That matter will be rectified when we bring before the House the amending Public Health Bill. I had hoped to bring in such a Bill this session, but I am afraid that there will be no chance this year, so, nolens volens, we shall have to wait until next year.

I should like to know from the Minister if there are special coaches for the removal of patients. I see that £7.000 is put down for that, and my question has special reference to sufferers from phthisis. I ask this because I know of a case where a diseased person got in with two healthy people. Are such coaches properly disinfected?

The position is very unsatisfactory. It has already been brought to my notice and I have entered into negotiations with the Railway Department. We have arranged that there shall be special coaches for lepers and sufferers from phthisis.

In view of what the Minister has said about the Hospital Commission’s report not being forthcoming, I would like to get a statement from the Minister in regard to a very important matter in connection with the Natal coast. There is a great deal of perturbation regarding native hospital accommodation there, and a recent conference at Pietermaritzburg of the Agricultural Union passed the following resolution—

The Minister is aware that many years ago hospitals were provided for accommodation for Indians under the Indian Immigration Bureau, and that they have to-day become largely used for the native employees along the coast. Under the Act under which these natives are employed the employer is compelled to provide hospital accommodation for them, and there is no limit to the period responsible for their maintenance and cost. The Government has now taken them over, and has announced its intention of closing these hospitals in 1927. When the liquidation of the Indian bureau comes about, there will be £100,000 surplus, as far as we know, and the people concerned wish to know what the Government is going to do with that money. Is it going to the exchequer, or will it be used to keep these hospitals going as native hospitals, and thereby provide the necessary accommodation on the coast, or are the hospitals going to be abandoned and no provision made for the future?

With regard to that the hon. member has stated the position correctly. When I was in Natal in October or November last, representations were made to me by Natal employers, especially on the sugar plantations, and after they had put the question before me I went into the matter. Those hospitals which still exist are hospitals which were established for Indian labourers and therefore, these hospitals have been financed from the Indian Immigration Trust Fund. The number of native labourers has steadily increased and the number of Indian labourers steadily decreased. There are from 30,000 to 40,000 natives from Pondoland working on the plantations and there is practically no provision made for them as far as hospitals are concerned. I am glad the employers of labour on the coast are as anxious as the Government to make proper provision for these labourers and we are assured of their hearty co-operation on this matter. It is a matter affecting first the department of the interior, because Indian affairs are under that department; secondly the department for Native Affairs and thirdly the department of Public Health. Hospital provision for labourers on these estates, as in the mines, falls on the employees. That question has to be dealt with by the department of Native Affairs. We had a conference in Pretoria during the recess, representing all the departments concerned, at which we have discussed the whole matter and we have come to a modus vivendi with regard to Indian hospitals, namely, to use them for the time being partly for hospital accommodation of the native labourers. Any further or permanent measures will need legislation.

I have had time during the Minister’s speech to refer to the Medical and Pharmacy Act dealing with poisons and its bearing on sales to natives of arsenate of soda. I find in one section provision made for sale of poisons by chemists and druggists only. But in a later section provision is made for the sale of poisons by general or retail dealers as follows—

The foregoing section makes it clear that the position in areas where dipping is compulsory is that it is just as easy for a native to buy a pound of arsenate of soda as it is to buy a pound of sugar and the passing of the Medical and Pharmacy Act is not going to relieve the position. The risk of having their cattle poisoned and being themselves poisoned is just as great as ever. The farmers had hoped that the colourization and odorization of dipping preparations might have solved the difficulty. I understand from the Minister that experiments which has been carried out have not been a success. The position has not improved one iota and it is not likely to improve. This poison is in the hands of natives, and as I have said, it is as easy to buy it as it is to buy a pound of sugar, and the Europeans particularly in east coast fever areas are subject to this grave risk, which has already resulted in very heavy losses of stock. I may say I have only during the last few days had a letter from one of my constituents whose cattle have been poisoned. There was evidence that a native had committed the crime and he was brought before the magistrate, but, after trial, was acquitted. In this letter the European states that either he must leave the district or the native must and he has asked me to do what I can here to get this native moved out of the district. Of course, I see that it is quite impossible to get this native removed in view of the fact that he was acquitted. The crime of animal poisoning by natives is on the increase and scarcely a month passes without one hearing of cases occurring. I cannot understand why the Minister made reference to this chapter as being a possible solution of the difficulty because it is not going to improve the position; and, so far as one can see, unless the Minister can put forward something more tangible than he has done at present, all that remains for us who represent constituencies in those areas is to tell our constituents that the Government are powerless to do anything to relieve the position.

I am sorry that I must return to this subject, but I did not have an opportunity before the Minister replied. I also feel that it is my duty to say a few words of criticism upon the action of the department. The amount which is spent on anti-venereal ointment is hopelessly too small. It was only sufficient for 1,100 cases and there were 70,000 cases of out-patients in hospitals alone. There were, of course, many more cases that are not known. This shows that 98 per cent. of the cases are half treated or not at all. That is why we should make it punishable for an apothecary to treat such cases. While the disease is so bad only 417 cases of whites have been treated in hospitals. Where have the other people been treated? There are no suitable places therefor. Take towns such as Cape Town, East London and Pretoria. Not a single person was treated in the hospitals there. In the clinics there are not enough doctors to properly treat the people. Hundreds are treated per day, and one doctor cannot deal with all the cases properly, and this means that the treatment is simply not effective. There has been an increase of cases since 1923, namely, from 65,000 that were treated then to 70,000 for the past year. The Minister has stated that there has been a reduction because the natives have been salted by the sickness. I think that that is so much absolute nonsense the department is telling the Minister. There is no such thing as a man being innoculated against the disease. I am not a qualified doctor, but everybody knows that one cannot inoculate against that disease. On page 50 of the departmental report we find that the cases of venereal diseases that are treated by the Depence Department hospital have increased from 6.2 per day to 12.4 per day. That is double. While the treatment for wounds, dysentry, typhoid and tuberculosis together only amount to 13.1 per day, it is 12.4 per day in the case of venereal diseases. In connection with the payment of two-thirds of the expenditure of the local authorities in treating the disease, I want to say that it actually does not lead to good treatment of the disease. It possibly gives us the opportunity of saying that we have done something and that we wash our hands in innocence. The fact, however, is that the disease is not cured. We know how things go in the smaller places. I shall mention my own constituency. There many natives come over the boundary and from the eastern portions of the country who are afflicted with the disease, and yet there are only something over 200 cases of them treated. It ought to be three times as much. It is much better for the department to take the matter into its own Hands and then later to recover from the local authority one-third of the cost. I see that in 1920 a medical inspector of venereal diseases was appointed. In 1921 he resigned, and since that time we have had no one in his place. However competent Dr. Mitchell may be it is impossible for him to look after all the work of an extensive department. It is necessary to appoint specialists for this disease. The cost will be high, but only so high at the beginning. It will decrease year by year. But more than that. We shall save more lives and make the happiness and safety of the population greater. For these reasons it is necessary for the Minister to appoint specialists and to give more opportunity for the treatment of the disease in the case of white people as well.

I want to say one more word in regard to arsenate of soda. I do want to urge upon the Minister, especially in view of the difficulties the experts find in odorizing or colourizing this poison, the great advisability of investigating the prohibition of its sale except in liquid form. I do think that it is very much easier to odorize a liquid than a dry powder, and also it is less easy to use a liquid for any criminal purposes which have been so unfortunately frequent lately. I feel something might be done in the way of thorough investigation on the lines of only permitting these poisons to be sold in a liquid form. Carbolic acid, kerosene, etc., in a fixed percentage, could be easily mixed, and would give such a strong odour as to be a deterrent to stock consuming fodder or salt in which it had been mixed, and the taste would cause its presence in human food to be easily discovered. I would also like to ask the Minister whether he could explain why this proclamation, to which I alluded, and which came into force on the 1st October, has never been observed. Here is a Government proclamation which says that no arsenate of soda shall be sold unless if is coloured, and yet that proclamation has simply been ignored by the merchants.

I should say that comes under the Department of Justice.

Someone should see that it is given effect to. The farming community view this matter very seriously and although the colouring will not remove all the danger, it is a move in the right direction.

I just want to say, in regard to the suggestion by the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), that the Minister, if he makes enquiry, will, I think, find that to insist on these preparations being sold in liquid form is going to cost the farmer something like 50 per cent. more, and they would rather, I think, continue to use the powder and incur the grave risks which that would involve, than pay the much higher price for the preparation in liquid form.

At the time the medical faculty was instituted in connection with the university of Cape Town it was said that good salaries should be paid to persons in order to get efficient men who could also do much research work. Now those professors are also allowed private consultations and I hear that they often take place. I should therefore like to know from the Minister if sufficient time remains for research work.

After the very able speech of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) I had hoped that the Minister would have been able to give us a fuller and more definite idea of the policy of the Government in assisting the hospitals. Some of our larger hospitals are totally inadequate, not only in regard to accommodation for patients, but also in regard to apparatus, equipment and appliances for dealing with diagnosis and operations. When we consider that these institutions have to deal with the poorer classes, because people who are well-to-do can always secure the best of accommodation in nursing homes and the best of scientific attention, the poor demand that hospitals should be under the control of the Government and be supported by the Government. For this reason I have been surprised to see the Labour benches practically empty the whole of this evening. I would have thought that this question would have been so vital to the people they represent that the Labour members would have been present.

We don’t want to obstruct—wait until the report comes up.

I don’t want to obstruct either. It is not only a matter of public health, but in Cape Town you have a school of medicine, but your students whom you hope will become skilled physicians and surgeons have most inadequate apparatus. Therefore I express my disappointment that the Minister has not been able to give us some hope of a more definite policy in regard to public health and hospitals.

I should like to know whether in view of the importance of the Hospital Commission’s report, the Minister will agree to the Vote standing over until we have the report before us. The report is most vital to the consideration of the Vote, and this is the last opportunity we shall have for 12 months of considering what the policy of the Government is going to be in regard to the future of Hospitals in the Union. The Government has decided upon a new policy in regard to the subsidies to the provinces under which the Central Government limits its liability to the financing of education. Hitherto a certain amount of expenditure in connection with the hospitals has been financed with subsidies from that source, and surely this is an opportune time for the Government to let us know if it is their intention to recognize the fact that the maintenance of hospitals is a semi-national expenditure. It is surely time for the Minister to take us into his confidence on that point, or if unable to do so, until the report is before us, I would ask him to let the matter stand over until the report is published. With regard to the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) on the question of providing hospital accommodation for natives along the populous belt of the Natal coast, the only provision which exists at present is that originally made for Indian immigrants, and owing to the existence of hospitals formerly used for this a certain amount of hospital accommodation is available for the natives, but that is unsatisfactory, and even in Durban the provision of native hospital accommodation is insufficient. I was a member of the hospital board in Durban and in spite of the generous contributions made by the Durban municipality towards the upkeep of the native side of the hospital we found the financial provision inadequate, and I do urge on the Minister the desirability of considering this point. There is another point, the Minister has dealt exhaustively with figures in regard to venereal disease in the various provinces, and I should like him to be a little more practical in regard to the provision to be made for the unfortunate people suffering from this disease. Under the Native Urban Areas Act provision was made for the medical supervision and examination of natives in the urban areas. I should like the Minister to co-operate with the municipal native affairs departments in the various urban areas with a view to the natives suffering from this disease being handed over to some institution instead of being sent back to their own people. The medical officer has no provision for these cases and is unable to send them to any institution, with the result that large numbers of these natives are sent back to their own people only to spread the disease. I am aware that the figures quoted of persons who passed through the prisons show the numbers afflicted with the disease among natives is low in comparison with other nationalities, but the fact remains that the disease is on the increase amongst the natives. They don’t come under clinical treatment regularly, and the discovery of the disease is a slow process and is often left to chance or accident. In Durban it is true there is a systematic examination of all natives who enter the municipality. They are cleansed and deverminized against the possibility of the spread of typhus. I urge upon the Government the necessity to establish co-ordination between the Department of Public Health and the Municipal Native Affairs Departments dealing with the examination and medical supervision of natives. This provision is made in the Native Urban Areas Act and it is a provision that is very much desired by the public themselves. They desire to have this provision brought into operation in every urban area of the Union, and it would tend very greatly to the improvement of the health of the natives and avoid the spread of disease through the employment of servants who are affected by venereal disease. I should like, therefore, the Minister to be more practical and indicate in what manner we can establish some method of handing over these native cases as soon as they are discovered to institutions which will deal with them with a view to their being cured. The natives themselves are averse to going to hospitals, and unless the Native Affairs officials, in conjunction with the various municipal authorities, work in harmony with the hospital authorities, it will be impossible to establish a system for the control of this disease which is at all practicable and suitable for the peculiar circumstances of the Native population.

I rise to express the resentment which we feel on these benches at the criticisms passed by the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat). The hon. member does not appear to notice that half of the Labour party are here, and only one-fifth of the Opposition, and yet he presumes to criticize us for not taking sufficient interest in this matter of public health. An additional member of the Labour party is away travelling with Royalty, and two others are engaged on the Rand on matters of the utmost public importance, and yet an hon. member on that side has the audacity, if I may use the term—

Order. The hon. member need not discuss that question. He must discuss the Vote before the House.

I want to say that we are equally interested in the Vote before the House in relation to public health, and I think I am right in replying to the slur which has been cast upon us, that we do not take sufficient interest in the question. All this criticism of hospitals is due to one thing, and that is the miserly way provincial councils have been dealt with in regard to their work, and charged with being extravagant. When they desire to raise money required for needed services, it is said: Look at these horrible provincial councils, how terribly extravagant they are, wasting money in every possible way. What is really wrong in regard to hospitals in this country is the starvation of provincial councils in capital expenditure. I have been on hospital boards, and year after year with wearisome reiteration we have urged the provincial council executive to find enough money for necessary hospital accommodation, and it is handed out in the most grudging way, not because they don’t want to make the hospitals up to date, not because they don’t want to meet the wishes of the people, but because they were unable to get the capital required from the last Government. I have no doubt the present Government will see what they can do in a more liberal way. Provinces have to repay the capital with interest, and they do so, but are not permitted to borrow on their own credit as provided in the South Africa Act, not even for necessary hospital extension. For years I have been urging Ministers of Finance to find enough money for hospitals, but the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), who jeers at the councils, was praising the other day the Baxter report, and that report is condemnatory of hospitals which dared to use European instead of native labour, and because they tried to make conditions of life more endurable for the nurses. It was charged against them that nurses were overfed and underworked—they got fruit every day! It was the last Government which was so parsimonious. If the hospitals are to be put on the footing they should be—and they are terribly backward—then the first essential is that they should have capital expenditure sufficient to meet their needs. It is no use casting stones at provincial Councils for extravagance, and then coming here and saying: “Make our hospitals up to date.” You cannot have it every way. Money must be raised you cannot have adequate education without expenditure, you cannot have decent hospitals, you cannot have roads and bridges but particularly in regard to hospitals larger expenditure is necessary, and I hope there will be no more carping criticism from the hon. gentlemen opposite, who lay the charge of extravagance so continuously and so vehemently.

I hope you will pass this Vote before the hour of adjournment, and so I will reply very briefly to some of the speeches that have been made. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) raised the question again of venereal diseases. I can just point out to him that provision is made as he suggests should be done for natives suffering from these diseases at Durban. There are some 30 or 40 beds provided and of the expenditure in connection with that, the Public Health Department pays two-thirds according to the law. The co-operation he wants between the Public Health Department and local authorities is there everything possible is being done to promote that co-operation. As far as the Urban Areas Act is concerned, the organization under that Act is only in its infancy and the hon. gentleman must give it a chance to see what use can be made in future in connection with diseases of this kind among natives. I am afraid the hon. members for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) and Illovo (Mr. Marwick) in connection with the report of the Hospital Commission have not shown that sweet reasonableness for which they have the reputation. It seems unusual for the House to discuss the report of a commission before that report is on the Table of the House and has been in the hands of members so that they can know what the contents of the report are. I do not think it is reasonable to ask of me to-night to take the House into my confidence and tell them what the contents of that report are. It is not right towards the members of that committee that I should tell the House what is in that report. Hon. members should see for themselves.

When was the report completed?

As I have stated. I have tried to expedite the printing of the report, and have not succeeded beyond this: That I can give the House the assurance that, within a fortnight, it will be laid upon the Table of the House. Besides that. I have given, and rightly given, an assurance to the provincial administrations, that before I act on the recommendations of this commission I will first discuss the whole position with them. Hon. gentlemen must not forget that, under the Act of Union, general hospitals fall under the provincial administrations, and it is not right for me, in the House, to lay down the policy that I will take these hospitals out of their hands, without a word of consultation with the provincial administrations. I think it is not a right principle, and, therefore. I think hon. gentlemen must have patience with regard to this matter. In any case, nothing can be done by me without legislation; that is to say, if general hospitals are to be transferred to the Union Government, it can only be done by passing new legislation in the House and, when that is introduced—if it is to be introduced at all—then hon. members will have opportunity enough to hear what the policy of the Government is. In any case, we cannot do anything before next year, and I would again ask hon. members to have a little patience in this matter.

*In connection with the question by the hon. member for Colesburg (Mr. G. A. Louw), I will just say that the consultation of professors by private doctors does not interfere with the research work. Private consultations are permitted to professors at all universities, and they are under proper control by the university. The right to this is permitted upon the appointment.

†The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) has brought forward the point that certain regulations were issued by the department of Public Health in connection with the colouration and odorization of poisons. I find that no such regulations have been issued by the Department of Public Health.

No, they were issued by the Agricultural Department.

If these regulations have to be enforced, it is a matter for the Department of Agriculture and the police; it is not a matter that has to be brought up here.

†*The hon. member for Barberton has again discussed venereal diseases. In most cases the disease can be treated just as well outside as in the hospitals. The disease can be made non-infectious in an early stage, and it is not necessary to take the patient to the hospital. It is a point of investigation for the hospital committee to see whether the hospital for venereal diseases cannot be connected with the ordinary hospitals, because a certain stigma lies on the former, and people don’t want to be seen there. If the hospitals are connected with the ordinary hospitals, then the objection falls away, and they will more freely go there.

I am sorry the Minister did not grant me an opportunity to speak before he replied, for I want to raise the question of Nelspoort sanatorium. I am sure that the donor of the foundation sum would not have been satisfied if he had known that sufferers from phthisical diseases were to be treated as they are being treated to-day. The Government says the local authorities are responsible for this state of affairs, but the Government is giving a large sum to the institution, and should take some of the responsibility. I addressed a letter to the Public Health Department some time ago, drawing attention to some very hard cases. One of the rules is that no person who is presumed to be incurable can be admitted to the Nelspoort sanatorium. Surely that is not the idea of the sanatorium? It is established to relieve people who are suffering, but the sanatorium is taking only the patients who the medical men say can be cured. I understood that the idea of the donor was that all who are suffering from phthisical complaints should get such relief as it is possible for such an institution to afford. Then I wish to ask the Minister whether he is going to have any investigation made in regard to the medicinal properties of our indigenous plants. I know I cannot discuss this matter here but perhaps the Minister will reply to my question.

The hon. member cannot go into that subject now.

I am afraid that the Department of Public Health has not the machinery to investigate into the medicinal value of our indigenous plants. The only institutions under the Department are the bacteriological laboratories, and they could not do it, and there is also the Institution of Medical Research. With regard to Nelspoort, my idea is that it is not a sanatorium for the chronic sick who cannot be cured. I think that other accommodation should be found for them, and they should be admitted to the ordinary hospital. The idea, a® far as I understood it, was to have the sanatorium at Nelspoort for the treatment of curable cases, and we want local authorities to send such cases there.

I would like the Minister to make a survey on the position of leprosy in Natal. Amongst some of the tribes I understand the disease is endemic and that it is spreading and I think it would be wise if the Minister would make some enquiry with regard to this. ‘

I am sorry the hon. member did not understand when I replied in Dutch to a similar question from the hon. member for Hopetown. I told him that a survey is being taken now with regard to lepers outside lepers’ institutions, and Natal is included in that.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 24, “Native Affairs.” £326,843,

On the motion of Sir Thomas Smartt it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

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