As the Committee will see I have an amendment on the Order Paper here which is only putting it the other way round, making it more plain. It is not altering the sense of the clause at all. I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I beg to move the amendment standing in my name. The Committee will see that the wording of the clause is adhered to but I am moving a new sub-clause 3 in order to assist an owner who wishes to do the erosion work himself. As the clause stood before, once the Government proclaimed a conservation area, there was no provision for anyone to do the work himself. The Committee will see that the clause now says that provided an owner wants to do the work he can do it at his own expense, and he is exempted. But the Committee will also see that in sub-clause 3 (a) the Minister may, at his discretion, give three months’ notice in writing of the determination of such exemption, or he may withdraw the exemption if he is satisfied that the owner has failed to comply with the terms of exemption. So we are providing that the owner who has claimed the right to do the work himself shall do it, but if he does not do it the Minister can still carry on. I move—

1. (1) Whenever in the opinion of the Governor-General any land should, in the national interest, be reclaimed or conserved at public expense, he may by proclamation declare and define a conservation area, which shall consist of the land to be conserved together with such additional land as in his opinion is required for the proper carrying out of such conservation.
2. (2) The Minister may thereupon—
   1. (a) expropriate any land in such conservation area in accordance with the provisions of section four, but subject to a right of pre-emption remaining in the owner or his successor in title; or
   2. (b) by notice in writing suspend for a period to be specified in such notice (which period may from time to time in like manner be extended) all or any of the owner’s rights in or over such land, and at the expiration of three months from the date of such notice, enter upon and take possession of the land for the purpose of conservation.
3. (3)
   1. (a) The Minister may in respect of any land in a conservation area at his discretion grant exemption from the provisions of paragraph (b) of sub-section (2), to an owner who has, within three months of the date of the notice referred to in that paragraph, entered into a written undertaking to carry out at his own expense such conservation works (to be specified in the undertaking) as the Minister may require.
   2. (b) The Minister may at his discretion give three months’ notice in writing of the termination of such exemption: Provided that he may without notice withdraw the exemption if he is satisfied that the owner has failed to comply with the terms of his undertaking.
      and to omit paragraph (a) of sub-section
4. (4) and to substitute the following new paragraph:
   1. (a) The Minister may at any time by notice in writing cancel any suspension of rights under paragraph (b) of sub-section (2).

I want to congratulate the Minister on the amendment which he has moved. As the clause originally read, it was very bad for the owner of the land that the Government could come along at any time and arbitrarily take the land it required to do certain work, although the owner had the right to buy the land back again later on. The owner now gets an opportunity under the amendment, which improves the Bill, so that if the Government considers that something should be done on the ground the owner can do it himself in accordance with the plans prepared by the Government. The advantage, of course, is a very considerable one, also for this reason, that if the Government does it we know it is going to cost a great deal more than if the owner does it himself. The Minister further proposes here that in any case the owner will be given three months time before an exemption is terminated. That is perfectly clear and I am able to give full support to this new clause 5.

With the leave of the Minister I should like to move a further amendment. As clause 5 stands now in the event of the land being returned and the suspension removed the Central Board can place a valuation on the land or on the rights and the owner will then be entitled in accordance with the valuation of the land to get the land back without a servitude. Let us assume that the owner is not able to pay the amount wanted, and he prefers to allow the Government to buy the land out and out. Then it is laid down here that the amount paid shall be on the following basis—

During a period of five, six or ten years, whatever it may be, the owner may have effected improvements, he may have built water furrows, or dams may have been cleaned, and so on. He has effected certain improvements to the land, but it is laid down here that the Minister cannot pay a larger amount than the value of the land before the reclamation. That means that the expenses incurred by the owner during the period cannot be taken into account. I beg to move—

I hope the Minister will just tell us what attitude he is adopting in regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. N. J. Schoeman).

I have no great objection to the amendment of the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. N. J. Schoeman) but I wonder whether that is covered by the Governor-General’s consent, because it will involve further expenditure. If it is in order I have no great objection to it.

It does not appear to me to require a recommendation.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I want to ask the Minister if this clause deals with bush and trees on the foreshore. I have seen the most wanton destruction take place on the foreshore on Crown land, and it has been even worse since the advent of the motor car. Trees and bush have been cut down by picnic parties for the purpose of kindling fires. The result will be that eventually there will be sanddrifts and all the grass on the foreshore will disappear. My attention has been drawn also to trees of commercial value having been cut down in our kloofs. I refer to boxwood and other kinds. These are very important products of South Africa. I think that this is a matter which should be taken up, and that these trees should be protected in our own interest.

I want to know whether this clause will control trees under Municipal control? There are many trees, particularly here round about Cape Town where we have valuable avenues of firs and oaks. And while the Municipality is quite sympathetic towards trees, their officials, who work in water tight compartments, when they want to put up electric poles for instance, often cut down trees. We want these trees protected so that our avenues and our parks can be protected, and our heritage which we have got from the past will be preserved.

I should also like to have a little more information about this clause. This clause says—

Now I should like to know what my position is going to be if I have on my farm a plantation with various kinds of trees. As the Minister knows it does happen that a plantation which may be proclaimed does not contain only the specific kind of trees to which the proclamation applies, but other kinds of trees as well. Am I not allowed in a case like that to use the other kinds of timber? I may want to make a wagon shaft or I may need the timber for other purposes. What is the Minister going to do to protect me as the owner, so that I shall not be prosecuted if I take wood out of that forest or plantation for my own use? There are certain provisions in that connection, but I should like to know what the Minister’s intentions are and whether the owner of the farm is not being deprived of his rights because the punishment for a contravention of this clause is imprisonment.

In reply to the hon. member for East London (Mr. Christopher) I should like to say that this section covers the cases he has mentioned. Under this clause trees on the foreshore can be protected.

On Crown Lands?

On Crown Lands and anywhere. The hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Hare) has spoken about certain trees which the Municipality or officials of the Municipality cut down. This clause protects those trees, and if anyone would mention it to the Department they will see that they are proclaimed in the usual way.

†*The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. N. J. Schoeman) asks what the position is if a forest is proclaimed for instance only to protect yellow wood trees, and he wants to know whether other trees such as stinkwood trees may then be used by the owner. There is nothing to prevent him, but if there is any dobut he can obtain a permit from the magistrate or from the nearest forest officer so as to make sure that he is not doing anything wrong.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I have tried to meet objections like those of the hon. member for Kimberley (Mr. Humphreys). The Committee will remember that the point was made that they are anxious to protect certain trees and shrubs which are recognised fodder plants, like Vaalbos, Swarthak and Olyfhout, which are to-day being cut down in various areas, mostly by natives, and sold as firewood. The hon. member for Kimberley made the point that it would not help much if the Governor-General had the right of issuing a proclamation protecting these trees if one still had to pay compensation to people for not being allowed to cut those shrubs, and so on. I do not know that we would not be protected by the sub-clause, because if a man wants to claim damages under clause 11 he would have to show a loss. He could not show that his shrub standing would be of less value than cut down. But it does not seem to weaken the law if I put in this clause of which I have given notice. That is to say that where the Governor-General has proclaimed certain trees or forests the owner will not be able to claim damages as he can in regard to ordinary trees, where he has cut down trees which are recognised as forest trees or plants. That is the object of this amendment which I move—

I am satisfied with the explanation which the Minister has given, but I just want to ask him whether he is convinced that his amendment only covers cases of that kind. The Minister says that he does not want to be compelled to pay compensation to people who refuse to allow certain shrubs to be cut on their farms. The question so far as I am concerned is whether the amendment only covers such cases. The amendment reads—

“Cutting”. What is cut? Where can they cut? And now it goes on—

The question in my mind is whether that provision is confined to fodder plants such as mentioned in this amendment?

The legal advisers advise me that the position is covered. But I am prepared to go further into this question so as to make quite sure, and if necessary I shall move an amendment at a later stage

If the Minister gives us an assurance that all he intends is to include those plants and nothing else, and that if necessary he will move an amendment at the report stage, then I am satisfied.

I understand that that is quite clear, but I shall go into the matter again. I am anxious, however, that there shall be no misunderstanding as to the undertaking I am giving. The hon. member does not want anything to be put into this clause as a result of which we shall get back to that other question of compensation. He wants it to be clear that compensation will only relate to plants which are fodder. Then he has no objection.

That is so.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

On the motion of the Miinster of Agriculture and Forestry, an amendment was made in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

On the motion of the Minister of Africulture and Forestry, an amendment was made in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 18,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 19,

I move—

1. (f) In the event of one or other of the said parties failing to attend with such number of men and such equipment or to render the necessary assistance, as may have been mutually agreed upon by the parties or decided by the court, or as is specified in the notice of intention referred to in paragraph (b), as the case may be, the party who does so attend or who attends on the first succeeding suitable day, may forthwith and from day to day by hisemlf and his servants clear or cause to be cleared the firebelt specified in the said notice or as agreed upon or ordered by the court, and he shall be entitled to claim and recover from the defaulting party such expenses or other relief as the court may decide; to omit sub-section (2) and to substitute the following new sub-section:

1. (2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act a forest officier in charge of Crown forest land or any person in charge of any other land may, after having given, in the form prescribed by regulation, not less than seven days’ notice to the person in charge of any land adjacent to such firstmentioned land, on the day stated in that notice or within a reasonable time thereafter, by burning or in any other manner clear a firebelt on his own side of the common boundary between the lands concerned, for the protection of his property from fire: Provided that the person on whom such notice is served may, at any time before the expiration of the period mentioned in that notice, in writing require the person giving such notice to follow the procedure prescribed in sub-section (1), and in that event the provisions of that sub-section shall mutatis mutandis apply in the same manner as if the said notice were a notice given under paragraph (b) thereof; and an amendment in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

Is the Minister not going to give us any explanation?

I am sorry that I failed to give an explanation, but I am not actually amending the findings of the Select Committee, all we are doing is to make it clearer. For instance we are making provision here that in regard tot the preparation of fire belts, an individual shall be entitled to make a fire belt if his neighbour does not take heed of the notice given by him. The principle is the same as that contained in the Fencing Act. Then sub-clause (2) provides that only the owner shall make the fire belt and that he is not compelled to approach his neighbour for assistance. We have cases where the owner of a farm has a large plantation on his farm, while his neighbour has no plantation or no forest and does not attach as much value to a fire belt as the man next door does. So far as he is concerned it is not a vital question. In such a case the owner of the farm on which there is a plantation will be entitled to do the work himself without worrying his neighbour for assistance.

Amendment put and agree to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 20,

I am going to move an amendment to clause 20 which I am putting on the table now. The purpose of this is to avoid any misunderstanding arising. Hon. members will see that clause 20 makes it an offence for a man to light a fire without notice or without taking the necessary precautions. I have had arguments about this with different people and even with lawyers. In order to make the position clear I shall put in the word “and.” So that a man not only has to give notice but he will also have to take the necessary precautions. He has to do both. I move the following amendments—

A lot of trouble may be caused under this provision. There are parts of the country where there is a lot of grass. The owner of the farm may go away and some malicious person may come along and fire the grass, and the poor chap must then pay damages. In addition to being prosecuted criminally he may have a civil case brought against him. This is a very dangerous clause so far as the farmers are concerned. In certain parts of the country one has veld fires every year.

You should raise that on clause 27.

No, but it distinctly says here that if a veld is set on fire the owner will be responsible. The owner is unable to give notice because he knows nothing about the fire. The fire may occur while the owner is away. A lot of grass may be burnt by some malicious person while the owner is away, and the owner will then have to pay compensation and he may be criminally prosecuted. I think that this is a very dangerous clause.

I should like to read this clause as it will stand—

The hon. member is wrong. There is no question of the owner being held responsible if his neighbour has allowed the grass to be burnt, unless he himself has fired the grass, or unless the people in his service have done so, in connection with his work.

That is the trouble.

You cannot get past that. That is also in the common law. The common law lays it down that if your servants do anything for you the position is the same as though you had done it yourself.

Assuming it is done without the boss knowing anything about it?

Then the owner is not responsible, but only the servant is responsible.

I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister the fact that there are practical difficulties in relation to this clause. Seven days’ notice has to be given, but it is impossible for a farmer to say seven days in advance that he is going to burn his grass on a specific day. When the day comes it may rain, or the wind may be in the wrong direction.

We provide that he can do his burning on the first suitable day thereafter.

I think that two days notice of intention to burn is sufficient in practice. Why should it be seven days? It is much better to burn shortly after it has rained and with the wind in a certain direction. If the farmer has to wait seven days, the grass has run out again. Cannot the Minister accept an amendment like that?

Mr. Chairman, we have provided for that. If on the seventh day the day is not suitable, it says any suitable day after that. An owner might be some distance away, and it would be quite useless to give him a day’s notice, and therefore we have provided that if the day is not suitable after the seven days’ notice, the burning may take place within any reasonable time on a suitable day. That is the only way to do it. I don’t say it is quite satisfactory, but it was the only satisfactory idea that I could think of. You cannot give a man two days’ notice because perhaps he may have to hire some labour, you must at least give him a week.

I want to say that I was not able to follow the Minister too well. It is not quite clear to me why he is proposing this amendment which is contained in the Bill. The Minister has mentioned all kinds of difficulties, all kinds of misunderstandings with his neighbour, and all sorts of trouble which may be caused. So far as I am able to understand his amendment, it does not in any way improve the position. As I said in my speech on the second reading, this provision is definitely not required, at any rate not as far as the Transvaal is concerned. In the Transvaal the law of 1870 still partly exists. It lays it down that if anyone sets fire to his veld and it causes damage to his neighbour, he renders himself liable to a fine of £25, and he may also be imprisoned for three months. Now the Minister comes along with all kinds of complicated matters which are going to render the position very difficult so far as the farmer is concerned. Another point which the Minister has not touched on is that the 1908 Act specially provides for people who maliciously set fire to the veld. I understand that that law was the Minister’s own baby in the Legislative Council of the Transvaal. It seems that the Minister now refuses to acknowledge his own child. Why not? I think the existing legislation in the Transvaal is good. The first portion has been in existence for 70 years, and the second portion for 32 years, and I have never heard any complaint. If the Minister says that he wants to apply that law to the whole of the Union, why does he not incorporate the Transvaal Law in this Bill and apply it to the whole Union? I do not agree with this amendment which the Minister proposes, and I should like to ask the Minister to defer this clause so that we can deal with it later on. If he is unable to do so, then I shall regret having to vote against clause 20.

Why is it necessary to drag in regulations? We are making a simple provision here, that a man has to give notice of his intention to burn his grass— why should any further regulations be brought in? Why cannot this House decide what has to be done? How about a case where the owner does not live on his land and actually does not even live in the country? In the Transvaal there are a great many farms, the owners of which live overseas. If a neighbour wants to burn his grass he is going to get into trouble because he is unable to get hold of the owner to inform him. The Minister should draft the clause in such a way that there will be no need to give notice if the owner does not live on the farm.

I should like to put a question to the Minister in regard to the period of notice. The one side of the case is put here, that a person may suffer damage because he has given notice to his neighbour, but in spite of that his neighbour’s veld is still burnt owing to the man never having received that notice. It is perfectly clear that there may be people who, perhaps maliciously, will send such a notice; they will put a letter in the post box, and in the outside districts there is a delivery only once a week. The letter is not delivered, with the result that the neighbour never gets his notice. It is true that it is stated that an individual, if he wants to burn, has to take precautionary measures as well. But in spite of all those precautionary measures, it is still possible for the neighbour’s veld to be burnt, and the other man can then excuse his action behind this seven days’ notice. In certain instances it should be laid down that the owner living on the farm must be notified in person. If he is away, or if he does not live on his farm, the period of notice should be extended so that the individual concerned will definitely receive notice of the fact that his neighbour intends burning his veld. The clause as it stands now will lead to considerable injury being done and to a great deal of litigation.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister could not make the intention of this clause clearer. I approached the departmental official who is responsible for the Bill, together with the legal adviser, and they were very emphatic that this clause must be read as containing two alternatives; now, apparently, both conditions must be observed. This not only deals with veld burning, but lays down that no fire may be lit in the open air, and no inflammable matter may be set fire to in the open air within half a mile of the boundary of adjoining property, unless seven days’ notice is given. Now there is a tremendous lot of transport still being done by wagon, and a transport rider, or an outspan, cannot under this provision light a fire if the outspan is within half a mile of an adjoining property without giving seven days’ notice. He can’t light a fire alongside his wagon to cook his food without breaking this new law. I don’t think the Minister means that. Around homesteads fires are lit for many legitimate purposes in the open air, but under this clause if your homestead is within half a mile of the boundary you must give seven days’ notice to your neighbour. It should be made clear that this applies to veld burning, and not to every sort of fire that may be made within half a mile of a boundary. Let it be confined to forest fires or veld burning, and then we know where we are. Otherwise, we are going to make a large number of people criminals, when I am sure that that is not the intention of the Minister.

This clause in the Bill cannot possibly be carried out. It is one of those clauses which has been drafted by lawyers in order to cause trouble, and it is quite impossible to give effect to it in practice. The farmer will be in Court all day long, and he will be punished for things of which he knows nothing, and which he cannot give an account of. It is impossible to pass this clause as it appears in this Bill. We have a large number of Acts on our Statute Book which have been put there by so-called learned people, and which cannot possibly be carried out. I agree with the last speaker, the hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson) that we cannot allow this clause to pass, and I fail to understand how the Minister can put it before this House.

I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister to drop this clause. If the Minister would listen to the representations made by this side of the House he would realise as a practical man that this clause is impossible. I want to draw his attention to this. It is provided here that seven days’ notice has to be given to the neighbour. Now let us see what is going to be the effect of that. I give notice that I am going to burn on the seventh day. That day it rains or the wind is in the wrong direction and I am not able to burn my grass.

The law provides that in a case of that kind you can do your burning on the first suitable day subsequent to that date.

Yes, but then I have to give notice all over again.

No.

Then the whole thing is useless. It is stipulated that I have to give seven days’ notice in the first instance.

The hon. member is now referring to the previous clauses. There is nothing in this clause about giving notice.

But I am reading it in this clause.

I beg your pardon.

Now let us look at the position again. I give notice to my neighbours that I am going to bum my veld on the seventh day. Now it rains on that day, or the wind is in the wrong direction. I may perhaps be able to do my burning on the ninth day, and then I can do it without notifying my neighbours. It is impossible for me to give notice. What is the use of this provision then? Because my neighbours cannot possibly after the seventh day wait in the veld for three or four days in the expectation of my starting to burn my grass. In practice, therefore, it is quite impossible to give effect to this clause. The Minister knows the Transvaal, and he is aware of the fact that we can only burn there when weather conditions are favourable. And it is quite impossible for anyone to prophesy seven days ahead, or even two days ahead, that weather conditions are going to be favourable on a specific day. It is quite impossible to say even one day in advance how the wind is going to blow the next day, unless a man has all the meteorological instruments at his disposal. For that reason I tell the Minister that in practice this clause is quite impossible to give effect to, and I want him to tell us why he cannot leave the law as it is. The law in the Transvaal is that if an individual fires his veld and it causes injury to his neighbour and negligence can be proved, then he is guilty of an offence. Then we have the trouble referred to by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Rooth) in regard to cases where the neighbours are not domiciled on the farm. A person has to notify his neighbours that it is his intention to burn his veld, but his neighbours live in England or in New York, and he cannot possibly notify them. This clause, therefore, is not only unnecessary, but it is impossible to give effect to from a practical point of view. It is quite unnecessary, because common law as well as the Transvaal law to-day forces the owner, if he does not want to be held responsible for heavy damages, to be very careful. I hope the Minister will give his attention to this matter, and that he will not force this clause through the House. It is an impossible clause, it is unnecessary, and it will cause endless trouble.

I am surprised to hear the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) say that this is unnecessary. After all, it is the law in Natal to-day, it is the law in the Free State, it is the present forest law, and we have never heard of any trouble about it. Let me take the notice first. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Rooth) says: “Why give notice in accordance with a form prescribed by regulation?” Well, farmers are not lawyers, and I should say they will be very glad if there is such a notice that they can follow. If that is all that troubles the hon. member, I don’t mind taking it out. Then with regard to the other point, this clause says “to the owner or the occupier of the property.” If there is no European occupier he gives it to the native occupier, who is there, and if there is no native occupier, he cannot give the notice. You cannot give notice to the owner if he is living in Europe. The hon. member for Aliwal (Captain G. H. F. Strydom) has referred to the penalty. As the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost) has already pointed out, the law in the Transvaal to-day was that a man could be fined £100 or one year’s imprisonment if he maliciously or negligently set fire to the grass.

The Transvaal law was practicable and could be carried out.

I am not so sure. Let me tell the hon. member what the law was in the Cape. No one, whoever he might be, without special permission, could set fire to any pasture or lands, etc., upon pain of being dealt with severely. Lobengula had another law. If a man set fire to the veld he was burnt in the same fire, and if he could not be caught in time he was burnt in another fire. I don’t think there is anything in what the hon. member for Aliwal says about the size of the fire. I suppose he does not suggest that we should make a law that a man cannot claim damages at all.

Oh, no.

I only want to say that the hon. member for Pretoria (District) twitted me for not recognising my baby. Well, sir, at the time I put this amendment in the Transvaal law, that law provided for a fine and imprisonment, whether you were negligent or whether you were malicious, or either of the two. That was what the law of 1870 said, anybody who set fire to the grass and was found guilty could be fined from £25 to £500 and imprisonment could be imposed from three months to three years. I did better than the law was at the time. It was the only thing I could get through with my farmer friends in the Transvaal at that time. I thought it was very stringent, and the effect was that unless it is a very serious case no one is brought up. It was certainly much better than the law of 1870. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) says that a man cannot light a fire to cook his kettle; surely the hon. member does not suggest that any court will find a man guilty for lighting such a fire providing he takes the ordinary precautions. It seems nonsensical to expect a court to find a man guilty for lighting a fire and cooking his kettle. It seems to me if we take this out we might as well take out all the veld-burning regulations of the Bill. I don’t think this clause is too onerous, and I think it is practicable.

How must the adjoining owner know if you wish to burn three days later than the notice says?

He will know that you will be doing it the next suitable day.

My point is, that the clause is useless.

If you have to give him notice again you will never do any burning. It seems to me that as between neighbours what will take place is this. I give my neighbour notice that seven days from today I am going to burn, and naturally we come together and decide upon a day, as indeed this law provides, you will decide what your own share and what your neighbour’s share is. If he does not take any notice of the first notice, what does it matter whether he gets the second notice or not? You burn on a suitable day. It does not seem to me to be impracticable.

I would like to know why the Minister has not applied the Transvaal law to the entire Union. I would like the Minister to explain that, because it seems to me that the existing Transvaal law is very sound. It closely follows the English law. If a man is found guilty he is responsible for any damage which flows from the fire. There may be some good reason why the Minister has not extended the Transvaal law to the Union, I have had a good deal to do with defending people in these cases, and I think the Transvaal law is very sound. The adjoining owner has to prove that his neighbour started the fire, and the onus is then on the latter to show that he took proper precautions to prevent the fire from spreading.

The only point about the Transvaal law is that the fine is stiffer.

It is the principle of the Transvaal law I am referring to. What is the reason it cannot be extended to the Union? Has the law not worked satisfactorily, has it not been effective, or has it been too harsh or impracticable?

The Minister said that this clause is already law in the Free State and in Natal. Well, conditions may perhaps be different in those Provinces from what they are in the Transvaal. The Minister has told us that he is a practical farmer and that being so I must say that I am astounded that he wants a clause of this kind to be passed. Let us take the arguments which were put here by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). A farmer notifies his neighbours that he wants to burn his veld on the seventh day, but when that day comes the wind is in the wrong direction and all of us know that the farmer in the Transvaal has to wait until the wind is in the right direction. In those circumstances I have to protest against this clause. Protests have been lodged from both sides of the House and I hope the Minister will take note of this and that he will not let this clause go through in its present form. It will cause unnecssary trouble to the farmers. Every farmer will be obliged to give notice of the fact that he is going to burn his grass, and it is practically impossible to do so as has already been shown. Let us remember what the position in the North is. The grass grows very high and the farmer has to be very careful. Natives walk around, or somebody is careless and the grass catches fire and the farmer is responsible for damages. It will be very difficult for him to prove that he has not started the fire or that he is not responsible for it. In view of the fact that protests have come from both sides of the House I hope the Minister will be prepared to meet our objections.

It is a pity that the law is not always as the Minister says it is, but that the law is as it appears on the Statute Book. The Minister has told us that if notice cannot be given to the white man living on a farm or to the natives living there then no notice can be given. The Bill, however, states very clearly that notice has to be given to the owner or the occupier, and at least seven days notice has to be given of intention to burn. It makes no difference what the Minister says; that is clearly laid down in the law, and the farmer is therefore compelled to notify the owner or the occupier and if he fails to do so he is liable to be punished under the provisions of this clause. And then this notice is still subject to regulations which may be issued. This clause imposes impossible burdens on the owner and I also want to protect against it.

I want to emphasise what the hon. member has just said. It is no use the Minister telling us that the farmer can notify the occupier and that if the occupier is not there he need not give notice. The law definitely states that he has to notify the owner or the occupier. The owner may be in Londen, but as the clause stands now he has to receive seven days notice. I shall be pleased if the Minister will ask his legal advisers whether my interpretation is wrong. If an owner is in London and if he does not occupy the farm, I have to give the owner seven days notice in London, according to this clause. But there is another aspect of this matter. There may be 500 natives on such a farm, who may be the occupiers as very often happens in the Transvaal. Which of those 500 would I have to notify? All of them are occupiers.

There is a foreman on the farm.

He is not the only occupier There are many people who have hundreds of natives on their farms. Now I may know the address of the owner, but the Minister may want me to notify the occupiers —in this case there are 500 of them. That proves how impracticable this clause is and how impossible it is to give effect to it. Why does not the Minister take over the Transvaal law of 1870 which is very simple and very practical. It lays down that a person who sets the veld on fire to the detriment of his neighbour is liable to be punished.

This clause was put in in order to protect private owners. The Government forests are properly protected under this clause. If, however, it is the view of the House that we should not put this clause in then I am prepared to withdraw it. I would prefer to get a Bill which has the agreement of the whole House. I think that this clause would answer well but it seems to me that the majority of the House does not think so, and in the circumstances I am prepared to withdraw it.

With leave of the Committee, the amendments were withdrawn.

Clause, as printed, put and negatived.

On Clause 21,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 23,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 26,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 30,

On the motion of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, an amendment was made in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 32,

I would beg the Minister’s favourable consideration of the following amendment in sub-section (c).

The effect would be to delete the first proviso which places the Railways and the Postmaster General in a most inviduous position. The provision of consultation remains, and the right of entry upon Crown Forests and private forests in order to cut trees interfering with communication is necessary. I could wish that any provision dealing with the exercise of the right of the Post Office and Railways were the subject of different clauses in the Bill. The right of the Forestry Department and owners to point out where the quarrying of stone might take place is unimportant but the Director of Forests and owners of private forests are not qualified technically to decide where telegraph and telephone routes or Railway works shall be placed. I dislike the preamble of the clause which reads: “Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law.” In cases of this kind the relative principal Act should be amended. I think the Director of Forests should have certain special powers given to him, but he should not have the right to interfere with the Postmaster General or with the Minister of Railways. As the clause stands now the Forestry people and private owners can say to the Post Office or to the Railways “You shall put your route here” or “Put your Railway line there”, and this may give rise to a tremendous lot of litigation. I would beg the Minister to take into consideration the deletion of No. 1 proviso leaving No. 2 proviso.

The hon. member is quite wrong. This proviso is not in favour of the owner, it favours the Post Office and the Railways and it places an obligation on the owner of a farm, or in the case of the Government where a Government plantation is concerned, to give land. I read the clause entirely different from what the hon. member does. And the law advisers assure me that there is no doubt about it. The owner has not got the right to say “You shall put it here or there” because there is provision for consultation in the Bill. The owner will be obliged to give ground somewhere over his farm where either the Post Office or the Railways want it. What we do in this clause is to stop the Post Office from coming along and cutting a man’s trees down without consultation. We have secured that position. The hon. member is quite wrong. This proviso is definitely in favour of the Post Office and the Railways and not of the owner of the ground.

I think I can read English as well as most people. The clause definitely will lead to a lot of litigation. It says that the Department or the owner shall point out suitable areas for the exercise of the right which the Post Office and the Railways have. That gives an inherent right to the owner and to the Forest Department. You cannot get away from it, it is plain English.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses, the Schedule and the Title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments.

Amendments to be considered on 12th February.

I move the amendment standing in my name. The main amendment is a definition of the words “applied to.” By putting in this definition I save repeating the definition throughout the clauses of the Bill. The other amendments are self explanatory—they are drafting amendments. I move—

Under the definition of “trades mark” this Bill describes a Trade Mark as a trade mark registered in the Register of Trade Marks kept under the Patents, Designs, Trade Marks and Copyright Act 1916. Under that Act a person who wants to register a trade mark has to state the name of the manufacturer or producer. The objection which I have in connection with this Bill is that when an individual registers a trade mark as required by the Act of 1916 he does not also have to make known to the public the name of the manufacturer or producer. I understand that I cannot move an amendment to the definition here, but I shall do so on a later occasion. I only wish to draw the Committee’s attention at this stage to the definition of “Trade Mark.” People register their trade mark and they then are obliged to give the name of the manufacturer or producer of the product, but they are not compelled to put the name of the manufacturer on the product when they sell it to the public. This is an anomaly which can be put right here. My contention is that if an individual wants to put an article on the market he should be compelled to give the name of the manufacturer if the trade mark has been registered. If the Registrar expects the name of the manufacturer or producer to be given to him why should not the public also know that name? Say for instance someone produces a polish, and registers it under the trade mark of, say, “Moonshine.” He has to state the name of the manufacturer and of the producer when it is registered, but if he uses the trade mark he should also state the name of the manufacturer for the public to know. To-day he can simply say “Moonshine,” and he need not give any indication to the public as to who the manufacturer is. I think the Minister should meet us here and lay it down that the name of the manufacturer should be stated together with the trade mark. Ours is a young country and we are at the beginning of our industrial development, and it is important that the public should know where a product comes from and who produces it. Many manufacturers are only too anxious to put their name on their product. I do not want to mention any instances here but it is a recommendation. There are manufacturers, however, who do not do so, and in the circumstances we should make this provision here.

I briefly want to express my agreement with what the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) has just said. The Minister knows what happened recently in regard to a consignment of quinine tabloids which have been sold to the Government. I am mentioning this to show how necessary it is that the public should know what is being sold to them. In that instance we were dealing with medicines, and I think it is essential that provision should be made for the name of the manufacturer also to be given on the goods.

I am very much in sympathy with what the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) has said. I understand he asks that whenever a trade mark is used the name of the manufacturer of the product shall at the same time be printed on the article. I do not suppose he wants this amendment put into the definitions. When he moves his amendment, however, I shall consider it sympathetically, but I am afraid it may be very difficult with articles of a small size to put on the manufacturer’s name.

It is usually done, only some people avoid doing it.

I sympathise with the hon. member’s intention and when he puts up his amendment I hope he will let me have a look at it and I shall see whether it can be inserted.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I have an amendment to omit sub-section 2. The reason why I want to omit this is because it is not required now that we have accepted the amendment to the definition. I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

I move my amendment as appearing on the Order Paper—

I move—

1. (1) Any person who sells or, for the purpose of advertising goods, distributes in the Union any goods bearing a trade mark which does not contain a clear indication of the name of the manufacturer or producer, shall be guilty of an offence.

We are dealing here with a question which I referred to a little earlier on, namely, that it is desirable to have the name of the producer or of the manufacturer stated on the commodity. I believe the Minister’s own firm does so if it sells anything which it has produced itself. Most of the firms do it, but there are quite a number who do not do it. They offer goods which they manufacture but they do not put their names on. The name may be put on in very small letters, but in any case the public will know then where the goods have been produced. I should imagine that a good manufacturer would be proud to put on his name.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I move that a clause stand over.

Yes, the hon. member can make such a proposal.

Then I want to appeal to the Minister to allow clause 8 to stand over. The hon. member did not give his notice of this amendment, and it would give the Minister the opportunity to consult his officials and to consider this question.

I move—

Agreed to.

On Clause 9,

This clause relates to persons who sell goods in the Union on which a mark appears, either in the English or the Afrikaans language and the clause provides that it will be an offence to offer such an article for sale unless the name of the country in which the goods are manufactured is shown, and is shown in a conspicuous manner on the goods. Now I want to point out to the Minister that this clause speaks of “any” person and I further wish to draw his attention to the fact that that includes the platteland or ordinary trader. I do not even want to speak of the small dealers on the platteland but also the larger dealers in a town like Cape Town, such as the Minister’s own firm —if such traders sell goods and the country of origin is not stated then they are liable. It appears to me that it would be only fair towards such traders for an amendment to be put in so as to add a proviso at the end of clause 7. I therefore move the following amendment—

1. (i) that he took all reasonable precautions against committing the offence charged;
2. (ii) that he had at the time of the commission of the alleged offence no reason to believe that the goods had not been manufactured or produced in the Union; and
3. (iii) that if any demand was made by any inspector, police officer or officer of customs he gave to him all the information available to him with respect to the person or persons from whom he had obtained the goods.”

The Minister will see that this amendment is practically identical to the proviso in clause 7. It protects the merchant. The onus is placed on the merchant to prove that he did not know that the goods had been manufactured in the Union and I therefore consider it reasonable for the Committee to pass a proviso of this kind. As this proviso has been passed in connection with clause 7 it is no more than logical to have something similar in regard to clause 9.

I am sorry I cannot accept this amendment. When all is said and done, the penalty for this offence is very small, and I do not imagine that any magistrate would give a man a heavy fine if he could prove that he was ignorant or unenlightened or anything of that kind. I don’t want to weaken this, and it seems to me quite unnecessary to put in these provisos all the way through, and letting the intentional evil-doer get away with it. When he gets into court het will always be trying to get away under the proviso, and as I say, the penalty can be so small, and I think we should allow the clause to go as it is. It is very important that these goods, which may be made in England, or Germany or Japan, should have the proper description. It must be made quite clear that it must not be pretended that the stuff is manufactured in the Union. That is the position, and I think we should maintain it, and trust to the commensense of our magistrates not to penalise offenders very heavily.

I am afraid the Minister is not very logical. In the previous clause, Clause 7, where there is also a provision with regard to false description the Minister has that proviso. Why not be logical and have the same proviso in the subsequent clause? It is not a question of the penalty. It is the magistrate who decides what the penalty is to be, and not the Minister, who has prescribed a penalty of £50; and for a second conviction the penalty is £200. The Minister says the magistrate might fine a man only 5s. but the fact remains that he has been found guilty and his name goes on record as having been convicted, and if at any time he should be hauled before the Court for a similar offence, he would be liable on a second conviction to a penalty of £200. I must confess I cannot see the force of the Minister’s argument. The dealer may have bought the goods in absolute good faith, and I think in this case the same principle should be applied, and I cannot see that the Act would be made any weaker. I think the Minister should concede that point.

I would like to support the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). This particular provision is going to hit the small retailer in the country districts, and also in some of the towns. It is the big distributor who has the knowledge as to the origin of the goods; it might be Messrs. Stuttaford and Co., and I say let the big wholesaler be penalised, and not the small retailer, who has bought the goods in good faith.

I might be fined, too.

Certainly, if you distribute false goods you should be fined, and not the small man who sits inland. You know where you get your goods from, but I get them from you, and you should be fined, and not me.

I should be fined under this clause.

There is every reason to support the hon. member for Beaufort West. This amendment should be accepted. Why should I be punished if it is the big wholesaler who evades the law? If the wholesalers are doing smuggling, give them all the punishment you can.

The last speaker has quite frightened me, Mr. Chairman. I want to point out that it would not only be the retailer that would be punished, but under this clause the action can go back to the wholesaler, who originally sold the goods. The hon. member has pointed out that the wholesaler, having bought the goods, is also liable. And I agree with him, and I hope that as we progressively go back to the source, that the magistrate will increase the fine. As regards the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw), I want to point out that the crime in clause 7 is infinitely greater than the crime in this clause 9. That deals with forged trade marks, which is a very serious matter for the public, and that is the reason why we do give the man, the last seller, a chance of giving rebutting evidence, of saying that he had nothing to do with the forging. Personally, I don’t think it is going to be onerous at all, I don’t think any magistrate is going to fine a man a ridiculous amount for a venal offence such as may be committed under this clause. I do agree that action should go back to the wholesaler, as the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. R. A. T. van der Merwe) says, and I think the magistrate in that case should put on a heavier penalty, and I should not like that man or firm to have a chance of getting out under the proviso in clause 7.

May I point out to the Minister that I think he has missed the point? Does he realise that the magistrate has no option whatever? Even if the accused person should explain that he acquired the goods in good faith, ordered them indeed from Stuttaford and Co., or from Messrs. Jagger, he will still be guilty of an offence.

He may be fined 1s.

You must give the man an opportunity of at least explaining to the magistrate that he acquired the goods in good faith, and had no idea that they were produced outside the Union. The Minister is not usually so hard-hearted, but to-day he has no sympathy with the poor fellow up-country, or even in town, who finds himself in possession of these goods. How can the Minister say this will weaken the Act if he accepts the amendment? The magistrate is empowered to inflict a fine of £50. You might have a magistrate heavily indebted to a shopkeeper, and he might be inclined to get his own back. I am not suggesting that that would happen, but you cannot always rely upon a magistrate taking a certain view. I think the proviso is necessary.

The penalty is very low, and the magistrate might merely caution the man and discharge him.

It is a conviction, and goes against his record, and if he is summoned again he is going to get into more trouble.

Don’t run away with the idea that this Bill is directed against honest, decent people. We are trying to protect the public from all kinds of fraud in the country to-day, and I don’t want to weaken the Bill.

I think that I should now draw attention to this point, namely, that the general public in South Africa at the moment does not have a list of the trade marks which have been registered. There is a complete list in the registration office, as there should be, and I understand that that list of names is published in the Government Gazette, but the public have no documents at its disposal to keep itself informed of the registered trade marks. I want to suggest to the Minister that his department should make arrangements so that the Registrar of Trade Marks shall from time to time, say every few years, publish a complete book recording all the trade marks. There is no such book at the moment, and I would suggest this being done. It would meet the convenience of the public, and if traders should commit an offence they would not be able to plead ignorance of the trade marks.

I shall see whether it can be done.

May I draw attention to another point? Apparently the object of this clause is to prevent that goods shall come from countries like Japan and Germany and that they shall be sold here under trade marks in English and in Afrikaans, giving the impression that those goods have been manufactured in England or in South Africa. But what about America? Goods manufactured there naturally also bear descriptions in English as the official language in America is English. A man is found guilty and it goes against his record although he may not have had reason to think that such goods had been manufactured in America. I therefore hope that even at this late stage the Minister will soften his heart and accept my amendment.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

Clause 10 gives the Minister the power to prevent the importation into the Union of goods from certain countries. I think the Minister will admit that the power which is being entrusted to him here is a very far-reaching one. I have no amendment to propose on the general principle of the clause, but as I indicated on the second reading of the Bill circumstances may arise which may render it necessary to prevent goods entering this country from some other particular country. In spite of that I feel that certain limits should be put to the Minister’s power. I want to move the following amendment—

I think that what I intended is quite clear. As the clause stands it is left to the absolute discretion of the Minister. He can send his private secretary to make an enquiry, or he can have an enquiry made by officials, and he can even reject their enquiry and prevent articles from being imported from a particular country. We have created the Board of Trade and Industries in South Africa, a responsible body on which we have persons serving who have the necessary ability and who are competent to make an investigation. I feel that it is essential in this instance that we should accept such an amendment, that this body should make an enquiry before the Minister proceeds to the very serious step of prohibiting the importation of goods from a particular country so that he shall not do it only on his own discretion. A proper investigation should be made by the body which we already have established, and I therefore move the insertion of those words— “after enquiry by and on the recommendation of the Board of Trade and Industries.”

I do not quite see the point of the hon. member. First of all I do not agree with shedding my responsibility. According to his amendment the Board of Trade decides whether these things have to be done or not. They become a judicial body.

You may.

Yes, only if the Board of Trade recommends. It is not a question of the Board giving me advice. I cannot do anything under this amendment unless they recommend. I do not see any reason why that should be done. It is not proposed to prohibit the importation of goods from foreign countries. This clause is prohibiting goods which do not bear the country of origin. Well, the Board of Trade does not know anything about that; it is entirely alien to all the work of the Board of Trade, and I do not see why the Minister should not take this responsibility. After all, the responsibility of the Minister is always subject to the head of the department—which I mean is that it is a departmental head who advises the Minister on all these things, and yet the hon. member suggests now that another body should be called in. I must say that my department is quite as capable as the Board of Trade for deciding all these points—and it is not a material point. The Board of Trade does not know what goods should not be subject to the general clauses of the Act that imported goods must bear the place of origin. The Board of Trade may be too liberal. I want the place of origin to be put on all goods—within reason, and I do not want to weaken my position—and that is the view of my Department. It is really my Department which says that there is no reason why certain goods should not bear the place of origin and why other goods should. It seems to me that we shall have a frightful lot of circumlocution if I have to go to the Board of Trade which may have its hands full of reports to the Minister of Finance on custom matters and so on. Perhaps I may not be able, if I have to do that, to act for two or three months. I do not see the necessity of it, and I am perfectly certain that when the hon. member sees this Bill working he will be perfectly satisfied and he will see that what he is after here is really not required. What we are after is that goods coming into this country shall comply with certain descriptions —the description given to them—that is to say, wool shall not be sold as cotton and so on. I think the hon. member is a little too meticulous in regard to this. Leave it to me and my Department and we shall see to it that this clause will work. There is no necessity to bring in all kinds of other people and it is not the function of the Board of Trade and Industries to do these things. The Board of Trade which the hon. member talks of is a Board which deals very largely with customs matters, investigations into customs, and things of that kind. Supposing a secondary industry wants protection for a certain article or portion of an article, or wants the free ingress of certain materials for making certain articles. They go to the Board of Trade who investigates the trade concerned, and the Board of Trade then advises the Minister of Finance as to whether he should grant the protection asked for or not; that is their principal job.

I am sorry that the Minister is not prepared to accept this suggestion, but I would like to draw attention to another aspect of this matter. I should like to say a few words about clause 10 (c), which is one of the most far-reaching proposals ever placed before this House. Now, what is being proposed here? The Minister is given the right to prevent certain articles from entering the Union if certain requirements are not complied with. One of the requirements is that there shall be clearly stated what the materials are of which an article is composed, and the composition must be clearly and conspicuously shown on the goods. For instance the Minister is now going to endanger the importation of whisky into South Africa. Imagine what powers the Minister is taking unto himself here. If he gets it into his head he can announce in the Government Gazette that whisky shall not be imported unless it is clearly stated what are the ingredients of which whisky is composed. I am using this extreme example in order to show how ridiculous this clause is.

Who is there who does not know what whisky is made of?

Well, the whole world is dying to get hold of the recipe—Scotland’s secret. Nobody knows it, but apparently the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) holds the secret. He could make a fortune out of it. Take dyes for instance, one of Germany’s secrets in connection with which there was even a provision in the Treaty of Versailles. The world is very anxious to know what dyes Germany uses, and now the Minister gets it into his head South Africa can prohibit the importation of dyes, unless it is stated how they are composed—and that is the recipe. Surely we should not make ourselves so ridiculous. I move—

I really think the Minister is here taking unto himself powers which are too drastic. The principle is one which we cannot agree with. How can we allow the Minister to tell foreign countries “You cannot sell certain articles, the process of the production of which is a secret, in this country unless you first of all tell us what the ingredients are of which the goods are composed.”

This clause permits me to exempt people who cannot, or who do not, wish to fulfil the conditions of sub-section (a), (b) and (c).

Yes, you can stop them from selling in South Africa unless they comply with those provisions.

If you delete this section we may as well take the whole Bill and put it into the wastepaper basket. It is most material that we should make it imperative, unless there are reasons—and grave reasons —to the contrary, that the material of which an article is made be stated. If it is wool it should be called wool, but if it is cotton it should not be called wool. The hon. member referred to whisky—I take it that I should not insist that on every label of a bottle of whisky there should be a full description of the pernicious stuff from which it is made.

Well, it would be a good thing, many people would not drink it.

Yes, it might prevent some hon. members from drinking whisky.

You ask them to state clearly the material of which it is composed. How can they?

If it is clear after investigation that it is unwise or not necessary to state the material of which it is composed, I can, under this clause, exempt them from these conditions.

This is not as innocent as the Minister wants to pretend. May I remind him that when we had the debate on the second reading I raised this difficulty, and I said that I saw a danger in this clause of its being used as a boycott against some other country. If the Minister reads his speech in Hansard, he will see that he admitted that the clause could be used as a means of boycotting some other country, so it is not as simple and as innocent as the Minister wants us to believe to-day. The Minister said just now that I was meticulous, but the Minister should perhaps have said that I was somewhat suspicious—and I have reason to be, because there was a time when the Minister and his friends here in South Africa urged a boycott of American goods on account of the fact that our trade balance with America was very unfavourable, and because America had placed an embargo on the importation of South African fruit. The Minister and his friends were busy trying to keep American motor cars and agricultural machinery off our market. If I am not mistaken, that movement to boycott American goods even started in the constituency of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet); an organisation was started. Conse-quently, the clause is not as innocent as it looks, and that being so I want to ask that in view of the fact that this clause can be used for boycott purposes an enquiry should first of all be made by the Board of Trade and Industries, and that there should first of all be a recommendation from that Board. It seems to me that the Minister is somewhat scared of the word “recommendation.” If I alter my amendment and leave out the word “recommendation,” and if I only say that there should be an enquiry by the Board of Trade and Industries, will the Minister accept it then? Then we shall in any case have an enquiry by a body competent to make such an enquiry. The Minister said just now that the Board of Trade and Industries is only there to make enquiries in connection with customs matters. That is not so. I know of numerous instances where the Board of Trade and Industries has also gone into questions such as the one we have before us now. I shall be prepared to delete the word “recommendation” if the Minister will then be prepared to accept my amendment.

I now want to draw the Minister’s attention to a further danger. I spoke about goods coming in from outside the Union, and in connection with which he will now be able to demand that the composition of those goods shall be announced before they are allowed to enter. I hope we are not going to make ourselves ridiculous in the eyes of the world by making a demand like that, but the Minister goes further in this clause and he has a similar provision in respect of goods that are manufactured in the Union. The Minister can prohibit the sale of such goods if the manufacturer fails to say what the goods are composed of, what the ingredients are. This is a very dangerous thing. What is happening to-day? One goes to the Registrar of Trade Marks to register a trade mark, and the application has to lie there for inspection by the public for a couple of weeks. If the composition of the commodity has to be stated, then any individual in South Africa can come and have a look and find out how it is made, he can produce the same article, and simply add some ingredient or other, or leave out something. We have had numerous instances in South Africa of late years of people searching through the registration office in order to find out how a particular commodity is produced and then they imitate that particular commodity; they leave out some ingredient or other or they add something else. That is the danger, and in order to avoid that danger I suggest that the manufacturer shall only be compelled to register his trade mark, and not to say what the particular article is composed of. Now the Minister comes along and takes unto himself the power to tell any producer that he must state what his goods are composed of, and what the ingredients are, and so on. He can prohibit the sale of the commodity by publication in the Government Gazette unless the ingredients of the article are stated. He can compel a producer to state what the ingredients of his products are. Anyone can come along and find out how a particular commodity is made; the secret is lost, and he can imitate it, and all he has to do is to add something or leave something out. In every part of the world it has become a tradition to keep certain recipes secret. Very often the secret is carried from the one generation to the other, and generation after generation makes a living out of it. Now the Minister wants to compel people to announce the composition of the goods. Do not hon. members see the temptation to which the Department is subjected if people can be compelled to disclose their secrets? That is what this clause lays down, and it seems so drastic to me that I fail to understand how the Minister can get it into his head to make such a far-reaching proposal. He stated his reasons why he wanted to do it, so far as foreign countries are concerned. I do not agree with him, but so far as this country itself is concerned the position is even worse. A man in this country, for instance, will have to state what his shaving soap is made of, or what the ingredients are in certain medicines. The K.W.V. will have to say how their brandy is made, what their cocktails consist of, and their eau de cologne. Here in South Africa there are a large number of manufacturers and traders who are on the look-out in order to secure the secrets of certain recipes and specifications. The Minister is now making things very easy for them. If I want to buy a Chrysler motor car, the manufacturer will first of all have to state how that motor car is put together. The Minister can demand anything. He can demand to be told how a particular motor car has been put together— and that may be the man’s secret. And the same thing applies to thousands of small things. I think I should ask the Minister to delete this clause.

The dangers and possibilities envisaged by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) in connection with subsection (c) go to support my contention that there should be a prior investigation by the Board of Trade and Industries. Now I am quite prepared to agree with the Minister that there are instances where it is necessary to say what materials are used. He mentioned the case of goods which bear a wrong description, goods which are composed of wool and silk, for instance; in a case like that I agree with what the Minister has said. There are occasions when there is reason for thinking that the goods do not comply with the description given to them. I submit that the amendment proposed by my hon. friend, the member for Moorreesburg, is a sensible one, and if it is, then I submit that there is all the more reason why there should be a prior investigation by the Board of Trade and Industries so as to ensure that the disclosure of the material shall take place only in such cases as the Board of Trade may think necessary. The Board of Trade and Industries will see where disclosure is necessary, and whereas in certain cases it will be necessary for disclosure to be made, in other cases it may not be necessary. There will be cases of trade secrets. I hope the Minister will now accept my amendment, which will assist him in replying to my hon. friend, the member for Moorreesburg. My amendment is that only after an investigation shall there be a disclosure, so I am dropping the words “on the recommendation.” This will make the Minister’s task lighter. After all, we have the Board of Trade and Industries, which has been specially appointed for a purpose like this. I do not see what the Minister is afraid of—does he not trust his own Board? In the circumstances, I hope he will accept my amendment.

I think my Department has an equally good staff as the Board of Trade to deal with these matters. The hon. member for Moorreesburg might also suggest that I should refer certain things to the Medical Council. I think the hon. member mentioned certain things which came from Germany. Have I to go to the Medical Council for certain things and to other people for other things? No, I think that my own department can do these things better than anyone else.

Why do you have a Board of Trade at all?

The Board of Trade is there for certain purposes. The main thing is to deal with applications for exemptions, rebates of duty, increases of duty and so on, on goods that are manufactured in the country. There is no reason whatever why we should go outside our own Department to get the evidence which we want in regard to these matters. I deprecate the suggestion that my Department is not quite competent to do it.

Why not dismiss the Board of Trade, it will save the country a lot of money.

Incidentally I may mention that this clause was largely inserted to meet the Wool Council.

Then the powers they give you are too wide, much wider than what they wanted.

No, they are not. If you are going to carry out this Act do not make a lot of holes in the bucket so that the water will run out; make it strong and it will attain the effect we want. But if you are whittling it down constantly it will not be worth the paper it is written on.

Then patents will not be worth anything.

I have the Act here constituting the Board of Trade and Industries. All its duties are mentioned. Now, will the Minister look at sub-section (k) which mentions commercial legislation. If this is not commercial legislation, what is? The Minister tells us that the Board of Trade’s function is only to enquire into customs tariffs and things like that, but here we have one of the duties entrusted to the Board of Trade— “Commercial Legislation,” and I am sure the Minister must agree that if ever there was commercial legislation this is.

This is not one of their functions.

Then why not dismiss the Board of Trade? Here is one of their functions which the Minister will not allow them to fulfil. Are my suspicions correct, that what the Minister has in mind is to use this Bill for the purpose of establishing a boycott against certain Foreign countries, so that the Minister, on his own initiative, can prohibit imports from such countries? I cannot understand his attitude. In the next clause I am going to propose a similar amendment and there I submit with even greater force than here, and if he is going to accept it there, and I think that falls even more within the scope of the Board of Trade and Industries, he may as well go the whole hog and accept it here.

The Board of Trade was instituted before the Department of Commerce was instituted and the Department of Commerce was instituted in order to handle all commercial matters, and now the hon. member wants me to scrap the Department of Commerce and establish another body.

Their powers are laid down.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

Mr. Chairman, I have a clause which I want to substitute for Clause 11. I want to move to omit the clause in order to substitute another clause. This raises a deep question of very long standing, and that is that the country of origin should be shown on all goods coming into South Africa. It is many years since this was first advocated, and I want now to put it to the test by this substitution. I think this clause will get over a great many small difficulties in the way of the Minister’s department. If my amendment is adopted, a lot of difficulties will be swept away. It has always been my view that it is an injustice to many people in this country to have goods exposed for sale and no one knows their country of origin. It is an injustice to our manufacturers, who should know what they are competing against, and it is a still bigger injustice to the customer who is denied the knowledge of where the goods he is buying were manufactured. In these days when there is a great difference between the wages paid in different countries, it is the duty of the Government to see to it that the public know where any goods derive their origin. Injustice is being done to many countries in which high wages are paid, especially British countries, by the importation of goods from countries where wages are low. That is an argument which cannot be got over. The hon. Minister was not very keen on this when I had the pleasure of seeing him the other day, and I hope he has now changed his mind. It has been suggested to me that one difficulty in the way of my amendment is that certain articles may be composed of parts which are made in different countries, and therefore it is difficult to say what is their real country of origin. For instance, if Sweden makes a motor car and gets certain parts from Norway or the United States, it may be difficult to say what is the country of origin. But I do not think there is much in that point, and I do not care much about this Bill if we do not insert in it a provision that all goods must be marked with their country of origin. There can be no injustice in that. There is a very strong feeling about it in this country. The Minister has already said that he is desirous of having the country of origin marked on all imported goods as far as possible.

Does that include South Africa?

It does not at the moment, but I have no objection to it, because I know it is in the interests of the public.

The hon. member cannot move his proposed new clause until the clause under consideration has been negatived.

I move to delete the clause, and to substitute this one of mine.

The hon. member cannot do that. He can at present only vote ainst the clause.

I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, the clause won’t be negatived. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) knows that I am heartily in accord with the principle which he is advocating, and this clause as it is in the Bill gives me the opportunity of dealing with it in a reasonable way. The hon. member simply wants to say, however unreasonable this marking may be, it has got to be done. For instance, take the question of pins; you can’t mark pins with the country of origin.

You can mark the packet.

You don’t know that the pins in the package are the pins that originally came out. Take some of the more intricate things, a motor car, an aeroplane or a locomotive. Parts of these things may be made in Sweden, in Germany or the United States. The poor thing would be ticketed all over with countries of origin. The principle we have adopted is that the Minister, where it is unreasonable to insist on the marking, can exempt such an article. I can assure the hon. member that I want to know the country of origin.

Here it is for you.

No, it is not, if I may use an unparliamentary expression, this makes a fool of it, it makes it so absurd that it cannot be carried out.

Does your clause say that South Africa must be included, or can be included as the country of origin?

On that question I have an open mind. Personally I don’t see why South African manufacturers should not be proud of their manufactures. If it is going to embarrass South African manufacturers, if so to speak, it is going to spoil their chance of getting trade, all right, I will waive it, because they happen to be my own people. Our goods ought to be able to stand up to any other goods that are manufactured. That is the essence of my argument, the fact that they have to put on the name of the country of origin makes them ensure that the quality is right. The hon. member’s amendment is an impossible one to carry out, where he says that everything must be marked with the country of origin. The clause as I have it is satisfactory. I can insist on the place of manufacture being declared, or vice versa. This Act has to be carried out by the Department of Commerce, and they have to have sufficient power to carry it out in a reasonable way. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) seemed to think I have some extraordinary object in view, he thinks I want to boycott certain countries. There are certain countries that I should be quite willing to boycott, but I am not prepared to mention the names of them. This Bill is not one put on the statute book in order to boycott countries, but in order to see that foreigners do not humbug us when they put their goods on our market.

Are you not going to apply your section to definite countries?

No.

It looks like it.

They say open confession is good for the soul, and we are interested to hear from the hon. Minister that he does feel there may be certain countries which he would like to boycott. I must confess I am rather attracted by the amendment of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson), in fact, I would like to go further and make it necessary for all South African manufacturers to state on their products that they were made in South Africa. Perhaps the hon. member would consider embodying that in his amendment. I think in dealing with the amendment, the Minister got rather confused regarding the phrase “the country of origin.” Where the term “country of origin” is used in connection with an imported article, the reference is not to countries in which the goods were produced or partly produced; the reference is to the country from which the goods were exported. That is the explanation of “country of origin.” I can quite see the Minister’s difficulty in labelling different parts of a motor car, such as the engine or the carburettor. “Country of origin” refers to the country from which goods are exported, and that is what I think the hon. member for Hospital means. My Objection to the other clause was that it gave the Minister the right to discriminate between countries after such an investigation “as he may think fit.” He will not use the Board of Trade, and we have no assurance that he will employ the very competent members of his department. According to that clause he is perfectly entitled, after making his own investigations, to decide that goods from a certain country shall bear the mark of origin, and that gives the Minister the right to discriminate between one country and another. The Minister has admitted that he would like to do that. For instance, if he did not want to trade with Germany the Minister might have something to say about that. I can understand that at the present moment, but there might be some time after the war when the Minister might have the same prejudice, and for some reason or other, would like to discriminate. I am inclined to support the amendment, but as the Minister does not seem inclined to accept it. I wish to move the same amendment which I moved in connection with Section 10—

I think there is much more force in my amendment this time, and the Minister should be much more inclined to accept it because this clause deals with the very sort of thing which the Board of Trade and Industries deals with. That board enquires into labour conditions in certain countries, the imposition of dumping duties, and so on. Here you have work which the board does, and I do think the Minister has not a leg to stand on, and will have to agree that the investigation should be done by the Board of Trade.

I am sorry I cannot accept this. My department is perfectly capable of making these investigations. The hon. member wants to put on to the Board of Trade enough work to oblige me to double the number of men. I have the men in my own department who can conduct these investigations, and they can do it from time to time, and there will be no hanging up of the business.

To which department does the Board of Trade belong?

It seems to be an independent board, but they are under me to a certain extent. The Board of Trade was appointed before my departement was instituted.

They are appointed from time to time.

But I am talking about the Board of Trade Act which was passed before the Department of Commerce and Industries was instituted. It is quite true that the Board comes under the Minister of Commerce, but I can tell you that in nearly all cases the Board of Trade reports to the Minister of Finance.

It almost looks like departmental jealousy.

There is no departmental jealosuy in our Government.

Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—62:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Sutter, G. J.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van d. Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—36:

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

Erasmus, F. C.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Quinlan, S. C.

Schoeman, B. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, C. F.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, C. J.

V. d. Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and P. O. Sauer.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

I want to move a ney sub-section 3, but I am rather in difficulty to know whether I can do so. In that subsection I want to propose the suspension of clauses (8) and (9) under certain circumstances. Those circumstances I should like to explain to the Committee. But the difficulty is that clause 8 is at present standing over. It makes no difference what form clause 8 takes, whether it takes the original form or the amended form, but the position is that clause 8 is standing over. This new sub-section which I want to propose deals with the suspension of the operation of clause 8. Shall I be in order in moving it now? The position is that circumstances have arisen—the war, and so on—which make it very obvious that, under certain conditions, it will be very difficult to put clauses 8 and 9 into operation. Representations have been made to me from Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town to the affect that there are very many articles of machinery and tools which do not specify the country of manufacture, and under existing circumstances, war conditions—it will be practically impossible for manufacturers to get their dies altered to comply with the provisions of these sections. At the same time it may be said that the clause which allows the Minister to give six months or more to put this clause into effect might meet the case, but I take it that the Minister would not desire to hold up the introduction of his Bill because of certain difficulties which might arise only in one connection, and therefore it is suggested that power should be taken to allow the Minister in certain circumstances to suspend the operation of these clauses. Now also it must be obvious that it is very difficult to foresee how matters will develop in future, and it may in time become desirable that the Minister should have the power, if he is so satisfied, that he could at any time suspend operation of either of these clauses. In those circumstances I am given to understand that it might be possible for the Minister to act under the emergency regulations, but I take it the Minister would prefer not to do that, and in the circumstances I think some provision should be made which would definitely be an improvement to the Bill. I would therefore move—

1. (4) The Minister may by notice in the Gazette, if he is satisfied at any time that the circumstances require it, suspend the operation of either section 8 or 9 or of both or exempt for such period as he may deem necessary any goods or class of goods from the operation of either or both of these sections;

Hon. members will realise that the operation of this amendment would also be governed by clause 13, which would mean that interested parties would have to be consulted before this could be put into operation.

I accept that.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

I have amendments here on the Order Paper. These are all drafting amendments. I move—

I want to move a proviso at the end of sub-section (1) of clause 14. With the leave of the House I would ask to substitute the amendment which I have on the Order Paper by another proviso in a simpler form which has a similar effect. I move—

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

On the motion of the Minister of Commerce and Industries, an amendment was made in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

I want to object to the whole clause as it stands here. This clause says—

I am convinced that those people who are connected with trade will agree with me that this is a very far-reaching provision, that it is going very far to say that anyone bona fide selling goods—I particularly have in mind the shopkeeper of the platteland, who has no knowledge of these matters—is to be deemed to give a guarantee that the goods which he sells, if there is a trade mark on these goods, are genuine goods, and that the trade mark is genuine. I must honestly say that I was surprised to see this provision in the Bill. I just want to tell the Minister that a couple of days ago I had occasion to discuss this matter with a prominent business man in Cape Town, a man who is the head of a large business firm in Cape Town, and he also expressed surprise that the Minister should have included such a far-reaching provision demanding that a man who sold goods should guarantee the genuineness of the trade mark on these goods. I want to point out to the Minister that he already has clause 7, which provides that anyone selling goods containing a false trade mark, or a false trade description, is guilty of an offence. So we have the necessary provision. Why is the Minister not satisfied with that? That clause gives him all the powers he needs. Why does he want to go further and lay it down that a trader on the platteland must guarantee the genuineness of the trade mark? I hope this clause will be deleted

I do not think I can put things clearer than the hon. member who has just spoken. On a previous occasion I referred to the dangerous character of this clause, which demands of a trader that he shall guarantee the genuineness of a mark appearing on a particular article. How one earth can I guarantee anything like that when I get goods, or at least did get goods before the war, from practically every part of the world? I am not dependent only on the South African wholesale trade, but I have built up connections in the past 50 years with foreign countries, and now it is to be expected of me, living up country, that I shall guarantee the genuineness of a trade mark or of an article which I am selling. How can I do so? Certainly I can guarantee that I have secured my goods through certain channels, the channels which at any rate existed before the war, but what is the position at the moment, for instance? Only recently I bought up a quantity of goods which were still in South Africa and which had come from a prohibited territory. How can I guarantee that the trade marks on those goods are genuine? They are goods to which my customers have become accustomed, but which I can no longer obtain from the Continent of Europe through the ordinary channel. The Minister knows that it is even very difficult and in some cases impossible to get goods from the British Isles. We have had to resort to America, and we get goods from America, specially textile goods, which were not known here in the past, and which I want to say in passing are 60 per cent. to 75 per cent. more expensive. How can the Minister expect me to guarantee that what is stated on those goods is genuine? The Minister knows that it is impossible. The Minister knows that the difficulties of obtaining certain goods has become very serious in the past eighteen months. Certain goods are specially manufactured in South Africa to-day—goods which we used to get from abroad,, but in many cases the trade mark of those goods has not even been registered yet. How can we give a guarantee? I am surprised that an old merchant like the Minister of Commerce and Industries allows himself to be guided by people who only know the theory of commerce. I do not want to belittle his advisers, but theoretical merchants are unable to advise practical merchants.

It is rather difficult to understand the opposition to this clause. I take it that this clause is put in for the protection of the public. At the same time, if there is a hard case, it is provided for in clause 7, where certain penalties are laid down unless a man can show and produce certain evidence that he is not guilty. It seems to me that this is for the protection of the public. If I go into a store and I buy something with a registered trade mark. I buy it because it has that trade mark: Now, it may be that in the country people buy articles and sell them to their customers, although they are not certain that the trade marks are genuine. All they have to do in a case like that is to write a letter saying that they cannot guarantee the genuineness of the trade mark. But this clause should appear in the Bill, because if it is not there the public will have no protection at all. People sometimes will pay a higher price because an article has a certain trade mark. What protection will they have if such a trade mark can be forged with impunity? What is the person who has bought that article to do? Clause 7 gives the person selling the goods every possible protection, but this clause provides for the protection of the public.

According to you, he has to write a letter every time he sells an article.

Why not? He only has to write a letter where there is a doubt in his mind about the trade mark not being genuine. If you do not do something to protect the public, it is hardly worth while having any trade mark at all. If you allow an article to have a false trade mark without the public being protected, then what is the good of having any trade mark at all, and if you leave the position to be safeguarded by clause 7 alone, then there is no protection at all for the public. Something very much more will have to be said to say or to prove that the deletion of this clause is reasonable. It only deals with cases of fraud. After all, it is much cheaper for a trader to write a letter than to pay damages.

I think hon. members opposite will be satisfied when I tell them that an exactly similar clause is in force in the Transvaal, Natal and the Cape to-day—in the Transvaal under Ordinance 43 of 1903, in the Natal Province under Act 22 of 1888, and in the Cape under Act 12 of 1888.

It has been obsolete for years, and you are reminding them of it again now.

I am also informed that unless you have this clause in the Bill it is almost impossible to get a conviction when there is fraud.

The hon. member for Cape Town Castle (Mr. Alexander) bases his argument on civil action. He bases his whole argument on that.

If it has been in force since 1888, even before the hon. member was born …

Still it is obsolete.

No, even certain of the things which were put in force before he was born are quite good, and it has never been misapplied. And it has fulfilled its function and I think we should allow it to stand.

I fail to understand the Minister. Take jam for instance. If I want to buy Hugo’s jam and they give me Stuttaford’s jam in the shop I can even go to court and say “That man guaranteed that it was a tin of Hugo’s jam, and I do not want Stuttaford’s jam.” There is provision for that. I do not understand the hon. member for Cape Town Castle (Mr. Alexander) at all. He, as a lawyer, should know that if I sell a commodity I guarantee it to be the commodity which the customers ask for, and which they bought as such. If I say it is Hugo’s jam and it is not then my customer has the right to demand another tin. There is no need to put that into the law. It is common law. Why is it put in here? I can understand it being made a criminal offence if someone sells me something with the object of defrauding me, but in this case it seems that they want the shopkeeper to be made liable to a civil action and at the same time to an action for damages. I do not know why. There is ample provision and I fail to see the need for this clause. The people who buy something in a shop and who are supplied with an article which is not the article which the shopkeeper pretends it to be, can demand their money back under the common law. I think that this clause is unnecessary and I am prepared to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw).

Clause put and agreed to.

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

I should like to move an amendment to clause 17, but before coming to my amendment I want to point out to the Minister that clause 17 leaves openings for abuses. I want to mention one instance where a number of bottles are on the market bearing the name of a firm which is no longer in existence. Let me give the National Breweries as an instance. The National Breweries have passed into other hands, but I understand there are thousands of emply bottles in the country which are available for other breweries wanting to buy them, but those bottles have the name of the National Breweries on them. When another brewery buys them and the name of the National Brewery appears on them, what then will be the position under this clause? Those bottles no longer belong to the National Brewery because that firm does not exist any more, but the name of the firm still appears on the bottles. Then there is another point. The clause lays it down that the man who buys those bottles is just as liable as the man who sells them. Now, say a man goes to a bottle store and he buys a bottle of liquor, but he first of all has to make sure that the name shown on the bottle is the name of the person to whom the contents belong. It makes no difference whether it is the buyer or the seller. The buyer is just as liable as the seller. This is what the clause says—

In other words, a liability is being imposed on the public here, and if a man walks into a place to buy a bottle of liquor he has first of all to make sure that the bottle he buys is the property of the man whose goods are in that bottle. I feel that it is unjust to place the buyer in the same predicament as the seller. I can understand it if a wholesaler goes along and buys a large quantity of beer, I can understand that he must make sure in a case like that that the beer which he buys is the property of the owner of the bottles, but why impose the same liability on the individual who goes and buys a bottle of beer? I fail to understand it. I want the Minister to give his attention to this question. I do not want to propose an amendment in regard to this matter; I should first of all like the Minister to tell us what is the reason for placing the buyer in the same category as the seller? Then I come to the amendment which I want to move. The Minister knows that great abuses have taken place in this particular connection. Certain retail traders have financial obligations towards the wholesalers. I am particularly referring to the liquor trade. The wholesale dealer then compels those people to buy only the liquor which they sell. It has become a scandal. People in the street talk freely about the rings which are in existence today. It has developed into a fine art. Large firms take bonds on small hotels right throughout the country, and it has become such a scandal that legislation in connection with this matter has become necessary in the Union. What I want to propose is to curtail this abuse somewhat. Two commissions have already reported on the ring system in connection with the liquor trade. The Board of Trade and Industries—in which the Minister of Commerce and Industries apparently has no great faith—reported in 1936, report No. 218, and the Board of Trade and Industries recommended that certain steps should be taken in connection with this matter. The Wine Commission of 1937 reported on the same lines, after having gone into the question for months, and what I am going to move here is practically one of the recommendations of that Wine Commission, namely, that the retail trader shall be compelled to stock more than one class of liquor in retail shops. One does not want to mention instances here, because the companies undoubtedly would not like it. But none the less I want to mention Lion Beer as an instance. In one particular place one can only get Lion Beer.

And it is good beer.

The hon. member no doubt is better able to judge than I am. I find that the retailer is not allowed to keep other brands as well. His master prevents him from doing so. He has a bond over the business, and he will not allow the other beer also to be sold. I want to ask the Minister to take note of the recommendations made by the Wine Commission. In regard to steps which should be taken to prevent the development of a monopoly in the retail trade distribution channels, the Board of Trade and Industries in its majority report recommends (a) that as regards the control of retail dealers’ licences in respect of capital commitments, the wholesalers and breweries should not be allowed to impose obligations on the retail trade in that manner in respect of more than 65 per cent. of their turnover of one type of liquor under their capital commitments, and (b) that in regard to the control of retail dealers by large companies the solution there should be looked for by compelling holders of retail licences to keep in stock the principal products of all bona fide wholesalers. My amendment to all intents and purposes contains recommendation (b).

This clause only concerns bottles, and I do not think the hon. member’s amendment is in order.

My amendment also refers to bottles, and this clause concerns bottles. Legislation is being passed here in connection with the storing of bottles. Now I say that certain types of bottles are prohibited, and I want to prohibit other types of bottles being kept. I move—

1. (c) who is a retail licence-holder and who refuses to keep in stock goods contained in a bottle on which appears the trade mark of one of the main classes of liquor products of a bona fide registered wholesale dealer.

I am unable to put this amendment, as it appears to deal with the sale of the contents of a retainer, whereas the Bill dealt only with containers and their marks.

Do I understand, Mr. Chairman, that you will not allow the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus)?

No, I cannot allow it.

Then I want to move the following amendment to clause 17. I move—

I can well understand why this provision is put into this clause. But I want to say and I am anxious that the Minister should understand what I say, because I want him to accept my amendment—I want to say that an injustice is being done here and in addition I feel that the Minister is not going to achive his object with this clause. If this clause is passed as it stands it means that nobody is allowed to buy or to sell a bottle on which certain things are embossed. As a business man the Minister will realise what it means. It means that if I buy a bottle of beer and I go to Rhodesia, if the bottle is embossed, then I am not allowed to buy it. Nor is the owner allowed to sell it. I am prevented from doing so. I cannot expect the brewer to give me the bottle for nothing. It means that most people will not do what the Minister wants them to do—they will not emboss their names on the bottles. The Minister will also find that nobody is going to make bottles with anything embossed on them, because it is going to interfere with business. I want to mention another reason. Assuming I have a soda water factory, and my name is embossed on the bottles. The bottles are my property but I am not allowed to sell them. If I shut up my business I cannot sell them. They cannot be shown in the books because they are not an asset in the business as they cannot be sold. As soon as a bottle is embossed it cannot be sold. For those reasons I want to move a proviso to the effect that such a bottle can again be sold provided it is done with the consent of the owner. Protection is then given to the owner of the bottle so that the contents of the bottle are his. If his business ceases to exist then he no longer requires that protection and he should then be allowed to sell the bottle. If he is a poor man and he closes his business down we must enable him to sell the bottle. At the moment the bottle will be of no value to him. We are going to do an injustice here to people, and what is more the Minister is not going to achieve the object he has in view, namely of inducing people to have their names engraved on the bottles because as soon as they do so the bottle has no more value. For those reasons I feel that I have the right to ask that if the owner of the bottle wants to sell it he should be allowed to do so. It seems to be very unfair to prevent him from doing so. Then I come to the provision contained in paragraph (d). That is going to cause a lot of trouble. It means that if I have a bottle in my possession—I cannot buy it, and the owner is not going to give it to me for nothing—if I get an embossed bottle into my hands I am prevented from selling anything in that bottle except the particular commodity for which that bottle was originally intended. Assuming I have a brandy bottle; the only thing I can sell in that bottle is brandy. If I bring moskonfyt and honey from the farm into town in a bottle like that I am not allowed to sell it in that bottle without rendering myself liable, or without committing an offence. And there is no protection there for the man who originally sold the brandy in that bottle. It is no concern of his if anything else is sold in that bottle. What he does not want is that brandy will again be sold in that bottle. The only damage he can suffer is if the same liquor is again put into that bottle. If any other commodity is sold in that bottle it is not going to do him any harm in his business. I have tried to put this clause into such shape that something can be achieved by it. I did not find it possible, however, to do so, and for that reason I move that the clause be deleted. Then there is another provision that nobody is allowed to buy or to sell a bottle without the consent of the owner failing which he commits an offence. I want to appeal to the Minister. I am not raising this question simply in order to raise objections. I want to be helpful because I can see a lot of trouble ahead. A lot of things are brought into town from the farms in bottles. General dealers sell vinegar, lamp oil and things like that in bottles, and the original owner of the bottle does not suffer any damage. Why should we waste those bottles? Especially if the original owner of the bottle is no longer there. It seems to me that this particular clause is not only unnecssary, but it is also quite clear that it completely fails in its object. For that reason I want to move that the owner of the bottle will have the right to sell it even though it is embossed. I move the amendment.

I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) has said. It seems to me that the Minister is trying to protect certain owners of bottles in a most awkward manner. I quite understand what he has in view, and I also understand the provision so far as the wholesale dealers are concerned, but when we come to the small dealers, how can we possibly expect the bottles which are used in the trade to get back to the original owner? There is a reference here to bottles which are stored up and used for other purposes. Bottles are stored everywhere in this country, and they are used for all kinds of purposes. Those bottles travel right through the country and they never get back to their original owners. Why should the Minister come here now and give protection to certain interests. I entirely associate myself with the amendment.

In the first place I would like to reply to the hon. member for Moorresberg (Mr. Erasmus). He mentioned the case of a brewery called the National Breweries, and seemingly they went insolvent, and he then says he thinks it is unfair that their bottles, which are embossed with their name, are not available for another brewery. That is the very object of this clause. If you have been accustomed to drink the beer of the National Brewery, and like it, you naturally don’t wish to buy beer in a National Brewery bottle that comes from another brewery.

It won’t be. The other brewery buys up the bottles.

If they produce an indifferent beer, why should I, when I buy beer in a National Brewery bottle, not be sure that it comes from that brewery? Then the hon. member dealt with the question of purchaser and seller being liable. Well, that is because of the probability of collusion between buyers and sellers, so we must keep that in. Then he mentioned other things, including a label. Well, a label does not constitute an offence, it is only an indelible embossment which comes under this clause. Take, for instance, my friends K.W.V. label. A man can take that off, use the bottle, and do what he likes with it. Then with regard to what the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) says, he probably knows the law better than I do, but I believe under the present liquor law a tied house is not legal.

But 75 per cent. of the houses are tied at the present moment.

I don’t understand, but perhaps the lawyers have known how to get round the law.

I have disallowed that amendment.

Then I won’t refer to it. I want, Mr. Chairman, if I may, to move an amendment standing in my name, in lines 59 and 60 at page 201—

It is only a drafting amendment. In regard to the hon. member for Swellendam’s point, that it should be made possible for an owner to sell his bottles. Is that the point?

Quite correct, and also his estate, if he goes insolvent.

Does not the hon. member see that if a man once starts selling his bottles he may as well sell the lot of them. They have no value at all. If I buy a bottle of some kind of brandy, or something like that, and that bottle is embossed and I know that if the owner of that brand sells any of his bottles, I have no longer any guarantee that I am getting his brandy at all. It may be someone else’s brandy in his bottles. Either these people have to do without protection for their bottles or they cannot sell them.

There is a very clear label on these bottles to indicate what is in them.

The labels do not come into this at all. Then the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) says why should he not be allowed to put anything he likes into the bottle which he has.

What protection do you give the owner of the bottle?

The first part of the hon. member’s argument was that when he wanted to go to Bulawayo or some other place he could not take as many beer bottles as he wanted because they did not belong to him. Well, the bottles do not belong to you, and therefore you cannot put anything into them. I do not object to your putting good sound brandy into them, but I do object to your putting ant poison into them. I hope the House will realise that there is nothing in these amendments, and therefore I cannot accept them.

This clause gives me a great deal of difficulty. It seems to me that too much importance is attached to the contents of the bottles and not any to the bottles themselves. Take soda water bottles. It is not unusual for soda water factories to buy out other soda water factories, lock, stock and barrel.

You mean lock, stock and bottle.

As the cause stands the purchaser would not be allowed to use bottles of another firm because they are marked. In Cape Town, I believe, there was the case of Schweppes which absorbed Pegrams. Why should they not be allowed to use Pegrams’ bottles? In Pretoria there are several instances of that kind. I ask the Minister to accept an amendment which would allow the assignee of a concern to use a bottle of another concern provided that fact is made quite clear. It seems to me to be fair that some provision of that kind should be contained in the clause, and I move—

It means that if “A” company wants to dispose of his business to “B” company and the bottles are embossed with “A” company’s name, “B” company shall be allowed to use those bottles provided this is clearly stated.

On the labels.

Yes, wherever it can be clearly set out.

It is quite clear to me that the Minister did not understand what I said. He said that I argued that if I bought a bottle of beer and that bottle had a name engraved on it I could not give it away.

But if this Bill is passed then that is the position, and then I am not allowed to use that bottle.

You can use the bottle for your own purposes, but you cannot sell it.

Yes, I am not allowed to sell it. That is my trouble.

Yes, but that is what thousands of people are doing.

Yes, and that is exactly my trouble. You are going to create crime. One has a bottle of brandy on which a name is embossed. That bottle eventually gets into the hands of a farmer, and if he goes to town and wants to sell it he may get into trouble. That exactly is my objection, that a great many people will innocently get into trouble through doing something to which he has become quite accustomed. The Minister can out-vote us with his majority, but I tell him that he does not know what he is doing. He says that he does not want a man to put some other brandy into the bottle. If the owner of the bottle is willing to sell it what objection can the Minister have? That is all my amendment says, that with the consent of the owners—that is with the consent of the man to whom the bottle belongs, and whose name appears on the bottle—that bottle can be bought and sold. If the man does not look for protection why should we go out of our way to give him such protection? Because quite clearly, if he wants to sell the bottle, it means that he is not looking for protection. What possible objection can the Minister have if the man is prepared to sell the bottle? If a man wants to sell his business or if be goes bankrupt his creditors under this Bill will get nothing at all for the bottles. They will not be allowed to sell the bottles because if they do so they are committing an offence. Let us take the case mentioned by the hon. member for Pretoria City (Mr. Davis). He made it clear that a man might have put the major portion of his capital into bottles, and if that man should go bankrupt his creditors would get nothing because the bottles are valueless and cannot be sold. If the Minister wants to put this through with the majority behind him, let him do so, but the country will not be satisfied. If I have to go and tell my constituents “You have to be careful, you are not allowed to buy any more bottles, you must watch out first of all to see what appears on those bottles,” they will ask what right the Minister has to prevent a man buying bottles from another man who wants to sell them. I think I know’ what is at the back of it—it is the bottle manufacturers.

I want to move the deletion of this clause.

The hon. member can vote against the clause.

We have put forward arguments in this debate and the Minister has not dealt with them at all. What we are dealing with here is an old and well known custom. If one buys a commodity which is contained in a packet or in a bottle or a tin then that tin or that bottle becomes the property of the man who has bought it because he has paid for it. Now the Minister comes along and says that one shall not be allowed to use the article which one has bought. I must say that I completely fail to see the object of this clause barring, as the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) has said, that certain interests have perhaps to be protected. Why should those interests be protected? Has it become the habit of this Government to look after the interests of the capitalists?

I should like the Minister to listen to the objections which I am raising, and I want to mention another instance. The Minister has travelled a lot by train, and he must have noticed that at certain stations farmers sell milk in bottles when the train pulls up. What is going to happen if this Bill is passed? The farmer gets hold of a bottle in some way or another—he may buy a bottle in the liquor trade, or he may get it from a shopkeeper, and then he uses it to put milk in. This side of De Aar there is a station where the farmers regularly sell milk in ordinary bottles, bottles which probably contain the name, in many instances, of some factory or firm—the name may have been engraved on the bottle. Now what is going to be the position under this Bill? The farmer will get into trouble. He commits an offence under the provisions of this clause. I want to move an amendment to clause 17 (2). Clause 17 (1) states “that any person who buys or sells any bottle upon which is embossed, impressed, engraved or etched, or to which has been otherwise indelibly applied, words in the English or Afrikaans language, stating plainly that the bottle is the property of a named person, shall be guilty of an offence.” Now I want to move an amendment to protect the bona fide buyer. I therefore move—

He may perhaps not have noticed at all that a name is engraved on a bottle, and the purchaser must be protected. This clause only seems to protect the bottle manufacturers, as the hon. member for Swellendam has said. Clause 17 (2) makes it even more clear who is being protected here, because in clause 17 (2) it is specially laid down that this sub-section does not apply to a manufacturer of bottles, so the bottle manufacturers are exempted. They can sell. They can engrave any name on the bottles, and they are at liberty to do as they please. If the Minister goes out of his way like that to protect the manufacturer of bottles, then he should also go out of his way to protect the innocent buyer who, when buying a bottle, may perhaps not take any notice at all of the name embossed on the bottle.

If it were necessary to demonstrate the necessity for bringing in this amendment, I need only refer to sub-section (2), because sub-section (2) shows that subsection (1) has been drafted so widely that even the manufacturer of the bottle is not entitled to sell them to the person whose name is on them. Sub-section (2) says this— “Sub-section (1) shall not apply to any transaction whereby any such bottle is sold by the manufacturer thereof to the person named thereon.” So that the manufacturer of the bottle is not entitled to sell the bottle according to the interpretation placed on clause (1) by the draughtsman. Therefore, it is essential that it should be mitigated. There are cases of dairymen who have purchased the bottles of other dairymen, with their names on the bottles. The bottles become valuless to anyone but the seller, and under this clause the purchaser cannot use them. In fact, the type of person who will be most severely hit will be the poorer man, and I would make an appeal to the Minister, if he does not see his way to agree to the amendment now, to allow this clause to stand over to be considered later.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg does not seem to understand the object of this sub-clause (2). Naturally, the man who is a bottle manufacturer making bottles for, say, Schweppes must be allowed to sell the bottles to Schweppes, because Schweppes’ name is embossed on it. As regards the hon. member for Pretoria City (Mr. Davis), he seems to think that the whole of the trade is in the bankruptcy court. He seems to think that we are all assignees, and that everybody is trying to sell things. It is quite true that when a man goes into the bankruptcy court another man cannot buy his bottles, and sell his special brand of soda water in a Schweppes soda water bottle, because I, as a consumer, am entitled to be assured that inside a Schweppes soda water bottle there is Schweppes soda water. And whatever the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) may think, there is no reason whatever why any bright and clever speculator should go in and buy a man’s bottles and at the same time buy out his goodwill. It is perfectly ridiculous to suggest that that swindle can be perpetrated on the public. I do not suggest that the hon. member for Moorreesburg, if he appreciated it, would permit such a swindle for one moment, but it is quite clear that any smart and unscrupulous man, seeing a good mark having gone smash, might say, “Well, if I buy this man’s bottles I shall have his business as well.”

I may want to buy his business.

Then in regard to farmers; there is nothing to prevent a man from using another man’s bottles. A farmer may use any bottle he wants to and put anything he wants into it, but I hope he will not do so. There are cases where poisons have been put into bottles, and after a time the bottles are returned to the manufacturer of either soda water or whatever it may be, and it has been found that the bottle has been filled with some poisonous substance. That is one of the dangers. I think we have now discussed all the facets of this clause.

It is perfectly clear that the Minister does not even know his own Bill. He has been explaining to us that if he buys anything in a Schweppes bottle he expects to get a Schweppes product in the bottle. But what does his own Bill say? It has nothing to do with the contents of the bottle. It says this—

It has nothing to do with the contents of the bottle. Do not let us try and hide the fact; it is perfectly clear that it has nothing to do with the contents of a bottle. If an individual is willing to sell his bottles, then what right have we got to prevent it. No, this clause only protects the bottle manufacturers. There is no need to protect the owners of the bottles. Surely if he wants to sell his business or if he should go bankrupt he must have the right to sell his bottles. It has nothing to do with the contents of the bottle. The Minister thinks that we are only raising these matters in order to make objections, but I am in earnest in the objection which I am raising. I am sorry the Minister fails to understand my objection and I want to repeat again that the contents of the bottle have nothing to do with this clause. The Minister’s argument is entirely faulty. Why should we interfere with people in this way? Let me mention another instance which is just passing through my mind. Take for instance grape juice. If one puts that in a bottle one at once has to put a stopper on so that no air shall get into it. One can never use that bottle again because if the bottle is chipped at the top it is no longer air tight. For safety sake therefore new bottles are always used. Now they will not be allowed to sell those bottles. What are they going to do with them? Must they throw them into the sea? I think the Minister is unreasonable and that he is not prepared to accept any amendments coming from this side of the House. The hon. member for Pretoria City (Mr. Davis) also clearly showed that this clause is bad. Let the Minister tune it down a bit. It really appears to me as if the only man who is going to benefit from this clause is going to be the bottle manufacturer, because he knows that if he has made a bottle and there is a name embossed on it nobody else will ever be able to use that bottle and if a new company is formed new bottles will have to be manufactured.

Hon. members rather seem to examine this Clause 17 from the point of view of Section (a) only and not from the point of view of (a) and (b) together. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) asked why should manufacturers not be allowed to sell their bottles. The reason, Mr. Chairman, is obvious. The object of this Clause is to stop illicit trafficking in bottles and such a clause is so phrased as to protect only that group of manufacturers who want protection. Those who do not want this protection need not have their bottles embossed, engraved or etched. No, Mr. Chairman, I must repeat that we must examine this clause from the point of view of section (a) and (b) together.

We say that (b) is unnecessary.

Mr. Chairman, Section (b) is just as important as (a). No manufacturer or authorised person should be allowed to sell to the public their own product contained in bottles clearly bearing the name and trade mark of another manufacturer. It is fraudulent misrepresentation. If the manufacturer wants to sell his bottles then the question is to whom are those bottles to be sold. We must examine it from the point of view of all manufacturers as a whole. If you had one person who went bankrupt and he wanted to sell his bottles and he sold to another individual, what would happen if that individual came along and used those bottles either for paraffin, disinfectant, petrol or some other product, which are not the goods of the manufacturer whose name or trade mark is on the bottle. Again it is fraudulent misrepresentation. There may be hardships on an individual, and that is unfortunate, but we are examining this clause 17 in the light of all manufacturers who want protection. When one realises the amount of illicit traffic in bottles in South Africa, one knows that it does not run into thousands but millions. And look at the way these bottles are obtained. Firstly, schooolboys are asked to go out and collect and they are paid commission on the number they collect; secondly, native collectors are employed on this basis too. And when we know how these bottle exchanges, or dealers as they really are, are paying money for these bottles, you can appreciate the amount of thieving that is going on in this country. Parliament must surely look with the greatest disfavour upon any person who offers an inducement which suggests there is something to be made out of stealing other people’s property. It is well within the rights of this House to pass this Bill, even if it does create a certain amount of hardship on individuals. There is no Bill on the statute book which pleases everybody, but this suggestion will please the greatest majority. We, Mr. Chairman, must not lose sight of the fact that this section will duly help those who want it; manufacturers who are not interested need not have their bottles ethched, embossed or engraved. It is not the bottle makers, as has been said, who will benefit from this clause—on the contrary, this section aims at keeping bottles in circulation. If this Bill goes through, it is more than likely that the cost of distribution will come down, and the consumer should benefit. Surely there are no businesses of this type of aerated waters, liquor and milk which are being run at a loss. Now, if millions of bottles are being lost to-day, and this Bill prevents that loss, it is the consumer who will benefit because it is the consumer who is paying to-day for that loss. I can give hon. members instance after instance of enormous losses of bottles. Only the other day a firm in Cape Town went to one of these bottle exchanges and took from them 13,000 bottles. As far as the bilk industry is concerned, in Durban alone a quarter of a million of bottles are missing every year.

Do you think this is going to prevent it?

Definitely. What argument does the hon. gentleman use that it is not going to stop it? The impression I gained from the hon. member was that this Bill was too autocratic and went too far. Therefore it is obvious that if this Bill has a tendency any way, it is not on the side of leniency. It is obviously going to benefit the public and the producer.

And the bottle industry?

On the contrary, Mr. Chairman, I have already said that the object of the clause is to keep these bottles in circulation. Unauthorised persons will not traffic in these bottles because it will not be worth their while. Pilfering from hotels, householders and other consumers has been on the increase for years, and now has assumed such proportions as to outstep the machinery of the law to detect and punish what in a number of cases is nothing less than common theft, trafficking and dealing in and receiving stolen property. There is another important point, a lot of these people who have been in the habit of taking these bottles have been utilising them for medicaments, for petrol, paraffin, poisons and other deleterious matter, and there is no known cleansing process which will eliminate the unpleasant odours and render the bottles usable by people whose names they bear. I sincerely hope that the Minister will leave this clause as it stands. I do feel that the public is being misled by people who steal these bottles who use them to sell goods of an inferior quality. I hope the Minister will stand all fours on the Clause 17, Section (a) and (b). The combined effect of the two sections is that illicit traffic in etched, embossed and engraved bottles that are the property of other persons is prohibited, as also fraudulent misrepresentation that goods are not in fact what they purport to be.

The Minister quite misunderstood the point of my remarks. I did not intend to suggest, and do not now suggest, that the illicit purchaser of bottles should be in any way protected. In fact, in the amendment which I have proposed, it is stated that where the purchaser of the bottle is the lawful assignee of the man whose name it bears, that fact must be stated on the label, or in some other manner clearly. That is the point. No one wishes to interfere with the rights attaching to the contents of the bottles. As a matter of fact, Clause 7 of the Bill prevents any person from putting into the bottle anything other than it is represented to contain. Clause 7 protects the purchaser as to the contents of the bottle. As I have pointed out, there are many businesses in which the bottle is the main asset, such as dairymen and soda-water manufacturers, and what conceivable object could be gained by prohibiting the lawful use by a third person of a bottle lawfully acquired by him?

I would not have intervened in this debate but for the statement that has been made that the manufacturers of bottles are behind this clause.

They gain by it.

As a matter of fact, they don’t gain by it, they lose by it. It is quite evident that if these bottles are returned to the person whose name is on them, the manufacturers will not get so many orders.

If the bottles are destroyed they get more orders.

The position is that these bottles are scattered all over the country, and do not come back to the owners, with the result that the owners have to place more orders with the manufacturers. If the bottles are returned in fair proportion as the result of this Bill, the clause is not to the benefit of the manufacturers at all. It is wholly unfair to the manufacturers to assert that this clause will be to their advantage.

I support the hon. member in the point that he has made. It has been proved, I think, that in some cases the bottles cost more than the actual contents. In driving round any city it is not unusual to find the streets littered with broken bottles, and if this Bill proves a means of clearing the streets of broken glass, we shall be benefitting South Africa, and doing the country a good turn. It has been stated on many occasions that if the milkmen got their bottles back the price of milk could be reduced by as much as 1d. per quart. My friends over there profess to be concerned about the poor people, and therefore they should support this, because if something can be done to ensure the return of milk bottles, there will be a reduction in the price of milk. I would like to have seen this clause go a little further, so as to prevent people from using milk bottles for a hundred and one purposes. They are even used in cemeteries to contain flowers on graves. When we are considering this matter, I think it would be well to take into consideration not only bottles, but the ebonised stoppers which belong to some types of bottles. I particularly refer to beer bottles. I suggest that we should see to it that these stoppers which bear the initials of the firm which owns them, are returned with the bottles, and in that event we may be able to get the price of beer reduced. It is only due to carelessness on the part of consumers that the bottles and stoppers are not returned. It must cost some of the breweries thousands of pounds a year. So far as I know these bottles are not used for any other purpose. I cannot see that any hon. member can have any objection to a small amendment which I will move—

I regret that I am not able to accept this amendment, as it does not appear to be germane to the clause.

When one realises the underlying principle of this Bill, which is to make provision for preventing frauds on the public, then one can see the reason for this clause. It may possibly be worded differently, as suggested by one or two members, but the clause is very much in line with the principle of the Bill. At the report stage perhaps some improvement may be affected. It is a well known fact that absolute confusion is caused in trade owing to the wholesale way in which people lose bottles with their names embossed on them. We know it in the milk trade, the mineral water trade, and to a lesser extent in the liquor trade. I agree with the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) that this clause does not benefit the manufacturer. Under the existing system millions of bottles are disappearing all over the country every year, and the owners have to go back to the manufacturers for more bottles. A stringent clause of this kind will, to a large extent, prevent the stealing of these bottles, and the result will be that the manufacturers will not have to supply so many, because the owners will be getting their bottles back. The underlying principle of the Bill is to prevent frauds on the public, and the Minister is perfectly right in saying that when a man has his name embossed on a bottle, the public should be satisfied that they are getting the mineral water or whatever the product may be, of that particular manufacturer. If somebody else gets that bottle and sends out his own product, it is a fraud on the public. There may be an individual injustice created due to the fact that a particular business has gone under, and the man cannot use these bottles. But by allowing a fraud on the public to go on you are committing a much greater injustice. There may be some improvement in the existing situation, and I think the House should pass this clause, leaving it to the report stage to suggest any amendments that have been carefully thought out. The suggestion of the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) has a great deal to be said for it, and I hope the Minister will consider it. It is better, however, to pass the clause as it stands, and then the Minister can see what can be done at the report stage. The Minister should be commended for tightening up the law, and the loss of bottles which is going on to-day is very undesirable. One of the principal reasons is that it is so very easy to steal bottles, and it is a practice which should be stopped.

I also want to point this out to the Minister. If he is not prepared to accept the amendment he should take note of the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Cape Town Castle (Mr. Alexander). If he will not accept the amendments, let him tell us that he will have an investigation made before the report stage in how far the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria City (Mr. Davis) will provide a solution for this particular type of case. I am prepared to agree that a great many bottles disappear. But we have these exceptions to which the hon. member for Pretoria City referred—we know that there are thousands of bottles on the market which can be taken over by other firms, and then it can be stated on the label that the bottle has been taken over from so and so. Then it would be a perfectly bona fide transaction. The Minister gets his legislation which will prevent the deception which is going on in connection with bottles, and at the same time he meets those hard cases which do exist through bottles being on the market with which one can do nothing. I want to say this to the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel). He says that the manufacturers of bottles, rather than score as a result of this Bill, are being injured by it. Let me point out to the hon. member that there are thousands of bottles in the liquor trade which bear the names of people who have been out of the trade for years. The other owners use those bottles, and if this clause is passed those bottles have to be destroyed. Those people will no longer be allowed to use the bottles containing the names of other people, so the manufacturers will get their chance again.

The last speaker touched on a point which I want to emphasise with the Minister. I wonder whether the Minister realises and whether he has tried to find out how many dealers in non-intoxicating liquor there are in the country who have sold their business in the last four or five years, and how many of those people have sold all their bottles? This Bill now prohibits the use of those bottles, as it is laid down that those bottles can only be used for the benefit of the original owner. There are hundreds of them. I know in my own constituency of people who used to produce aerated waters and who have sold their business. There are a great many of them who bought the bottles of people who went out of business.

Do you want the public to be bluffed?

I do not want to use any offensive language, because I am a great deal younger than the Minister, but I do not think he should use an argument like that towards me. Let me use this argument— that Isaacs is to be allowed to collect all Cohen’s bottles so as to put his lemonade into them. It seems to me that the Minister does not understand the position. There are hundreds of people who use bottles to-day, and who use them legally, bottles which they have bought from people who used to manufacture non-intoxicating liquor, but who have gone out of business. If we are going to pass this clause it will mean that we are going to handicap those people because they will no longer be allowed to use those bottles. My amendment wants to prevent that injustice. If this clause is passed as it stands those people will have to destroy their bottles, and a great many of them are poor men. Is the Minister willing to get those people into trouble? Take dairies. On the platteland dairies change hands every day, but the new man buys the bottles of the other man and he uses them. He is now to be prevented from doing so, and in the event of his doing so, or in the event of his having bought the bottles of his predecessor, he will now have to destroy them. He acted quite legally when he bought them, but we are now going to make it illegal under this Bill. We cannot go on like that, it is an impossible position. We should protect the rights of those people if they have legally bought those bottles, and if we fail to protect them then we are doing an injustice to them. It seems to me that the Minister does not realise what the position is. Perhaps we cannot blame him, because he lives in a rich city where the people keep their businesses, but on the platteland business enterprises of this kind may sometimes change hands every six months, and the bottles are taken over by the new man The Minister will find that sort of thing in every dorp, and he is going to do a serious injustice to those people.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Warren in line 59 was put, and the Committee divided:

Ayes—30:

Bekker, G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, F. C.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

V. d. Merwe, R. A. T.

Venter, J. A. P.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—64:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire. J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

The amendments proposed by the Minister of Commerce and Industries were put and agreed to, and the amendments proposed by Mr. Davis, the second amendment proposed by Mr. Warren and the amendment proposed by Mr. Erasmus were put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—66:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—30:

Bekker, G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, F. C.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

V. d. Merwe, R. A. T.

Venter, J. A. P.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J. Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 18,

I want to protest against the amendment which is being made in the Common Law in regard to the onus of proof. I notice that the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) is here. I wonder if he approves of an amendment of the Common Law in this fashion? The principle runs right throughout our laws that a man is innocent until he has been found guilty. The very opposite principle is now being introduced. We have done the very same thing to-day in connection with another Bill and here again the Government sets out to hold a person guilty until the opposite has been proved. I look upon this as a dangerous principle in our legislation, and I ask the Minister to delete this clause.

I want to point out to the hon. member that this is not a new law at all.

It is a new principle.

It is not even a new principle, because it is in existence in the Cape, Transvaal and Natal. I myself for some time have strongly objected to the onus being placed on the accused in laws that have come before this House. But this principle has been so well established in various laws that it is too late to alter it now. The same principle as regards trade marks is found in section 3 of the Act of 1888 in the Cape, and it is also in the Transvaal Act of 1903 and in the Natal Act of 1888. Apparently the only place where it is not in the law is in the Free State, and the only change made now is that it is going to apply to the whole Union and not only to three provinces. It is therefore not a new principle. One can quite understand the difficulty there must be if in a prosecution for forging or falsely applying a trade mark, the Crown had to prove that the registered proprietor had not consented. Now the onus is placed on the accused to prove that he has obtained the assent of the registered proprietor of a particular trade mark. If he has obtained that assent, it is quite easy for him to prove it, otherwise the prosecution would have to prove a negative. It is recognised in criminal proceedings now that the man who can most easily prove a fact within his own knowledge has the onus of proving it placed upon him. It is more easy for an accused to prove that he has received the consent of the registered proprietor in a case of this kind than it is for the prosecution to prove the negative.

Does that also apply in cases of serious crime?

In many cases.

I am surprised at the attitude of the hon. member for Cape Town Castle (Mr. Alexander). I notice that he has prepared himself on this question, because he has the old Acts in front of him—his conscience must have worried him. He has to vote to-day as the Minister tells him, and the Minister wants him to vote against a principle which is older than he and I, namely, that under our law a man is not guilty until he has been proved to be guilty. In this Bill a man is to prove himself innocent. I can understand that that is the position which one finds under the Code Napoleon. There the principle applies that when a man is arrested he is guilty, and he has to prove that he is not guilty, but under that system the position is entirely different. There a man is not arrested or summoned until it has been practically proved that he has committed the offence. Here a man is put in gaol, sometimes for 24 hours, even if there is nothing but suspicion. Now I want to ask the Minister what my position is going to be if the owner of such a trade mark is in Germany? How am I going to get him here to make a statement? A totally impossible position may be created. How am I going to prove that I have done the right thing if the owner happens to be in Germany? Surely the Crown is in a very much more favourable position in that respect than the accused. I am opposed to this proposal.

Clause put, and the Committee divided:

Ayes—58:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire. J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Faure, P. A. B,

Fourie, J. P.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttafora, R.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—24:

Bekker, G.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, F. C.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Schoeman, B. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, J. G.

V. d. Merwe, R. A. T.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 20,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clauses 21 and 22 having been agreed to,

The Committee reverted to Clause 8, standing over.

When this clause was ordered to stand over, the following amendments had been moved, viz.:

1. (1) Any person who sells or, for the purpose of advertising goods, distributes in the Union any goods bearing a trade mark which does not contain a clear indication of the name of the manufacturer or producer, shall be guilty of an offence.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Erasmus was put and negatived, and the amendments proposed by the Minister of Commerce and Industries were put and agreed to.

I have had an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, of seeing the amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) in its English text, and I am very much afraid there are many difficulties in accepting it. I am not prepared to accept it now, but if the hon. member likes to come over to my department and discuss it with the head of my department, they can fight it out and see if anything can be made of it; I would be prepared to consider an amendment at the report stage. I do not, however, want to suggest that I will accept any amendment. I think it is the best way to leave it for the time being, if the hon. member will agree.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Erasmus was put and negatived, and the amendments proposed by the Minister of Commerce and Industries were put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The Title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Trollip) reported the Bill with amendments.

Amendments to be considered on 12th February.

I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper—

The object of this amendment is that this Bill should be so amended that the producers who send their products over the Railways over distances of less than 15 miles shall be relieved of the provisions of this Bill. I take it that the object of this Bill is to afford reasonable and fair protection to the Railways, but on the other hand I also take it— and I think the Minister will agree with me— that it is not the object of the Bill to impose unnecessary burdens on the producer. When the protection afforded to the Railways does not justify the expense which such protection causes the producers, then I take it that the Minister will not insist on such protection. When the benefits which the Railways derive from such traffic are less than the additional expense caused to the farmer it is not fair or reasonable for the Minister to insist upon it. If the farmer first of all has to load his products on to a lorry and then has to have it carried to the Railways where he has to have the goods put on to a truck and after they have been conveyed to their destination he has to have them off-loaded again, we find that the additional expense is infinitely higher than the actual profit which the Railways make out of that transaction. That is what I want to point out and I hope the Minister will follow me—I want to point out that if we take commodities like wine and wheat which only go 15 miles over the Railways—what then is the real benefit derived by the Railways? It is comparatively small. But what are the additional costs to the farmer? If the farmer has his own lorry he is exempted from the provision of the law, but when the law is applied to the owners of the lorries who transport the farmers’ products it means that we are placing the farmer in this difficulty—that the farmer who has not got a lorry of his own is placed in a worse position than the farmer who has a lorry. The farmer who has a lorry can convey his products direct to their destination. The farmer who has not got a lorry is not allowed to do so by means of a hired lorry. Now what is going to be the effect, and what actually is already the effect of this law? It is that a number of farmers buy a lorry and if the farmer has a lorry then the Railways suffer more than the Minister imagines. The farmer then takes all his products to the markets. The result is also that a farmer buys a lorry to his own detriment. The lorry owner, the poor man who has to make a living out of his lorry, is robbed of his livelihood, and the Railways are not making any profit out of it. We find sometimes that there is a shortage of trucks, and the Railway sometimes have to move empty trucks over distances of many hundreds of miles in order to carry the farmers’ products. The farmer sometimes has to wait for days for a truck. He is exposed to all this discomfort, and that simply because the Railway insists on carrying his products over those short distances. If it were long distances I could understand the Minister’s attitude, but if it is only a short distance I feel that the Minister should meet the farmer. I do not know whether I have made my case clear to the Minister, but I do trust that he will seriously consider my amendment, that although he is trying to protect the Railways this traffic only gives the Railways a very small profit, while it is causing the producer considerable discomfort and a lot of expense. In times like the present especially I want to point out that it involves additional labour to attend to all this loading and off-loading of our products and labour to-day is a very serious problem so far as the farmer is concerned. There is a shortage of labour. I do not want to go into the question whether it is desirable or not, but I expect that in view of the Government’s policy of recruiting labour men for military purposes the labour shortage will be even more aggravated on the platteland, and I can assure the Minister that even to-day the labour shortage is being sincerely felt on the platteland. At a time like the present it means great expense to the farmer if he has to buy a lorry. In any case the profits which the Railways make over those small distances which my amendment refers to do not justify the inconvenience and the discomfort which the farmer has to endure, and the work which is taken away from the lorry owner. For those reasons I trust the Minister will accept this amendment.

I want to move an amendment which appears in my name on page 192 of the Order Paper. I move—

At first sight the amendment looks very formidable but in actual fact it is a very simple amendment. The position is as follows. This law which I believe was brought into force about ten years ago aimed at relieving the farmer of its provisions. It was not intended for the farmer. But it appeared when it was applied that that intention was not always given effect to—it by no means was given effect to on every possible occasion. In this case for instance it appeared that under the existing law a farmer was not allowed to take his own labour, irrespective of whether that labour was white, black or brown, away from the farm in his own lorry and convey them to another farm to go and work there. If a farmer did that he was contravening the law. In this Bill the Minister has tried more or less to put the position right, but I do not think he has quite succeeded in doing so. Under the provisions of the Bill as it now stands the farmer is allowed to move his labour from one farm in his own lorry and take them to another farm to go and work there. But unfortunately the clause has been so drafted that the farmer is not able to and is not allowed under this Bill to return his labour to his farm. And in the Transvaal particularly that would cause a lot of trouble. I am pleased to be able to say that from my little experience the inspectors have shut their eyes to the position, but that does not do away with the fact that the law is being contravened, and that contravention will remain if we pass the Bill as it stands now. My amendment aims at bringing about an improvement in that respect so that the farmer will be able to move his labour from one place to another and so that he can also return it in his own lorry without breaking the law.

I should like to explain in regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) that I am sorry it is not possible to accept it. While 15 miles is a relatively small distance it is a very arbitrary figure, but whether it is 15 or 50 does not really make any difference in this respect, that we open the door to abuse at once. If a carrier is found carrying without a certificate anywere, we would then have to prove that he did not come from a distance more than 15 miles, or he was not going a distance more than 15 miles. It will be obvious to the hon. member that that completely upsets the whole purpose of the Bill. Although the dsitance is not great, the principle involved is very great, the difficulties of administration are very great, and the possibility of catching anybody breaking the Act will be very remote. With regard to the hon. member for Pretoria, District (Mr. Oost), his amendment goes a little bit too far. He proposes that farmers, partnerships or companies may carry their labourers from any place to any place where they are to be employed. That would mean that a company can go to the Limpopo, recruit labour on a wholesale scale, and bring it down ostensibly for their own purpose, but really for the purposes of recruting labour. As a matter of fact that has happened before, we have had cases of that kind, and for that reason it is not possible to extend the application of this so far as that is concerned. If there is a case where a farmer, a wine farmer or any kind of farmer, legitimately requires to bring labour from a village to his farm for the purposes of working, and there are no facilities for that, that farmer has only to apply for an exemption certificate and he can get it under Clause 8. So that the point the hon. member makes is met. There is a certain amount of virtue in the earlier part of his proposal, and with his permission I would like to suggest that I move an amendment which he possibly may see his way to accept. I move as follows—

The Minister’s amendment was not put on the Order Paper, and I think he should give us the opportunity of considering it properly. I want to move the following amendments—

I just want to tell the Minister this. If he looks at the definition of a “Motor Bus,” he will see that it lays this down, that a motor bus means a motor vehicle which is equipped and used for the conveyance of more than seven persons excluding the driver or of goods or of both persons and goods, and operated in accordance with a certificate issued or an exemption granted under this Act. The point I wish to refer to is that it is a motor vehicle equipped and used—if the Minister will look at page 11 he will see that it is stated in line 10 “which is equipped or intended for the conveyance of not more than eight persons (inclusive of the driver) and which is used for the conveyance of persons or goods….” In the first definition the word “and” is used, and in the second definition the word “or.” If any trouble should arise in regard to a motor bus and it is contended that it was not equipped, then the people concerned may get into trouble. I therefore move that the word “of” be inserted instead of the word “and.” Then I want the Minister to look a bit further. I have not got this amendment on the Order Paper, and I want the Minister to follow me carefully. The definition speaks of the conveyance of more than seven persons “or of goods.” That means that any lorry which is equipped for the conveyance of goods is a motor bus. I therefore feel that the words “or of goods” should be deleted. A motor bus has to pay a £4 licence, that is the fee for the certificate, and a lorry £3. If I have a lorry and I carry goods they can come to me and say that it is a motor bus. It is clear that a lorry and a motor bus are not the same thing. That is why I move my amendment. The definition will then read—

A lorry must also have a certificate. In that respect the two are the same. For those reasons I feel compelled to move this amendment. Then I come to the next amendment, and I move to delete all the words after “products” up to and including “sale.” If a farmer has a vegetable shop or a fruit shop in the town and he takes his products there then he can take his products there without paying for a licence, but if he wants to deliver his goods he is not allowed to do so. In other words, if I have a lorry and I take a load of fruit or vegetables to town to sell it, then I am allowed to deliver those goods to the people who have bought them, but I am not allowed to do so if I have a shop. That sort of thing seems unfair. That is why I move that amendment. Then my next amendment is to move the insertion of the words “and other.” By inserting those words the Minister will see that the position is improved so far as the farmer is concerned. As the Bill now stands I can, if I have a lorry, move my products from my farm to the town or to the nearest place. In that case I fall entirely outside the scope of the Bill. There are two possibilities. Either one is outside or inside the scope of the Bill. Now one can get exemption to do certain things by paying 5s., but I am prevented entirely from taking anything from the town to my farm for my own use. One hears a great deal of talk of what the authorities want to do for the farmers, but now I have a lorry and I use that lorry to take my products to town. If I need a bag of flour or clothes for myself or my family, or if I want to take a bag of mealies for my neighbour I am not allowed to do so, I am not allowed to carry those things on my lorry. I first of all have to go to Cape Town to get an exemption certificate. Does the Minister imagine that a farmer can run a lorry for the purpose only of carrying his products to town while he is not allowed to carry his requirements from the town to his farm. No farmer in the whole country will buy a lorry simply for the purpose of conveying his products to town. If he wants to bring anything back from town to the farm he has to get an exemption certificate, or otherwise he has to hire someone to carry those goods for him; he is not allowed to do so on his own lorry. So nothing is being done for the farmer there, it is most unfair, and I think the Minister will realise how unreasonable it is. So long as the farmer carries his products to town he is free, he is outside the scope of the law, but as soon as he wants to bring anything from town he is not allowed to use his own lorry. [Time limit.]

I understand from the Minister that he accepts the principle of my amendment but wants to change it to such an extent that there will be no possibility of abuse. If that is the case I am quite prepared to bow to his higher wisdom and the technical knowledge of his experts, and with the leave of the House to withdraw my amendment in favour of that of the Minister.

With leave of the Committee, the amendments proposed by Mr. Cost were withdrawn.

Might I direct the Minister’s attention to clause 1 (3), definition of motor bus. To me it is somewhat obscure. A motor bus means a motor vehicle for the conveyance of seven persons exclusive of the driver. I have heard of seven-seater motor cars but certainly not of an eight-seater. I would ask the Minister to try and clarify that and to say whether it refers to a seven-seater motor car or whether it means a car for eight persons.

The Minister stated in regard to the amendment proposed by me that it would make the application of the law difficult. He says that the Railways only make very little out of this but that it would open the door to evasions. If that is the Minister’s objection is he prepared then to promise the House that in cases where the distance is 15 miles and less—the distance over which products have to be carried by rail—he will give instructions to the Road Transportation Board to grant exemptions? If he does that he will meet the idea underlying this amendment and he will be meeting the position of the lorry owners, and at the same time he will be removing his own objections. If the Minister will give that assurance, even if he does not accept the amendment—if he gives the assurance that he will instruct the Road Transportation Board to give exemptions where the distance is 15 miles or less, it will satisfy me. I hope the Minister even if he will not accept the amendment will grant us that concession. I also wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) in regard to the conveyance of the farmers’ products to the town and the carrying of his requirements for private use to the farm. I do not know what the Minister has in mind with this Bill, because what he is trying to do here is unreasonable and will simply have the effect of making people transgress the law. I would not hesitate to evade the law in that respect if I had a chance. I consider that if a man takes his products to town with his lorry and if he buys a pocket of sugar, or a case of soap in a shop, he certainly has the right to carry that soap and that sugar back with him on his own lorry. That man will, if the law prohibits him from doing so, succeed in some underhand way in carrying those goods on his lorry and I would not blame him. The Minister is going to force the farmers to contravene the law. The law will be ridiculous if it is left as it is now. Am I to be compelled to return with an empty lorry and am I not to be allowed to bring a few pounds of rice with me which I may want for my own use? No, I hope the Minister will realise that that is unreasonable.

I want to say that I have listened to the eloquent appeal of my hon. friend, but I am afraid that to agree to anything of the sort would lead to all sorts of difficulties—it would open the flood gates. I need not approach the Transportation Board and ask them to be reasonable in the application of this law—they have always been reasonable and hon. members need not fear trouble being unnecessarily created by them. In regard to the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) I am prepared to accept the substitution of the word “or” by “and.” I understand that the hon. member has not yet handed in his amendment. So far as his suggestion is concerned that the word “goods” should be deleted, I am afraid I cannot accept that; it would be putting a charge of dynamite under the whole Bill.

I have a slight amendment in lines 48 and 49, to delete certain words and insert others. I move—

It will then read—

Yes, I agree to accept that.

I should like to make an appeal to the Minister and to ask him to accept a small amendment which I regard as being of great importance. He has proposed a new clause to take the place of clause B, which in effect, with the addition of a further exemption, is practically the same as the clause in the Bill as it stands I would like to refer the Minister to line 38. After the word “requisites” I should like to add the following words: “Or those of any other farmer.” He has already accepted the principle, and I hope he will accept this amendment. I would like to move my amendment to this new clause. I want to explain to the Minister the effect of my amendment. It boils down to this: where you have two neighbouring farmers, they often have to send in to town to fetch goods which they require for their farming operations. The needs of the one farmer are not sufficient for a load on his lorry, and at the request of his neighbour he sometimes brings along some goods from the neighbouring town to his farm. I think the Minister will agree with me that in such circumstances it is a case of the one farmer assisting the other. If he accepts this amendment, a lot of the difficulty and the grievances which the farmers have at present will disappear. The farmers feel that when they are bona fide conveying certain goods belonging to their neighbours for which they receive no remuneration except that their neighbour will do the same thing for them, they should be granted an exemption. It follows that a provision like that, as I am asking for, would be of great assistance to the farmers in the vicinity. Two or three farmers may club together and send a lorry to the nearest railway station, which often is a considerable distance away. In my district we sometimes have to travel 75 to 100 miles. For a farmer to send a lorry 75 or 100 miles, and another 100 miles back, for only half a lorry of goods means incurring a lot of expense. Therefore, the neighbouring farmer should be granted the exemption I have asked for. It is simply a question of farmers being allowed to assist each other in a particular vicinity. Can I move this now, before the Minister’s amendment has been agreed to? I move, as an amendment to the amendment proposed by the Minister of Railways and Harbours—

I want to continue my amendments on the first clause, and I further want to move the deletion of all words after “Administration” up to and including “Parliament.” While the law was originally passed for the protection of the Railways, I should like to know from the Minister why he is now going to include private individuals and corporations under the definition of “Railway Service” if such individuals or corporations run a transportation service?

It states here that it only relates to Railway lines constructed in accordance with the law of this Parliament.

The lines are usually constructed with the assistance of the State, but now private railway lines are also to be protected. Such lines are usually constructed at great sacrifice by the State. Why should they be specially protected? I also fail to understand why the Minister cannot accept my amendment in regard to the carriage of goods for one’s own consumption from the station to the farm. Does not the Minister realise that he is not giving the farmer anything if he only allows him to carry his products from the farm to the town, with their own lorry, but if he stops them from carrying goods from the station to the farm?

At 10.55 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.

House to resume in Committee on 12th February.