I move—

The object of this motion is to suspend the 11 o’clock rule for tonight and for the House to meet tomorrow morning and tomorrow afternoon. We intend gaining time so as to terminate our business tomorrow. There seems to be every possibility of our being able to conclude the Government’s business tomorrow afternoon or tomorrow evening if we have this extra time set down, and I therefore move.

I second.

I should like to put a question to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister —it is a question which we put to him quite fairly on a previous occasion—we put the question by way of interjections and in speeches. The question is this: We should like to know from the Prime Minister why it is so absolutely essential for the House to conclude its business in such a hurry? Why is it so essential for the session to be made so short? We want to point out to the Prime Minister how unfair it is to arrange the Order Paper in the way the Government is doing it now. Hon. members will notice that two votes of the Estimates still have to be disposed of—and they are important votes, namely, the Justice Vote and the Railway Vote. The public are very worried about the way the Minister of Railways and Harbours is controlling his department. These two votes are coming on very late in the session because they are the last on the Order Paper. As hon. members know, every Bill that is introduced is usually specially scrutinised by two or three members, and if two or three members are left behind, such a Bill can be thoroughly debated.

I am afraid the hon. member is discussing a matter which is not really in order at the moment.

I only want to point out that we would rather sit a little longer. Only yesterday, important Bills such as the National Oils Bill were read in this House for the first time and for the second time, and my contention is that we cannot possibly do justice to the business the way we are carrying on now.

I should like to know from the Prime Minister exactly which Bills on the Order Paper will still be disposed of?

The hon. member has no doubt noticed that I spoke of “Government business”. That means that Orders Nos. 1 and 2 have to be disposed of, and notices of motion up to and including No. 6. And then the next Orders Nos. 3 to 6. Finally, of course, we have the Finance Bill, which will conclude our porceedings. Having consulted both sides of the House and having consulted both Houses of Parliament, I feel it should be possible for us to conclude our proceedings tomorrow. It will suit hon. members’ convenience to do so and not unduly to prolong our sittings until next week.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

On the third reading of this Bill, I wish on behalf of this side of the House again strongly to protest against the unfair discrimination between the widow of Gen. Collyer and the widow of Gen. Bouwer. We feel that an injustice is being done here to an Afrikaans speaking general, and we want to lodge our strong protest against it. It was said here in the second reading that a petition could again be presented next year. I should like to have a promise from the Minister of Finance that if that is done it will have his favourable consideration.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

The purpose of this motion, although it looks formidable, is merely to rectify a small error in a resolution which we passed last year. Hon. members will recall that last year the House adopted certain resolutions under the Asiatic Land Tenure Act of 1936 with a view to the exemption of certain areas from the restrictions of the Gold Law. Primarily what we had in mind in those resolutions was the provision of areas in which Asiatics might own land, and in which they might be permitted to reside, despite the restrictions of the Gold Law. But in these resolutions there was one which was put in at the request of the Town Council of Roodepoort, which made it possible to set aside a certain area for a coloured location. As that area was subject to the restrictions of the Gold Law, it could not so be used without a resolution of both Houses in terms of the 1936 Act. The Municipality of Roodepoort wanted this area set aside or a location in order that they might be able to clear up certain slums in Roodepoort itself by making provision for the coloured people in the slums to go and reside in the location. That resolution was included in the resolutions which we passed last year, but unfortunately an error crept in. A wrong description of the boundaries of the area was sent by the municipality and included in the resolution, and it is in order to correct that wrong description that this resolution is now put forward. We shall therefore be going no further than we did last year. We shall merely be putting right this textual error. We shall be acting strictly in accordance with the wishes of the responsible municipality.

I second.

I move—

This trade agreement is entered into in order to suspend the duty of 10 per cent. on crawfish which was allowed us under the Ottawa Agreement. The suspension is only a temporary one, and it is made in order to allow certain fishermen of Belgian and Dutch nationality to put their fish into Great Britain under the present conditions. I may say that it is not going to affect our crawfish industry in any way. The British Ministry of Food have bought the whole of the crawfish supply which we can let them have in 1941—’42, so we are not going to suffer and we shall be helping these people who have been driven out of their own country, and who are now fishing in our ports in the United Kingdom.

I second.

I move—

This agreement also arises out of the Ottawa Agreement, under which we had a preference—or let me put it this way: the Dominions had a preference of 10 per cent. on fresh hake. As a matter of fact, we got no benefit from this at all. It does not affect us in any way, and it seems that in order to improve the conditions between Iceland and Great Britain, they want to favour the Iceland fishing industry as much as they can, and therefore they want this suspended for a period during the war. As I say, it does not affect us in any way financially or otherwise. I move.

I second.

I move—

This agreement deals with citrus boxes. There is a duty on citrus boxes from nonempire countries of 5 per cent. It was made in favour of Canada, but today practically all of our citrus boxes have to come from California and Brazil, and in order not to penalise our citrus growers, we have asked that this 5 per cent. ad valorem duty that was fixed under the Ottawa Agreement be suspended for the period of the war.

I second.

I move—

This is simply an extension of the arrangement which we made with Newfoundland a year ago. Hon. members will recollect that in order that we should get our newsprint as cheaply as possible we suspended the duty of 5 per cent. on newsprint from Newfoundland. Curiously, newsprint from Canada comes in free, and Newfoundland never came under that, and today in view of the shortage of newsprint, we want to open up all the possible markets. We get certain advantages in exchange, but as a matter of fact it is to our advantage to suspend this duty. I move.

I second.

I move—

This little Bill comes to us from Another Place. It has already been passed in the Senate without opposition. It designs to deal with the situation that has arisen in Grahamstown. In Grahamstown during 1855 and 1856 the then Cape Government laid out two locations, a location for the Fingoes and a location for the Hottentots respectively. These were cut up into erven and were granted to the Hottentots and Fingoes who had served in the war. In the course of time those people died, of course, and their descendants never took the trouble to take transfer. Now after almost 100 years there is a state of complete chaos. We have been urged on all sides, particularly by the Native Affairs Commission, to take steps to remedy the situation. I propose to do that by modifying the location in Chapter 3 of the Native Administration Act of 1927. The second matter is rather a delicate one. It deals with the question of circumcision rites amongst our native tribes. In the Zoutpansberg we had an unfortunate incident. Nearly 30 of those boys died as the result of circumcision operations. The operations were performed in such a way that their genital organs rotted away completely. Thirdly, I want to amend the Native Administration Act, 1927, Amendment Act 1929, in a minor way so as to confer jurisdiction on our courts.

I beg to move—

This side of the House does not propose raising the slightest objection for putting any obstacles in the way of anything that is intended to promote the development of our mineral wealth and of our possible oil resources. We only want to ask the Minister this question: He said in the House yesterday that he can get people from other countries, people who are experts in this respect, to ascertain and study the best way of developing these minerals and this wealth of natural oil. The hon. the Minister spoke of a monopoly. In certain respects we do not object to a monopoly, but the Minister must see to it that if a monopoly is granted it shall be properly controlled and properly supervised by the State. We on this side of the House have no objection whatsoever to our oil resources being developed as rapidly as possible. We want to see such development for the benefit of the country, and that is why we want to give the Minister whatever support we possibly can. I want to add, however, that it is a great pity that an important Bill of this kind should be brought before the House at this late stage of the session. We are sitting morning, afternoon and night, and it is impossible for us to give these matters the attention we want to give them. We want to assure the Minister, however, that we shall support him, but we do hope that he will do his utmost, in view of the fact that the Bill has been introduced at such a late stage, not to disappoint us. We are somewhat scared of a monopoly because monopolies in South Africa have not really benefited the country, they have not benefited the people as a whole, they have been to the benefit of certain other individuals. I agree with the Minister that we must also look to other countries for assistance, but whatever is done should be done under the very strict and careful supervision of our own Government.

I also want to say just a few words. I think we are in hearty agreement with the purposes of this Bill, and that is that our natural oil resources should be developed, and that this should be done under the aegis of the State, that they should have full control. And as I read the Bill, it means that whatever concessions are given to private persons, they will always have to conduct their operations under the eye of the State. We are in full agreement with that principle. We believe that the natural resources in and under the soil are the property of the people of the country, and that they should be exploited, not for private gain, but for the advantage and interest of the people as a whole. That principle we support fully on this side. There are just one or two smaller matters with which I wish to deal, and the first is whether there is really sufficient incentive to prospecting in this measure, as it now reads. The Minister has told us that investigations in connection with the prospecting of oil is a very costly procedure, so costly that the method which he has adopted in the other Bill in connection with base metals is inapplicable here. It is too costly for the State to do so, and I was just wondering whether, if it is too costly for the State to do so …

No, not too costly for the State.

But very costly, so costly that the Minister does not want to have the duty placed on the State of investigating the resources, as in the Base Minerals Act.

We have both; we can do this under the Natural Oil Bill, too.

The right to make investigations?

Yes. The State can prospect or investigate.

Well, I accept the Minister’s assurance that the State has not only the right to prospect—I knew that it had that right—but I was not aware that it has the right to make investigations. I am just wondering whether in the absence of any investigational work by the only competent body really, that is the State, whether there would be sufficient incentive for the opening up of these particular natural resources. The Minister can only say, “If you want to go and prospect, you must get a prospecting lease”, but he cannot force people to prospect, and that is just the point about which I am wondering, whether there is really sufficient incentive, and if the State will not perhaps be obliged to step in and to do the prospecting itself if it finds that the prospecting which ought to be done is not being done. The other point with which I want to deal is the question of compensation to owners. The Minister has met us in regard to the same point in the other Bill. Owing to pressure of time and other duties, I have not been able to consider where these amendments should be made, but I would like to have an assurance from the Minister that all he has given us in the Base Mineral Bill, he will be prepared to concede under this Bill.

Yes.

I am very glad to have that assurance.

There is one point I would like the hon. Minister to make some provision for, and that is the question of polluting water. Nothing is more deadly than the refuse from anything in the nature of a plant, a factory, if that water is allowed to return to its natural course. It is death to any life in the stream and to crops. Under this Bill the Minister imposes no duty at all either on the party who is responsible for mining the ground or on the Government to purify such water. He does say this in Clause 13—

But that does not go far enough. There is no obligation on the Governor-General to make those regulations. There is no obligation on the person mining that ground to take those steps, and I would like to see Sub-section (f) of. Clause 13 translated into a clause in the Bill that the party prospecting for oil “shall” take such necessary steps as the Governor-General will prescribe by regulation. Such a provision would give general satisfaction.

It is clear from the experience which the world as a whole has had that there are only two organisations which can effectively handle such prospecting work in this country. It is either the Government itself or the large oil companies. The Minister in this Bill makes very extensive provision for letting out the right of prospecting, so much so that I am afraid that the first thing that is going to happen will be that he will give a lease for the whole country to the large oil companies of the world. They will take immediate steps to get all the rights in South Africa to enable them to prospect. They will make that attempt, and there will be no other private prospectors in the country, because they have not at their disposal the tremendous amount of capital which those huge companies have to enable them to make the necessary investigations and to sink deep boreholes. I admit that this is an extremely difficult question. We know that the large oil companies of the world have done this work in Africa, in Angola, and in other parts. They have made surveys, they have obtained concessions to make the geological surveys, and they have also found the necessary money for the purpose of sinking these tremendously deep boreholes. They are quite prepared to spend a million of money without profiting to the extent of one penny by doing so. I know that the Standard Oil Company and other companies, too, as far as I am aware, have already spent more than £1,000,000 in Africa, and that they have not found a drop of oil in Africa yet. It is perfectly clear that it would be an extremely difficult thing for private prospectors to undertake. They cannot do it, and it is only the big companies, the companies that have the experts which are able to do this work. Apart from them, this difficult work can, of course, also be done by the Government of the country. The Government of the country can make a big attempt by the appointment of experts, to have geological surveys made throughout the country, and it can eventually have the necessary boreholes sunk because the geological survey by itself cannot produce the necessary results. The eventual results mean the sinking of deep boreholes which cost enormous lots of money, and I feel that we have to decide whether we are going to give the Government the right to leave these prospecting rights to those big companies, or whether the Government should from the very start adopt the attitude that the Government itself is going to take the power to have the sole right to do this work and to sink the necessary experimental holes. In this country it can only be done by the Government. I am really not very much in favour of our giving the power to these large companies to go in for prospecting which may lead to the possible discovery of oil in South Africa—I am not so much in favour of giving these tremendously rich companies these powers. They are making tremendous profits, and if they make those profits here, they are not going to keep the money in South Africa. The profits they make will not benefit South Africa, they will not lead to further enterprise in South Africa. I believe that it would be very much better if the Government were to have the monopoly of doing the prospecting work, and of also undertaking the development of oil in South Africa.

Two years ago, speaking on the Minister’s vote, I said that he should set aside at least £20,000 for the purpose of prospecting for oil, and I made that remark in consequence of an article I had read about the way oil had been discovered in the Argentine. There is a book in the library to which I should like to draw the Minister’s attention. It was written by one of the Argentine farmers, called “Black Gold”. It appears from that book that the farmers in the Argentine approached the Argentine Government and told them that they needed water. But the Government could not help them. One day a deputation of two farmers waited on the Government and again told the Government that they must have water. The Government had been so continually irritated and worried by farmers who insisted on something being done that they sent a man out to bore for water with the instruction that he had to continue boring and drilling until he found something. He bored for more than 5,000 feet, when he found oil—black gold. That was the start of the development of the oil resources of the Argentine. We on this side of the House are very keen on this matter being tackled in this country of ours. But if it is to be done, for Heaven’s sake let the State do it, and the State alone. We do not want this important matter to be handed over to private companies. There is a feeling in this country that the existing oil companies have taken up options over large areas of this country, and this Bill unfortunately does not provide that the Minister can demand that the companies shall inform the Government where the land is over which they have their options. That is a secret. They first of all want to exhaust or develop their other resources, and only then will they come to South Africa and start their development here. I should like the department or the Minister to approach those companies and if they are not prepared to give that information, then I want the Minister to take the power to force them to state where they hold options. This matter is important to this country, and it is a matter which should remain in the hands of the State so that the benefits derived from the exploitation of our oil resources will not again get into the hands of a few people.

I must express my very sincere appreciation of the way in which this Bill has been received on both sides of the House. It is a very happy augury that the labours of the Select Committee have been so well received in this House. I do not feel that I have very much to reply to, but there are certain features which have distinguished the speeches of various hon. members to which I think I should refer. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) was very pleased that there was a Government monopoly in this case, and he is quite correct in describing it as a Government monopoly. The opening clause of this Bill supplies the key to it, and I hope hon. members will realise the full significance of it. Some remarks made me feel that they did not quite realise how far it went. Clause 2 has very far-reaching effects; it says the right to prospect and mine for natural oil is vested in the State, and in that single short phrase I think is answered a great deal of what has been said by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) and several other hon. members too. I think, reverting to what the hon. member for Mossel Bay said, that he was very concerned with the supervision by the State over any prospecting or mining efforts which were made by any concern which was not directly the State. He urged that such efforts should be very strictly supervised. I can assure the hon. member that there is no fear of there being any relaxation of control in that respect. I can assure the House that if at any time it becomes necessary or desirable to permit some other organisation than the State to mine or prospect, the supervision of the Mines Department will be ample and constant. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) expressed some doubt as to whether there was sufficient incentive to people, not the State, to prospect. Well, the incentive is this: that if they do prospect and if they do find oil as a result of prospecting which is permitted by the State under a lease which is granted by the State, then they are entitled to a mining lease, and they will get such a share of the profits as will be determined by the Mining Leases Board. That, I think, is sufficient incentive, and if it is not, I can think of nothing else that can be offered. Now, the hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson) was anxious about the pollution of water. I quite share his views on that, and it is essential that we should take every precaution that can be taken, but I want to ask him to be a little patient in this matter because he will realise that we are breaking entirely new ground, in assuming that we have gusher oil in South Africa. We have no experience of it and there is considerable difficulty in visualising at this stage the conditions which may prevail, and therefore the nature, the exact nature of the regulations and precautions that should be taken to prevent pollution.

I only say that we want it laid down in the Bill.

It may be desirable to do that later on, but for the present I cannot draft anything, and I think that we were wise when we were drafting this Bill to put these provisions in the regulations rather than in the positive terms of the Bill. I am afraid there is not the slightest reason to suppose that within the next year the regulations would be called upon for action, and we shall have ample time to consider in the light of the experience as it comes to hand whether it will be desirable and at what stage it will be desirable to make more positive provision in the substance of the Bill. For the moment I think it is sufficient to have taken power to make the regulations which the present Bill provides for. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) expressed his concern as to the possibility of the oil companies getting a grip of the position which might be considered contrary to the public interest. As he rightly pointed out there are very few concerns which really can undertake prospecting on the scale which would be necessary other than the State, and it is probably—I don’t say certainly—but probably the case, that the most likely ones would be some of the existing oil companies. That may be, but I think we are wise in taking power to employ in the service of the State these great companies with their very skilled staff and their accumulated knowledge. It may be found that that will be the best way of taking advantage of our opportunities. That may be. I don’t say it is, and with our present state of knowledge, it is not possible definitely to say whether it will be to the advantage of the country that the State should do it directly or permit some other skilled organisation with accumulated knowledge and a skilled staff to do it, but under the strict supervision of the State. All terms in that case will be carefully considered and laid down in the Mining Lease, but we cannot say at the present time. But the hon. member may be perfectly satisfied, and the House may be perfectly satisfied, whether it is done in one way or another, that there will be no relaxation of control and supervision by the State, and that we shall at all times see that the interests of the State are preserved. The hon. member for Gordonia said that he had suggested setting aside £20,000 for this some time ago. May I tell him that he is an optimist if he thinks £20,000 will be sufficient.

That is only for the boring.

That will be nothing but a bagatelle when it comes to boring for oil. It will require large sums of money, and when the preliminary investigations, on which I propose to engage without delay, lead to real boring having to be undertaken I shall have to come to the Minister of Finance and ask for a very much more substantial vote in order to carry that through.

He meant as an encouragement.

I gave you the instance of the Argentine.

Yes, you often go out to hunt for one thing and find something else. Saul went out to seek for his father’s asses, and he found a Kingdom, and we shall also perhaps, when hunting for small things, find gusher oil where we never dreamed of it. Well, I have given the assurance that I am going to introduce a proposal in Committee for the giving of compensation, and I shall do that when the Committee Stage was moved.

I am afraid I cannot accept the Minister’s explanation, and I feel that precautionary measures should be taken by provision being made in the Bill. He says that there is plenty of time afterwards to consider the necessary regulations dealing with this question of the purification of water. I do not suggest that we should attempt to lay down such regulations now, but I do suggest that this power should be taken in the Bill. I suggest that this power which at present is embodied as a permissive power in the regulations should be translated from the regulations into the Act itself. Surely that is quite reasonable? In the Act itself the Minister deals with water. Why did he not leave that to regulation if his procedure is correct? He deals with water meticulously as he did in the Base Metal Bill, and surely to ask him to put the above powers into the Bill itself is nothing unreasonable. He says we are breaking fresh ground. Of course, we are and that is why there is all the more need to take at least the precautionary steps which suggest themselves to us in laying down all conditions under which that fresh ground is to be broken. I only want to ask the Minister to accept a new Clause 4. If he wants to tell me that he will accept the principle, and put it in in Another Place, I am willing to accept it. I therefore move—

That is all. It can be done. I want the Minister to accept that as a duty—I don’t want it to be merely a power that may be used—it should be obligatory to see that the water is not polluted. I want to draw his attention to what happened at Kynochs, at Umbogintwini. Their effluent was running into the sea and poisoning the fish, and steps had to be taken by the Natal Provincial Council to see that this effluent was dealt with before it reached the tidal water. That is just an instance to show how necessary this sort of thing is. I cannot see any objection to such a course. The Minister can tell me that he will put it in in Another Place, but I must press for this being imposed, being made obligatory under the Act one way or another.

I hope the hon. member and the House will recognise the inconvenience at this stage of this Bill of introducing an amendment of that character without notice and without giving me the opportunity of studying its terms, and consulting with the technical officials in regard to it. I am, as most hon. members of this House are not, technicians, and my experience, both as a lawyer and as an ordinary man in the street, is that it is very dangerous to accept positive statements from one place or another without reference to your technical officers, when technical matters are concerned. This Bill in its present form has been examined by our technical advisers, by the Select Committee, and it was considered quite sufficient to have power to enforce these regulations with the object which the hon. member has in view. Indeed, in the amendment which he has drafted and handed in, he relies eventually on regulations himself. He says that in the lease there shall be some undertaking to observe what the Governor-General has laid down in the regulations. Therefore, he is depending on regulations, so what is the object of putting this in in particular terms. I suggest to the hon. member that he is very unreasonable in suggesting this at the present time. The power to make a regulation of that kind, of course, implies that I myself and my department are fully alive to the necessity of taking all possible precautions to prevent pollution, and that we have to take the necessary powers, and as any lawyer in the House will recognise, it is extremely inconvenient and very dangerous to impose the word “shall” and make compulsory what under certain circumstances, which cannot be expected, which cannot be anticipated for a long time in advance, would make the application of such a provision unnecessary and unreasonable. I am afraid I cannot accept this at the present time.

I do not think the Minister is doing the right thing here. I never suggested that a clause should be put in making it obligatory on the prospector or other miner to observe the regulation. I suggested that provision should be inserted in the Bill making such regulation compulsory. I say that it shall be compulsory for the regulations to be issued—that is all. The Minister has dealt with the question of time—well, it should not take a long time to draft a proper amendment. The Minister’s agreement about this being brought in at this stage is full of holes. The obvious retort is that we should get ample time for the consideration of this Bill. After all, this Bill has been amended in the last two days to bring it into accord with the Base Minerals Bill. I shall be obliged to ask the Minister to put off this Bill if he will not agree to what I am suggesting. I shall definitely ask him to take time until tomorrow or the next day. I think it is a reasonable request. I think everyone will agree as to the reasonableness of seeing that our water is not polluted and I again ask the Minister for a promise that he will put the clause in in Another Place. If he does so then I shall withdraw my amendment.

I am sorry, I cannot do that.

I have an amendment here in accordance with the undertaking I gave that I would introduce further amendments to provide for compensation. I move—

I move—

I move—

I move—

In connection with Clause 14, the provisions of this Bill as drafted do not apply to South-West Africa, and I think it would be very unfortunate if, after the Bill has been passed, private foreign interests were to discover oil in South-West Africa and were able to appropriate the whole of the discovery for their private purposes, and I suggest that the Minister should consent to an amendment of the Bill applying its provisions to South-West Africa. I therefore move—

I am not quite sure as to the propriety of this amendment, but I am quite clear on this, that it would be contrary to all accepted procedure and usages to introduce a measure of this kind without consulting the South-West Africa Administration.

Will the Minister discuss this matter with the South-West Africa Administration?

As this amendment extends the provisions of the Bill to a territory not included under the Bill as read a second time, I am unable to put it to the Committee without an instruction from the House.

At the time of the establishment of Union, Cape Town became the Legistlative Capital and Pretoria the Administrative Capital, and Bloemfontein became the seat of the Appeal Court. In terms of the provisions of the Act of Union, Bloemfontein is the seat of the Appeal Court, but we now find that the judges of the Appeal Court are not living in Bloemfontein; they live elsewhere and when they come to Bloemfontein for the sittings of the Appeal Court they are paid travelling and subsistence allowances. It appears from the question which I have asked the Minister that every Judge of Appeal is paid about £400 per year for travelling and subsistence expenses. Now I want to ask the Minister under which regulations are these allowances paid? These Judges of Appeal get £3 3s. per day from the time they leave their homes until they return, and it amounts to about £400 per judge per year. As Bloemfontein is the seat of the Appeal Court, they should live in Bloemfontein, and if they prefer to live somewhere else they should not be paid this allowance. I want to know from the Minister under which regulations these allowances are paid.

I do not propose detaining the House for any length of time. The Minister will remember, however, that on the Justice Vote I raised the question of the arrest of the Hollanders who had refused to do military service. I pointed out that the circumstances preceding such arrest were sometimes of such a character that they could not meet with our approval. I also pointed out that threats had been used and that reasonable requests made by those Hollanders had been bluntly turned down, not because those people were unreasonable but simply because the people concerned had not always acted in terms of the instructions given by the responsible people put over them. I pointed out to the Minister that as he and his department were responsible for the arrests of those people, blame would also rest on his department if an injustice were done. I want to appeal to the Minister and I want to ask him not just to give instructions to the police to carry out orders in regard to the arrest of these people. I want to urge the Minister to give his attention to this question and to see whether the charges made against these people are well founded. My information is that they are not well founded. I do not want the Minister and his department to lend themselves to reprehensible things being done. I had occasion to be present when the last group of Hollanders going overseas left this country, and I had the opportunity of getting into touch with some of them, and I can assure the Minister that those people feel very bitter, and what I am telling him is absolutely authentic.

Which item is the hon. member discussing?

I am speaking about police.

We are discussing Higher Courts.

I am sorry.

Before the House meets again for the next session, the Minister will have to make an appointment of a judge here in Cape Town, and I want to draw his attention to the fact that he has to take into account the fact that half of the work in the Supreme Court in Cape Town is in Afrikaans. Cape Town is one of the courts where Afrikaans to a large extent has come into its own, and unfortunately when the last appointment was made certain doubts were expressed not as to the ability and the personality of the judge who was appointed—he is a man for whom I have the highest respect— but he is unable to address a jury in Afrikaans and he cannot follow a case in Afrikaans. He is unable to follow a complicated argument in Afrikaans. And we have a few other instances of a similar nature. As the Minister has appointed bilingual judges in the Transvaal and also in the Free State, I hope that in making his next appointment in Cape Town he will take into account the necessity of the judge he appoints being thoroughly bilingual. It is to the interest of the speedy despatch of the business of the court, and it is of importance from the point of view of the cases that have to be dealt with, that a completely bilingual judge be appointed. If the Minister does not do that and he is criticised next year for the appointment he has made, he will not be able to say that we have not warned him. It is absolutely essential. We have a few judges here who, we are afraid, if documents are put before them in Afrikaans, cannot follow them, and we are afraid to address them in Afrikaans. In regard to cases in which the Government is involved—cases which are brought before the Supreme Court, the Minister promised us last year that he would see to it that justice was done to Afrikaans. But nothing has been done in that regard. I am referring to cases which are conducted by the Government, sometimes the Government is the plaintiff or in other cases the Government is the defendant, and the instructions are invariably drafted in English, although the people concerned are often Afrikaans speaking. That sort of thing should be stopped. I hope the Minister will see to it that these things are rectified. Then I notice on page 261 that provision is made for the salaries of two librarians. The one gets a much higher salary than the other one. There is one salary of £340 rising to £500. I hope that that is the salary of the Cape Town librarian, and if it is not so, then I want to express the hope that the Minister will put him on the same scale. The Minister knows the position of that young man; he is most competent, but he cannot get far in life because of physical defects. It would be a very good thing if the Minister of Justice could give special consideration to this case, and if he were to make provision to put him on the higher scale. Then I also want to refer to the position of judges’ clerks. I notice that one of them gets a grade allowance of £41. Most of these judges’ clerks in Cape Town have their grades and some of them have already taken their barrister’s examination. Why should a special benefit be granted to one of them? These are small matters but we are dealing with young men here.

In regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Bloemfontein District (Mr. Haywood), I just want to say that that was the arrangement come to when the judges were originally appointed in 1910. In 1929 this arrangement concluded with Judge Solomon, but after that the Nationalist Party Government again revived those allowances, and that is where the matter stands today. In regard to the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) I want to say that it is the librarian in Cape Town who gets that salary. He has the legal qualifications, he is very competent, and he assists the Attorney-General.

Under which regulations are those allowances paid?

It was an arrangement made with the judges in 1910. And in 1929 the Nationalist Party Government confirmed it.

Cannot you change it?

I cannot do so now. It has existed all these years, and I do not intend changing it now.

I want to bring before the Minister a matter which we have brought to the attention of his predecessors on previous occasions, and that is the question of the employment in magistrate’s courts of African interpreters. According to these Estimates, there are only 29 such interpreters employed, and there are 229 European interpreters. Now, the first question I want to ask the Minister is what these languages are in which the European interpreters interpret? I take it that they interpret in English and Afrikaans, as well as in native languages. This question of interpretation in the courts is regarded by the people whom I represent as a very important matter because, rightly or wrongly, they feel that if they are brought before the court they want an interpreter of their own race. I have time and again had complaints, and I think any legal practitioner who has any experience of native work in the courts has had similar complaints, that where there is a European interpreter in the African language, he does not render the question in the sense it was put by counsel or by the magistrate, as the case may be. It is a complaint that is so prevalent that there is no escaping the fact that there must be something in it. Quite apart from that aspect of the matter, the desire of these people to have one of their own people to interpret in their language, it seems to me not unreasonable to suggest that posts of this kind may well be given to African people. Very great numbers of them are very good linguists. The number of educated Africans is increasing, and there are plenty of good men available for posts of this kind throughout the Union. I have never been able to understand what objection there is to the employment of native interpreters to interpret to natives in the court. One objection I heard, voiced by a predecessor of the Minister of Justice, was that some of these interpreters had duties which put them in the position of having to serve the European public as well as their own people. Personally, I have never been able to understand that objection because in every capacity under the sun in this country Africans serve Europeans, and I cannot see why they cannot serve in this capacity, too, if it is necessary. Then, what happens when they are employed? Apparently when they are so employed that objection does not apply to them. Moreover, I am told by the Department of Native Affairs that sometimes, where a European interpreter is employed and goes on a holiday, or is away from his duties for some reason, an African interpreter is temporarily employed in his place. In that case he presumably does the same duties as the European, and therefore it is difficult to see what the objection is to his employment in a permanent capacity. Moreover, what happened previously? My information is to the effect —the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that large numbers of these interpreters in native languages some years ago, used to be men of the African race, and it has been the policy in recent years to replace them by Europeans. I must say that I have had this experience personally in the superior courts, and it appears that the complaint is the same as in the magistrate’s courts. I would appeal to the Minister to see whether he cannot open more of these posts to the young educated African. So much for the principle of the employment of native interpreters. In some courts, apparently, there are not any employed at all, presumably on the ground of the sparsity of the African population. What I am talking about now concerns more the western and north-western part of the Cape Province. In those cases temporary men are employed where an African is charged before the court, and requires interpretation in his own language, but in one case that has been brought to my notice the authorities showed a lack of imagination by employing a native constable in such a capacity. I am not saying anything about the native constable concerned; I do not know his name, and I have no reason to suppose that he did not do his work properly, but I say that the authorities showed a lack of imagination, because it is obviously wrong to have as an interpreter a man whose duty it is to investigate the offences such as that with which the accused is charged. It creates a bad impression and it is a wrong principle. What I want to ask the Minister is this: Where in a particular centre the African population is not large enough to warrant the employment of a full-time interpreter he should take on people who are Africans, but they must not be members of the police force—he could take local school teachers or people like that.

At the last session I drew the Minister’s attention to the condition of the magistrate’s office at Malmesbury. It is quite inadequate for the work that has to be done there. I asked the Minister personally to look into this question, and from what I was told later I understand that he actually did make an enquiry. That being so, I do not propose going into the condition of the magistrate’s court at any length, but I want to ask the Minister whether I did not correctly represent the position when I last discussed it? And I want to ask him whether he does not think it is highly essential for a new magistrate’s court to be erected at Malmesbury.

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss that question on this vote. It is a matter which he should raise on the Loan Estimates.

I want to say a word about the matter of interpreters, and what I am going to say I don’t want to be understood as decrying the views of the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno). I am referring to European interpreters for natives in large centres, and I am referring particularly to the practice in Durban. In Durban you have Europeans who function as interpreters in native cases, and at the same time carry out all the duties of the Clerk of the Court in the Criminal Courts. These men are rated as interpreters, and the fact is that they spend as much time doing the work of the Clerk of the Court as they do interpreting. And I would ask the Minister to take into consideration the possibility of regrading these men. This matter, I know, has for some considerable time agitated the minds of these interpreters.

The matter of interpreters has received a good deal of attention from the department and I may say for the information of the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) that we are in touch with Fort Hare with a view to employing more native interpreters where the interests of justice demand it. I think it will be a very good thing to give quite a number of these people employment. The question of interpretation is an important factor in the administration of justice, and I can assure the hon. member that everything will be done to facilitate that. Naturally, many circumstances have to be taken into consideration which need not be elaborated now. As far as the point raised by the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) is concerned, that question is under consideration.

I very briefly wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to the way bilingualism is being neglected in our magistrates’ courts. I have no intention of reverting to the very unpleasant circumstances in connection with the Wilkens case. I just generally want to draw attention to the fact that the Afrikaans speaking section of the population are not receiving what they are entitled to. If a man is accused of an offence in the magistrate’s court he surely has the right to expect that he will receive justice when he wants to use his own language. I hope the Minister of Justice is not going to follow the example of the Minister of Labour who has refused consistently to appoint bilingual members to the various Board he has appointed. The Minister is an Afrikaner and I want him to make us a promise that he will see to it in future that our language is not neglected. The magistrate who was on the Bench when my case was tried in so many words told us that he was not sufficiently bilingual to give his summingup in Afrikaans. If that is so, then he has not got the right to occupy that position. He is now going on pension and I am afraid that tomorrow or the day after he may be appointed to some other big position which again will not be to the benefit of the people. I want to know from the Minister whether he will see to it that justice is in future done to the people of this country so far as their language is concerned.

Some time ago a messenger was appointed at the magistrate’s court at Wynberg and a man by the name of Du Plessis was appointed. He is a prominent supporter of the Minister’s party and he is particularly well known in the area round about Rondebosch, and I want to tell the Minister that the view is held that the only reason why that man was appointed was because he was a political supporter of the Government’s. He had never done this kind of work before. He used to be an insurance agent and before that time he was a farmer—and he had failed in farming. In regard to Upington there we had a Mr. Coetzee as our messenger of the court. He was a supporter of our party and no fault could be found with his work. He faithfully did his work as the messenger of the court and the magistrate never had any reason to take offence at anything he did or to find fault with him. The attorneys whom he got into touch with can only speak highly of him. Now that man has not been re-appointed. The Minister in reply to a question asking why he had been dismissed said that in terms of his contract of service he had not been re-appointed and that on the 1st January last he had to give up his position. The people of Upington are very upset about this, and when he last visited Upington representations were made to the Minister, but shortly afterwards Coetzee was put off. The Minister’s visit to Upington is alleged to have some connection with Coetzee’s non reappointment. So far no other messenger has been appointed. The solicitors regard the system which is now in force as entirely unsatisfactory because the police now have to serve the summonses, and the police sometimes have to do a lot of other work, they have to do their ordinary duties, and then summonses are held up. I don’t know whether anybody has been appointed yet, but Upington is an important centre, and I fail to understand why no messenger has been appointed. It is a magistrate’s court, either first grade or second grade, and there should be a messenger there. The man who used to be there did his work excellently, and the Minister cannot give us any reason for his discharge.

On the question of the neglect of bilingualism, I want to say that it is the policy of all departments to maintain bilingualism. We sometimes get complaints from English speaking people that it is not done, and then, again, we get complaints from Afrikaans speaking people. If any specific complaint is made, it is rectified by the department if there is reason for complaint. It is the Government’s policy to do so. There sometimes is a difference of opinion on the question of whether bilingualism is actually being carried out or not, but I only want to deal with the general principle now, and I first of all want to say that I think the allegation made against the Minister of Labour a little earlier was an unfair one. Nobody in the years that I have been in Parliament, even in the days when he and I were on the Opposition Benches, fought harder for the maintenance of bilingualism than the Minster of Labour.

Only the other day he established Boards to which he wants to appoint people who know only one language.

In exactly the same way as people knowing only one language were appointed in the past to the Farmer’s Relief Boards—and hon. members should also remember that sheep inspectors who only knew one language were often appointed. In those days, the days of the old Nationalist Party, the Minister of Labour also defended those appointments. Violent attacks used to be made here about the appointment of sheep inspectors who could only speak Afrikaans. We then took up the attitude that in certain cases there was no objection to such people being appointed, whereas in other cases, for instance, where inspectors were appointed in Natal and parts of the country where they did not get into touch with Afrikaans speaking people there would be no objection to people only speaking English being appointed. The Minister is consistent in the attitude he took up in those days, and the attitude he is taking up today. Our attiude has no changed. That was the policy of the old Nationalist Party Government, but this Government stands for the complete maintenance of bilingualism. In regard to the messenger of the court at Upington he had an ordinary contract, under which he could be given twenty-four hours’ notice.

Why did he get notice?

It is not always in the public interest to disclose the reasons. There was such a contract. After all circumstances were taken into account it was considered that it would be better in the interests of the department to give him notice, and that is what happened.

The Minister of Justice resents our criticism of the Minister of Labour in regard to bilingualism. It is beyond my comprehension. Only the other day the Minister of Labour in regard to the appointment of Rent Boards refused to agree that members of those Boards should be bilingual.

When the proceedings were suspended for the luncheon hour I was asking the Minister of Justice why he wanted to drag the name of the Minister of Labour into this discussion. The hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Jan Wilkens) drew a comparison and appealed to the Minister of Justice to maintain the principle of bilingualism in our courts, and he pointed out that the Minister of Labour was not upholding that principle. The Minister of Justice then stepped in and put up his hands in horror in an attempt to defend the Minister of Labour against what he called the violent attacks that had been made on him. It, is characteristic of the Minister of Justice. When he wants to save his own skin he tries to drag in others. He tells us that no man has done more to uphold bilingual principles than the Minister of Labour. When we pointed out that that self-same Minister only last week had refused to appoint bilingual people on the Rent Boards—what did the Minister of Justice say then? He said that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), in the days of the old Nationalist Party, had dismissed sheep inspectors and had appointed unilingual people in their places, and he said that the Minister of Labour was now consistent in adhering to that policy. Have we ever heard a Minister taking up a more arrogant attitude? He says that the Minister of Labour upholds the principle of bilingualism to a greater extent than anybody else, and then he says that he is consistent in his adherence to the policy of the old Nationlist Party in the appointment of unilingual people. The Minister in a most illogical manner tries to get out of his trouble by all sorts of tricky arguments. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad, when he was Minister of Agriculture in 1925, dismissed a number of sheep inspectors, but he did not do so for the purpose of appointing other people who only knew one language in their places. I studied the whole of the discussion that took place in those days, and not a single member of the old S.A.P. raised an objection against the appointment of people who only knew one language. No, the argument put forward was that those people had been dismissed because they were S.A.P.’s. I was surprised at the Minister making these remarks, and I was surprised at his being allowed to speak about sheep inspectors on this vote. Now I want to put a question to the Minister of Justice. He is going to address a meeting at Riversdale on the 20th, the eve of the by-election, and he will then have the opportunity of expressing his approval of this so-called bilingual policy of the Minister of Labour; or is he going to tell the meeting that the Minister is consistent in his policy of appointing unilingual people on the Rent Boards? I ask him as a man of honour to go to Riversdale on the 21st and to tell the public there what he has been saying here. I challenge him to say there what he has said to us here. I shall see to it that he is asked a question on this subject when he addresses a meeting there. I got up to say that I could quite understand why the Minister of Justice had gone out of his way to drag the Minister of Labour into this discussion. He is playing the game of pals here. There is a newspaper issued by Arthur Barlow, and that newspaper remarked the other day that the Minister of Justice was our future Prime Minister; it said that he had become very popular during this session and that he had clean cut out the Minister of Finance.

I do not think the hon. member should pursue that subject any further. I have allowed him to answer the Minister.

I think you are right, Mr. Chairman. I agree that it is better to stop us when we deal with the question of the Minister of Justice becoming Prime Minister, because it will never happen.

I only want to say a few words on the subject of magistrates. I notice that we have 270 magistrates, people who sometimes have to do their work in very difficult circumstances. I feel that it is perhaps as well that the Goddess of Justice and Equity is always depicted as a blind Goddess. If she were not blind, that Goddess would blush sometimes if she had to behold the temples in which her work has to be done. Let me give an instance. The Minister may perhaps know of this particular case. I am referring to the magistrate’s court at Trompsburg. I say with all due respect that if the Goddess of Justice were not blind she would blush for shame to behold the conditions under which her work and her service are being performed there. There may be many other places where conditions are just as bad. I don’t want the Minister to appoint goodlooking people only as magistrates. If the High Priests of the Goddess of Justice and the lesser priests in this House have to look as they do, it is a good thing she is blind. But I want to say this, that the Minister should assist those magistrates who have to see that justice is done under very trying circumstances, and he must see to it that they can carry out their duties in surroundings which are compatible with the work they have to do. There is another matter I wish to raise in this connection, namely, the reports and law books placed at the disposal of magistrates. There is an amount of £1,850 on the Estimates for this year. If one compares that amount with the amount for casual interpreters and reporting, namely, £2,800, then I must say that this particular service should be better provided for so that these magistrates may be equipped with the necessary law books and reports to enable them to do the department’s work more efficiently. Is there no possibility of better provision being made for the law books and for the law reports which the magistrates require? I particularly want the Minister, who is a Free Stater himself, to give some consideration to a place like Trompsburg, and I would like him to go and have a look at the conditions under which the magitsate there has to do his work.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the pernicious effects of dog racing on the Rand.

Under which item is the hon. member discussing it?

Betting and gambling.

Will the hon. member mention the item? Which item on the Vote is he discussing?

This gambling results in people getting into debt and then they are brought before the magistrate.

The hon. member cannot discuss general administration under the Magistrate’s Courts’ vote.

The hon. member for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) raised the question of women having to go to court. It has been realised that in coming to court expenses are incurred, and we feel that where men are away at the front and the ladies have to come to court, expenses are incurred. The department is considering issuing emergency regulations and is also considering the other points raised.

*In regard to the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) I just want to say that the magistrates’ court buildings come under “Public Works,” but I shall do my best there. Places like Malmesbury and Trompsburg and many other places have magistrates’ court buildings which are not at all what they should be. We shall do what we can.

We should like to know from the Minister of Justice what the procedure is that is followed, not in regard to all transfers but in regard to some transfers, of such people as prison guards, for instance. A case like this has been brought to my notice. At Paarl there is a house belonging to the department which is let to the prison guard on easy terms. People are sometimes transferred from one place to another without any reason being given, and then they are sent to a place where no such houses are available. I have in mind a case at Paarl where a rent of £2 18s. 6d. was paid for such a house. The prison guard was transferred to another place where he had to pay £6 10s. He had to pay this increased rent although he did not receive any increase in salary. One would like to know from the Minister what the procedure is in a case of that kind. I know of an instance where a prison guard with a large family was transferred from a place where the department had a house for him, with the result that he had to pay a much higher rent at some other place, while another man who had no children was put in his place where he originally was. If there is a definite reason for such a step one can accept it, but if there is no definite reason then one would like to know why the department should do a thing like that which is not in the interest of the individual concerned.

I want to go a little bit further than the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Hugo) has done. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that not only are people transferred but some of these prison guards are given the privilege of occupying cheap houses while others employed in the same prison are not given such houses. The Minister will probably tell us that there are not sufficient houses of that kind available. Well, cannot the Minister provide for an allowance to be paid to those people who cannot get houses? The position further is that people who live within a certain distance away from the gaol are allowed free medical treatment. Now, it may happen that the prison guard who cannot get a house, in these days of scarcity of houses, has to live a long way from the gaol; and another consequence is that he cannot get free medical treatment. Now there is another point I want to refer to. It seems that a prison guard who is sent to Bellville is looked upon as a man who has committed some offence — it is almost a punishment—one is almost treated as a prisoner if one is sent there. Then there is another point. I understand that the prisoners in the Bellville gaol have to go and work outside on rainy days. They only wear the ordinary convict clothes and when they get back they have to go into their cells without being given a chance to put on dry clothes. Even though these people are criminals we should not endanger their health. I should like to have some information from the Minister on these points.

In regard to transfers, the position happens to be that in some cases people can rent houses from the department, whereas in other cases no houses are available. It is a matter of luck. So far as transfers are concerned, if a man is sent to another place it may eventually lead to his being promoted. If a man has to occupy a higher post he has to have experience of the various classes of work. In regard to housing, that is a difficult question. It is difficult to do any building just now.

Cannot a higher wage be paid?

No, we cannot deal with the position in that way; the whole housing question is being considered. We cannot put up houses now, but we hope to remedy the position at some future time. I want to say this to the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) that I have no information at the moment about the position at Bellville, but I shall look into it. In regard to medical treatment, we want to keep our prison guards as near the prisons as possible, even in the prison grounds.

But you cannot get houses.

In the circumstances, the remarks made by the hon. member are fair and reasonable, and I think we can make some concession to those people.

There are a few matters on this vote which I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice. The first point I wish to raise is in regard to the school children in Johannesburg whose finger impressions were taken. This happened in October of last year. According to a report we have of this matter, the finger impressions were taken of all the children in a school on the Witwatersrand, and it appeared from the discussions at the Central School Board that a crime had been committed at the school. The police went to the school and with the consent of the principal of the school they took all the children’s finger impressions. The police put up the excuse that they wanted to make sure whether the children had had anything to do with the crime that had been committed. It was found that none of the children had had anything to do with it. Finger impressions are taken in terms of Act No. 39 of 1926, and that law lays it down that finger prints can only be taken after a person has been arrested, and only then can a magistrate or a justice of the peace order a person’s finger prints to be taken. It was stated at the meeting of the School Board that the police very definitely committed an illegal act in taking these finger prints. It was also stated that the principal of the school had objected to the police taking these impressions, but the police assured him that it was an everyday occurrence. It is not an everyday occurrence, and the information which the police gave was wrong. I should like the Minister to go into this question, and I want him to have these finger prints destroyed. They are today kept in the department’s records and they should be destroyed. Now there is another matter in regard to the purchase of motor cars for the police, to which the Auditor-General referred in his report on page 46, where he says this—

I shall be very pleased if the Minster will give his attention to this matter. It appears that all the motor cars are bought through one agent in Pretoria, even if those motor cars are required in Cape Town or elsewhere. I don’t think that that is right, and in addition to that we have this fact, that the Police Department are paying more for their motor vehicles. The Auditor-General points this out, and I hope the Minister will go into the question. I also want to draw the Minister’s attention to the vehicles which the police have to use in the North-West. They have to cover long distances, and we find them using ordinary bicycles over those corrugated roads. I have come across people there who were totally exhausted when they got to a farm where they had to conduct some investigation or other. They have asked me to bring this matter specially to the Minister’s notice. He should supply them with proper vehicles. We cannot expect them to go over those roads in the buring hot sun on ordinary pedal bicycles. I hope the Minister will see to it that these matters are put right.

I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister the lack of police supervision of gambling and betting, particularly in regard to dog racing on the Rand. This has become a first-class scandal, and it is having a demoralising effect on the poorer classes. The House will appreciate the evil if I say that about £2,000,000 per year is spent on gambling. The effect of this is to promote dishonesty, and it leads to the contraction of debts. Large numbers of people go to dog races when they cannot afford it, and the majority of the losers are among the poorer classes. There is also the evil of bucket shops, some of which accept bets of as little as 1s. 6d. This matter was enquired into in England, and in a review of greyhound racing in England it was mentioned that the Commission had been impressed by the organised facilities for betting and gambling, and by the habit of betting and gambling. The weight of the evidence showed that serious social consequences were ensuing. We want these bucket shops to be prohibited, and we want the number of race meetings to be reduced, so that the public will not be able to lose their hard-earned savings at the dogs.

I thought the hon. member wanted to discuss police supervision. I understand that dog racing comes under the Provincial Councils.

There are 83 bucket shops on the Rand, and the police do not seem to be able to suppress them. I want to know why they are not able to do so. Large attendances at the dog races are encouraged, and it is there that the poor people lose their earnings.

There are a few matters I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice. He told us yesterday that he wanted to protect his police, and today we want to assist him to do so. I think he will agree with us that if the police are to be effective and efficient we have to look after their comforts, so that they need not be worried all the time about their houses and things of that kind. I put a question to the Minister recently, whether the police were paid a higher allowance for clothes—whether such an allowance was paid both to the men wearing uniform and those wearing ordinary clothes? The Minister replied that it was not yet necessary to pay them a higher allowance, and he said that the allowances paid for clothes were as follows: An officer £10; for all uniforms. A mounted officer £9. An unmounted officer £8. The detectives who go about in civilian clothes get £18 per year. In reply to a question whether these people would be given an increased allowance the Minister said—

I shall now try to prove to the Minister that it is justifiable. I am not going to give the figures in regard to the cost of food now. I am going to confine my remarks to the cost of clothes. I have the figures for December, 1941, when the increases were as follows: Boots have gone up from 18/2 to 22/4. Caps from 4/7 to 5/11. Great coats from 35/to 37/-. Rain coats from 45/to 47/-. Trousers from 11/to 13/6; white shirts from 4/10 to 6/11. Socks from 1/to 1/9. And so it goes on. The increase amounted to round about 52%. And what is more, we find that last year there was an amount of £80,000 on the Estimates for clothing. This year that amount has been reduced to £78,000 in spite of the fact that the price of clothing is going up. These figures I have given are for December, 1941. Since that time prices have gone up still further and the increases must certainly be 60% now. How can the Minister say therefore that an increase in the allowance would not be justified yet? The police wear their revolvers which they can use to protect themselves if necessary. That revolver is big and awkward. I put some questions to the Minister on the subject because the police find that it is an awkward weapon to use for the purpose of defending themselves, while a smaller revolver would be handier and cheaper. I want to ask the Minister to consider this. Now there is another matter I also want to refer to and I hope the Minister will be able to meet us there if he cannot remedy it entirely. In almost every cafe in Cape Town we notice gambling machines, and in some of these places we see nothing but gamblingmachines. The year before last we asked the Minister a question and he replied that the police had to take action wherever such machines were being used. Last year we again drew the Minister’s attention to the fact that there was an increase in the number of these gambling machines. The Minister replied that he was not aware of the fact. I want to point out that at one time those gambling machines had completely disappeared, but today they can be found again in large numbers. Yesterday two mothers came to me to complain that they found it simply impossible to keep their children away from those gambling machines. The hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) spoke about the dog races yesterday which he described as a curse to the country. If we walk into Plein Street in this town we can find places there which are entirely equipped for these gambling machines and I want to ask the Minister in all seriousness to give this matter his attention. There is another point I wish to refer to. This afternoon when the House suspended its proceedings, a meeting was held at Stalplein where Genl. Botha’s statue stands, and that meeting was attended by coloured men. Two coloured men addressed that meeting. They pointed to the tramway buses and they said that when the comrades came into power those buses would no longer belong to the white men but to the coloureds. They also said that when that time came the people who were today working in factories would no longer be compelled to work there under conditions such as prevail today. That time would have passed, because the country would belong to them.

What has that to do with this vote? Would it not require legislation to alter these matters?

No, the Minister can deal with these things under the Emergency Regulations, and the point I want to make is whether the police have given their consent to the holding of these meetings? I want to ask the Minister whether the Police know about the holding of these meetings. Meetings of that kind are held in various parts of Cape Town and the most terrible insults are cast at the white section of the community. I want to know from the Minister whether the police are aware of those meetings, and whether they have people there to take note of what is said. I am not going to deal with the political aspect of the matter. I want to tell hon. members opposite that those coloured people are being stirred up, not against one party or another, but they are stirred up against the whites, and if these things are allowed to go on within fifty yards of the House of Parliament, then I want hon. members to ask themselves what is going on in other parts of the country.

Well, you were there yourself.

May I ask the hon. member who makes such insipid remarks to keep quiet, if he does not mind.

Order, order!

Very well, then I shall put it this way; whether that hon. member will not stop making idiotic remarks. I want to know from the Minister whether the police have to give permission for the holding of these meetings and whether they take any notice of what is said at these meetings. I should like an answer from the Minister. Coloured men are agitating and stirring up people and Europeans are doing the same thing. At the meeting this afternoon every five minutes they spoke of Comrades, brothers and sisters—the same thing as happened at that conference, and I want to know whether those people have had permission from the police to address these meetings.

I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to a question of great importance at the present time. There exists special reasons why special efforts should be made at the present moment for the better control of the natives during the state of emergency in which we are living. I do not know whether the Minister has had his attention drawn to the exceedingly disquieting wave of crime among the natives that is evident on the Rand. The Star of April 11th records 29 cases of housebreaking in one night. It says—

I am not going to read the details, but the details show that the persons engaged in this orgy of housebreaking were natives. You have only got to read the current accounts of what is going on on the Rand to realise how serious is this outbreak. There is an account here which reads as follows—

A well-known man, Mr. F. H. Hodgkinson, writes a long letter to the Press dealing with this outbreak of crime. He says—

Now this man signs his name, and he is quite a well-known man in Johannesburg. We had within the last few days the case of a policeman who was murdered—it was said, by a native—but there is no doubt that both in Johannesburg and Durban there has been a most disquieting development of crime amongst the natives, and many people who understand the natives well attribute it to the fact that there is a war on, and that they think proper control is lacking, and that they may do what they like. That brings me to urge upon the Minister in connection with the plans that are being made relative to civil protective services, that the first thing that ought to be done ought to be to control the natives in the event of an attack being made. I was in Johannesburg during the Johannesburg raids, and one of the most disquieting developments there was the facility with which natives took to looting and rioting. It was the same at the time of the Boer war. I was instrumental in taking away 10,000 natives by road, because I could see that there would be great bloodshed. If authority is momentarily withdrawn owing to a raid in any of the larger towns, I am afraid the natives will take a prominent part in looting and burning and robbing and every form of lawlessness that comes to their hands. I have already drawn the attention of three Ministers to the propaganda that is going on amongst the natives, and which I attribute to certain missionary elements in the country today, propaganda to the effect that when the Japanese come the natives will have an opportunity of settling accounts with the white people. That is not a secret. A coloured man writes to the Press in these terms—

That propaganda, in my opinion, is inspired and carried on by certain missionary societies, and I have urged the Minister to intern those gentlemen and to take over the missionaries, and to let them be run as enemy property. That is one of the safest things the Government can do, and another safe thing the Minister can do is to allow the commanding officer of the police to form an organisation to control the natives in the larger towns. It is no use having a post mortem after the act is done; it is wiser to realise now that uncontrolled natives will be a great danger in a case of attack. In most of the larger towns the firms who employ natives in large numbers have responsible men whose duty it is to see that they record the movements of the natives. These men would form a useful nucleus with the indunas to control the natives properly. They are not compound managers, but they have the authority of compound managers, and it can be their function to reassure their natives and to keep them in order. It is not that the natives, as a mass, are lawless, but it is a well-known fact that in times of stress the worst in the natives comes to the surface. So you have a great danger that the best elements amongst the natives are going to be passive, and the worst elements are going to very dangerous, and in my opinion the Government would only ensure the safety of the country if it takes this precautionary measure beforehand. Col. Baston, in charge of the police, can very well see that things are so organised as to prevent a disaster, and I am sure that the better natives would welcome such a movement and would rally to the aid of the Government in the event of such an organisation being undertaken.

I asked the Minister whether he had taken notice of the reports regarding a Communistic meeting at Genadendal and I also asked him whether he was going to take any steps about the matter. The Minister replied that he knew of the meeting but “so far as the reports which have reached me are concerned there was nothing in that meeting or in the resolutions which would justify a prohibition of that meeting.” The Minister has now been told by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) too what the feeling among the non-Europeans are. The fact remains that if we keep our eyes and our ears open in Cape Town and in the small towns of the Western Province, we must be struck by the fact that there is a spirit among the nonEuropeans which is definitely dangerous. The Minister is convinced of it and the members of his Party believe that a Japanse danger is really threatening us. If he does believe it I want to ask him what steps he is going to take to prevent meetings of that kind. What the hon. member for Illovo said about Natal applies equally to the non-Europeans in the Western Province. Let the Minister investigate the position and see what is going on in the small towns of the Western Province and in Cape Town among the nonEuropeans. I want him to go very thoroughly into this question and pay attention to it; The Government has taken upon itself the responsibility of depriving the Europeans of their arms, and now I want to ask the Minister what right the Government and the Minister have to say that they are not guilty if they see these things going on. I feel that the time has come when the Europeans should have their arms returned to them. That time has long since come. I want to tell the Minister that if we have trouble with the non-Europeans this Government and the Minister of Justice will be responsible and will not be able to say that they are not to blame.

What do you know about Genadendal?

The hon. member says that he knows such a lot about Genadendal, but what has he done about the matter?

I have never said a word about it.

The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) says that he never said a word about it.

The hon. member must confine himself to the vote.

These things are going on in the constituency of the hon. member for Caledon, and if he has the interests of his constituents at heart then he should join us in our protest against Communistic meetings being held at Grenadendal. I want to know from the Minister whether he has taken any steps about the Communistic activities on the platteland and also in Cape Town, and if not, whether he intends taking any steps. This is a matter of supreme importance. I want to draw attention to the fact particularly that the European people in this country have been disarmed.

What has that to do with this vote?

I want to point out that as the European people have been disarmed it is the Minister’s duty to see to it that we are protected and that more police are appointed. I know that some people may be laughing about what is going on, but we know what the position is among the nonEuropeans in the Western Province—I am not speaking of other parts of the country now. We know that there is good reason for uneasiness and we would be neglecting our duty if we failed to draw attention to it. It is the duty of the Minister to see to it that as the European section of the community have been disarmed proper protection is afforded to that section of the community.

Against the Japanese.

The hon. member talks of Japanese. I do not think that there is any real danger threatening from Japan. I think the danger within our own borders is much greater than the danger which threatens us from Japan. It is a real danger. The Japanese danger is only exploited by hon. members opposite as a bogey to induce people to join up.

The hon. member must come back to the vote now and must confine himself to the vote.

I want to ask the Minister to see to it that there is adequate police protection.

During the earlier part of the session, I put a question to the Minister, asking him if he would give consideration to returned soldiers when filling appointments in the police force. To this he was good enough to reply stating that he would do so if they were suitable in terms of the regulations. I merely rise to remind him of that, and to ask him if he would be prepared to retain any possible vacancies as far as possible in the police force, so that they can be filled by returned soldiers who may wish to apply to be taken into the force, because I feel that our soldiers after some years of campaigning, after the discipline to which they have been subject, and after the experience they have had, would make ideal members of the police force, either here or elsewhere. The police force is a career where any man with fair ability and a fairly good education, has very good prospects, and I am quite satisfied that our men who are serving up North now would make admirable recruits. They would be well trained and disciplined and physically fit, and I suppose one may take it for granted that the service they have given us now is sufficient proof that they will be loyal in the discharge of their duties, and the time may come when it may be considered desirable to increase the number of our police in the Union. That, I think, many will agree is perhaps a step which is somewhat overdue. We can do with many more police in this country, and I hope that when the war is over and the soldiers return from the North, if they so desire, they will be given an opportunity of joining the force. I even go so far as to say that they should be given preference over anyone else, because anyone who is fit for the force today is equally fit to be on active service, and that is where they should be at present. I hope the Minister will give consideration to this.

When my time expired I was discussing the meeting which had been held here at Stalplein. I don’t want to say any more about that. The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) spoke of the Communistic danger, but in that connection I want to know what the Minister is going to do about these meetings that are continually being held here. Next Wednesday afternoon at 12 o’clock another Communistic meeting is to be held at Stalplein. Are the police going to take any steps to prevent that meeting? The Minister always tells us that he wants to protect his police. Now I want to know what protection was afforded to constable J. C. Terblanche. On the 3rd March I asked the Minister this question:—

1. (1) Whether a constable named Johan C. Terblanche was charged in the Magistrate’s Court at Newlands, Johannesburg; if so,
2. (2) What were (a) the charges brought against him, b) the finding of the Court, and (c) the punishment imposed?
3. (3) Whether he is still in the Service; if not.
4. (4) (a) Whether he has been arrested or interned; if so, how soon after his discharge by the court; (b) Whether the charge against him, if any, has been communicated to him: if not (c) What is the charge: and
5. (5) Whether he will immediately appoint a Commission to enquire into the case of Terblanche; if not, why not?

To this the Minister replied:—

1. (1) Yes.
2. (2) (a) Contravening Police Regulation 38 (49), i.e., conduct to the prejudice of good order of the Police Force; (b) guilty; (c) reprimanded.
3. (3) No.
4. (4) (a) Detained in terms of Proclamation No. 232 of 1941, (b) and (c) He has not yet been charged.
5. (5) No. There is no justification for such a step.

In his reply the Minister says that this man was found guilty. He should go a little deeper into that question. This man was found not guilty. In his further reply to the question when the man was arrested again, after his discharge in court, the Minister says that he was detained in terms of the Proclamation. The Minister does not say when he was arrested again. He was arrested again immediately he walked out of court. Apart from what we on this side of the House say—I don’t know this man at all—I want to ask the Minister whether he does not think that the parents of this man are entitled to know why their son was found not guilty by the Court and discharged and why he was subsequently re-arrested and interned. He is no longer in the Service now. How can the Minister in a case of this kind say that an enquiry is not justified without his giving us full details in reply to the question which I asked about this man being re-arrested. The man was found not guilty and discharged. Surely there is a great difference between guilty and not guilty. And the Minister makes the case even worse by saying that the appointment of a Commission to investigate the matter is not justified. We should like to have some further information from the Minister. If we are mistaken in what we are saying, the Minister cannot blame us. He had the opportunity of answering our questions, and of giving information to the House but he failed to give us any information, and when we asked for a Commission of Enquiry he said it was not justified. Why cannot the Minister take the House into his confidence? I hope the Minister will be able to satisfy us and that he will tell us why this man was treated in this way. There is something else I want to bring to the Minister’s notice —I feel this is a matter which might perhaps be brought privately to the Minister’s notice, and as a matter of fact I have already done so but the Minister said that perhaps there was not quite enough time, and that was why he could not help us. When Parliament starts sitting a number of policemen are detailed for service in the House. They come here in the mornings before the sittings start and they have to be here the whole day long, and they are on duty all the time. I want to give the Minister credit for this, that when we adjourned over the Easter week end he wanted to give those people who were on duty here a holiday. Unfortunately these Chinese difficulties occurred at that time and these men had to assist in maintaininglaw and order. In view of the fact, however, that these policemen have to serve very long hours when the session is on, much longer hours than when they do ordinary street duty, the Minister cannot make them some special concession. Perhaps it is not necessary to give them some special financial remuneration, but perhaps he can give them a little time off so that they can get some reward in that way for the long hours they have to be on duty here. I am not asking this at the request of any particular individual. I only see them here on duty and I think they do their duty very well. Nothing wrong or unpleasant happens and I think that is largely due to the fact that they carry out their duties loyally and faithfully.

We should like to know from the Minister when and under what circumstances the police are armed, and if they are armed when they are entitled to use their arms? Perhaps it is not wise to make a statement publicly, but if it is at all possible we should like to know because the public do not know what the position is in that regard. We read reports in the Press about the police using their arms, and the public ask why, when their lives are in danger, they do not use their arms. For instance, we had those Chinese riots recently, and people ask why the police did not use their arms in a sensible and careful manner in order to maintain law and order. I remember that at Paarl a few years ago a policeman on duty was attacked by some two or three natives. One of those natives had a bag and put it over the policeman’s face, and assaulted the policeman and in the struggle which ensued the policeman used his revolver. The policeman was taken to court and he had to put up a defence to the charge that was brought against him in order to avoid punishment. He found it very difficult to get out of it, and he was eventually transferred. People would like to know what the position is. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) and the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) have both drawn attention to the dangers which exist today, and if any definite rules and regulations have been laid down I should like to know whether these rules and regulations could not at a time i like the present be somewhat relaxed—could not the police be given greater freedom and at the same time be allowed to use their revolvers perhaps with due caution.

The Auditor-General in his report under the heading “Police,” states that a coloured man was wrongly arrested and was subsequently released, and that he had to be paid compensation. Now I want to ask the Minister why compensation is not paid to all the Europeans who have been arrested during recent months, and who were subsequently released without a charge having been lodged against them and without their ever having been tried. They have been paid nothing, but this coloured man was paid compensation. It is quite right that if a man is arrested and he is not guilty he should be paid compensation, but we strongly protest against white men being arbitrarily arrested, and when it is found that there is no case against them, that they are released without any compensation while a coloured man does get compensation. Why this discrimination? In regard to the points raised by the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Hugo) I know of an instance where the police were defied and challenged, where they were in actual danger of their lives; yet if in a case of that kind the police used their revolvers to defend their lives they are suspended, an enquiry is held and even if they are found not guilty, in all probability they are transferred. On the other hand, we have an instance such as that where the police fired at a motor car, as happened at Rouxville. The Minister says that compensation was paid in that case. It seems that in some instances the police are encouraged to shoot but in other cases where they have to do their duty, where they are in danger of their lives they dare not use their revolvers. We want to know whether two distinct instructions have been issued to the police. In some instances they are not allowed to use their revolvers, but where white Afrikaners are concerned they are apparently to shoot as they like. If I am out with my motor car at night and somebody tries to stop me and that somebody is not in uniform I am not going to stop. I don’t know whether he wants to rob me, or what he wants. If I drive on, what right have the police then to fire at me? And now the Minister comes here and tells me that there were masked people in the car. Even that does not give the police the right to shoot, unless they know that one of the people in the car is guilty of some offence. Here we have an instance of the police having fired at a farmer, and I want to know from the Minister whether the action of these two detectives has been investigated? We also want to know whether the Minister will give instructions that the police are not allowed to fire in such an indiscriminate manner? If things are allowed to go on like that our lives are in danger. It really looks as if the police are encouraged and instigated to fire at Afrikaners. We should remember that there are quite a number among the police who are hostile to the Afrikaners, and if they are given the right to shoot like that, then they can shoot anybody they like. We are fully entitled to ask the Minister to put a stop to that condition of affairs. Here we have an instance of compensation having been paid to a coloured man who was wrongly arrested. We want to know from the Minister whether he is going to pay compensation to the white Afrikaner who was put in gaol, against whom there was no case, and who was eventually released, and if not, why not?

To begin with I want to deal with the question of the finger prints which was raised by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie). Those finger prints were taken not because there was any suspicion against the children, but they were taken, as I understand, at the request of the principal of the school to prove that the children had nothing to do with it. Those prints were destroyed immediately afterwards.

The principal stated that he had protested against the finger prints being taken.

I understand that the prints were taken at his request to prove that the children were not guilty. The impressions were thereupon taken but were subsequently destroyed. Now in regard to this question of the purchase of Ford Cars I can say that the arrangement was made as a result of an agreement with the company itself. It does not cost the Government any more. The police headquarters are in Pretoria and it is better to buy the cars locally. We cannot go all round the country buying cars. An agreement was entered into with the company and it was a good agreement for the Department.

That is not what the Auditor-General says in his report.

The Select Committee on Public Accounts enquired into that matter and it justified the department’s actions. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) spoke of Mr. Terblanche who was arrested and subsequently discharged. He says that I was wrong in what I said and that Mr. Terblanche was not guilty. Perhaps I should tell him the exact words that were used: “He was cautioned and discharged.” Well, it means that judgment was given against him. It means a conviction in terms of the Law. I don’t want to go into that matter any further. He was subsequently interned in consequence of what happened, but that is a matter coming under a different department and I do not propose going into it. The hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Hugo) and the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) and the hon. member for Mossel Bay, too, spoke about those meetings which are being held. I want to tell them that a very careful watch is being kept of anything that may be subversive. If the law is broken those people will be taken to court. It is not in the public interest to tell the Committee what steps are actually taken, but let me tell hon. members this, that I can assure them that a very careful watch is being kept over these things. I shall come back to the question of the police raised by the hon. member for Bloemfontein District (Mr. Haywood) later on.

I am very glad that this matter was raised by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). It is a very important matter. I may inform him that on the whole, apart from the subversive crime, sabotage, etc., crime, if anything, is below normal and not over normal. You get a wave, and I admit there has been a wave, but I am pleased to inform him that we have been able to apprehend the gang consisting of two Europeans, two Natives and a Chinaman and so far 21 cases have been traced to them, and probably others will also be traced to them. As regards the shooting of Father Hill, a native has been arrested. I may also say in regard to other points raised that the Commissioner has taken very drastic steps and he is developing an extremely efficient organisation everywhere. He is working in conjunction with the Civil Guards in Johannesburg. There will be close co-operation. The Commissioner is taking steps to see that these bodies are used in the most effective manner possible, and I think they will be capable of dealing with the position. The hon. member was quite right in drawing attention to the position, and it must certainly be investigated very fully; at the same time we are taking steps to cope with any emergency that may occur. As far as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth is concerned, I can assure him that I agree with him in regard to returned soldiers being employed in the Police Force. Very many places are being kept for them and those who are willing to sign up will find no difficulties in finding vacancies in the Police Force.

*I do not want to initiate a debate about the police again. In regard to the question of the use of firearms by the police, hon. members one moment complain that the police shoot too soon, and the next moment they complain that they do not shoot soon enough.

In some cases where they should shoot they do not shoot, and in other cases where they should not shoot they shoot too soon

No special orders have been given. The Regulations and the law which have always been in force are still in force today.

Has no circular been issued?

No, no circular has been issued. The regulations which have always existed are still in force and the law which has always been there is still in force. If a policeman shoots, an enquiry is held in terms of the regulations to determine whether his action was justified or not. A policeman has the right to defend himself in terms of the regulations and in terms of the law, and he also has the right as an ordinary citizen of the country, if his life is in danger, to use all reasonable means to defend himself against that danger. The regulations, the law, and our Common Law, are quite clear on that point. The matter is also dealt with in our Common Law. But the fact is that every individual case is investigated. No special judicial enquiry is asked for in every case, but an investigation is made in every instance.

By whom?

By the Department. If anything is not in order the matter is handed over to the AttorneyGeneral. It is the duty of the State to protect its police. On the other hand it is desirable wherever shooting does occur for the matter to be immediately enquired into by the Department. In regard to the police clothing there is no increase on the Estimates because we have purchased large quantities of clothing in advance. Large numbers of our Police Force are up North. We should remember also that a cost of living allowance is paid. This matter is considered from time to time.

I don’t want to start a discussion, but I would like to have some information from the Minister of Agriculture. An amount of money is asked for here for a subsidy for the purchase of fertiliser. Fertiliser is more expensive and as the amount of the subsidy is the same as last year it means that less fertiliser will be bought.

We are dealing here with a subsidy of £1 on every ton of fertiliser bought by the farmers, which does not mean that less fertiliser will be bought.

I wish to deal with the reply which the Minister of Railways gave to the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) in regard to the incident connected with Mr. Klopper. The question was whether Mr. Klopper was dismissed and if so, why? The Minister’s reply was “Yes, because of misconduct”. The next question was: Whether he had been found guilty, yes or no? The reply was that on appeal the penalty had been amended and he was paid for the full period of his absence from service. The Minister stated here that Mr. Klopper had been guilty of misconduct and that he was dismissed and that his penalty had subsequently been amended. He was taken back into the Service. Now I want to know from the Minister whether it is not a fact that Mr. Klopper won his appeal; and that being so, we cannot say that he had been guilty of misconduct. The Railway Board absolved him and the Minister got the worst of it, and it does not become the Minister now to say that he had been guilty of misconduct. The Minister creates the impression that this official was guilty of misconduct, that his punishment was subsequently changed, that he was taken back into the Service, but that he was partly punished. I want the Minister to alter this. Some time ago I raised the question of Mr. Elmer in this House and I said that a certain Ballantyne who was dissatisfied that Elmer had been promoted was the cause of Elmer having got into trouble and of Elmer being interned. I got into touch with the Department and I accept what the Department has told me that Mr. Ballantyne had nothing to do with the matter. I don’t want to say anything about Mr. Ballantyne which is not in accordance with fact. It appears that he had nothing to do with the matter. I made the charge against him on the basis of information which I had received, and it now turns out that that information was not correct. I further want to say this: that there must be something radically wrong in the Railway Administration if two prominent officials are discharged from the Service and have to be taken back afterwards. These people were not subordinate officials. Both Mr. Elmer and Mr. Klopper are highly placed officials in the Railway Administration. Mr. Elmer was arrested and interned. He was released and after that he was again arrested by the Railway Police. He was again interned and he was again released and the Railways thereupon dismissed him. I want an explanation from the Minister why the Railways took up such a vindictive attitude towards Elmer. Elmer went to court and he had to be paid £2,000 compensation and he had to be taken back into the Service. Which official is responsible for Mr. Elmer’s dismissal? There must be something wrong with the Administration if a thing like that is allowed to happen. In Mr. Klopper’s case, too, we are dealing with a prominent official who has had many years of service. He was also dismissed. It was only as a result of his appeal to the Railway Board that he was taken back into the Railway Service. It again goes to show that there must be something radically wrong with the Railway Administration if such highly placed officials are dismissed and have to be re-employed in this fashion. I want to know from the Minister whether Mr. Klopper’s expenses were paid. He had to come here from SouthWest Africa and he had to go back again and I want to know whether the Railway Department paid for his expenses? Now I want to touch on another matter. The Railways are there in the first place to serve the country, and I fail to understand why in critical times like the present the Minister curtails our Railway traffic. We know that a large proportion of our passenger traffic during the last few years had been carried on by motor cars. Petrol is being rationed today and motor car tyres are unobtainable, with the result that the public are forced to make greater use of the trains. At a critical time like the present, when people are compelled to use the trains, the Minister steps in and curtails our Railway service. It seems to me that the Minister is not serving the interests of the public, but that all he is out for is to promote our war effort. If we go to the Railway offices to book seats on the trains we find long queues of people waiting. Members of Parliament have to book their seats long in advance if they want to get away from Cape Town. People who want to travel from Worcester to Cape Town sometimes have to put off their journey; there are not enough passenger trains, and I want to ask the Minister why he cannot have more trains running, and why he is now curtailing the existing passenger traffic? There is no shortage so far as coal is concerned. The coal traffic is expanding, so I want to know whether that is perhaps the reason why the Minister is curtailing the other traffic. The Minister stated on a previous occasion that at a time like this the Railways did not want to have increases in the number of passengers travelling. They did not want the traffic to increase, but what is the real reason for the curtailment of our services? We know that the Railway traffic over the Railways has increased in a most astounding manner. It has practically doubled itself. It is done in order to assist the war effort and I say that it is wrong, because surely the primary object of the Railways is to serve the interests of the country. Coal is being carried over the Railways but the products of the farmers are not carried, and I want to know from the Minister whether instructions have been given that preference is to be accorded to the carriage of coal so that the products of the farmers have to stay behind? I know of instances where farmers have not been able to secure trucks for the carriage of their stuff. Now, the Minister also comes and abolishes excursion rates. The object, we are told, is to reduce the number of passengers over the Railways, because the Minister does not want so many passengers to travel. Why not? As against that he is granting liberal concessions for the carriage of soldiers. The soldiers travel at half price, and they get meals for 2/which other people have to pay 3/6d. for. War materials are carried at two thirds of the ordinary rates. This goes to show that in those particular respects the Minister wants more traffic. But so far as the public are concerned the traffic is curtailed. If soldiers are on leave their tickets cost them 70% of the ordinary rates. They are given a concession of 30% but the ordinary public cannot even get these concessions once a year. These things fall very heavily on that section of the public which wants to travel to the coast once every year. [Time limit].

I again want to bring Mr. Klopper’s case to the Minister’s notice. The Minister perhaps does not realise the impression the English word for “wangedrag” (misconduct) makes on the minds of the general public. It perhaps gives a different impression to what the Minister intended. On two occasions I put supplementary questions to his answers in order to induce the Minister to withdraw that word. Unfortunately the Minister did not realise what I meant. For the sake of fairness and equity to Mr. Klopper, I want to ask him to say what the exact position is and to remove that impression. Let me revert to the questions I asked the Minister. I don’t want to accuse him of deliberately having given us wrong information. I do not intend doing so, and I hope the Minister has not deliberately given us wrong information, but the Minister dealt in a most peculiar manner with my quetsions—he cannot get away from that. I asked him whether the passengers in the first and second reserved classes, that is the coloured people and the natives, are attended to by white stewards. The Minister replied that the serving of nonEuropean passengers was a matter left to the discretion of the Chief Steward. It depended on how many passengers there were and on the number of catering staff available. Where possible it was done. It used to be he custom for white stewards to attend to nonEuropean passengers in the first and second class reserved coaches. I am pleased I put that question. I put that question on the 20th February, and the position was changed as from the 21st February, and European stewards no longer have to attend to nonEuropean passengers in those coaches. I am pleased the Minister has done this, but we want to go still further. On that same date I asked the Minister whether cutlery and crockery used by Europeans was also used by natives travelling in first and second class reserved coaches. The Minister’s reply was that they did not use the same cutlery and crockery. My information is that the Minister is absolutely wrong, and that the same table appointments are used in both cases. In this country we have so far always distinguished between Europeans and nonEuropeans, and I hope that condition will prevail, and I therefore ask the Minister to see to it that so far as table appointments are concerned the crockery and cutlery used by Europeans is not used by non-Europeans as well. I want to tell the Minister that we appreciate the fact that concessions have been granted in regard to European stewards no longer having to attend to non-Europeans. I happen to have noticed myself in one case that a non-European soldier got into the dining saloon and said to a European steward: “Don’t you know your duty? What is wrong with me; why cannot I be served at the same time?” If he had hit that soldier the Minister of Justice would have interfered and if somebody else had hit this coloured man the Emergency Regulations would have been applied because the nonEuropean was in uniform. Anyhow I am pleased that these young Afrikaners who are stewards today no longer have to attend to the non-Europeans. There is another matter to which I think the Minister should give his attention. We have always done our utmost to try and maintain peace in the Railway Service. Whenever there has been a semblance of politics entering into the Railway Service, even if it was only a semblance, steps were immediately taken to remove it. And if such cases did occur and members from any side of the House approached the Minister, steps were immediately take to prevent politics being dragged into the Railway Service. In the Railway Service, too, unfortunately, there is a difference of opinion today about the war. I hope that the condition of affairs which is beginning to develop today in die Railways is not attributable to the new Railway management which we have, but there undobutedly are certain things which are wrong. As I have already said, there is a differnece of opinion in the Railway Service too. There are people who feel that in the interest of South Africa we should not take part in this war; others, again, feel that we should take part in this war. I am not going into the merits of the case at this juncture but surely every Railway official, whatever his feelings may be, is entitled to have his own opinion. Now, we find, as appears from a question which I asked the Minister, that the General Manager and the Assistant General Manager of Railways today hold military ranks. The Minister told us that respectively they occupied the ranks of Brigadier and Major, but without extra remuneration. What is the idea of conferring military rank on the General Manager of Railways and on the Assistant General Manager, even if they don’t get extra pay for it? I don’t know whether these two people have any military knowledge whatever, but why should they be given military rank? There can be only one object, and that is also to militarise our Railways. We know that in their military capacity in war time they are even superior to the Minister. A military order is something higher than an order from a civilian, and now we have these two people with military ranks. They don’t get any remuneration for it, so there is no suggestion of the Minister rendering them any special favour of a financial nature, but what on earth is the object of giving them military rank? The idea must be that by holding that miltary rank they will be able to exercise influence on the Railway workers who for their promotion depend on the management. The management in any business, not only in the Railway Service but anywhere, has the promotion of people in its hands. [Time limit.]

There are a few points which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister of Railways. In the first place, I want to say something in connection with the presence of coloured people and natives on our stations. Why should the travelling public suffer so much inconvenience because coloured people, especially children, are allowed to be on the stations when the trains arrive? I had this experience when my husband was here recently. When he put out his head at Paarl station, a young Cape boy smacked him on the nose, causing the blood to run profusely. I myself had this experience at Riversdale. Everywhere along the stations we get these young Cape boys asking for pennies. If one gives them nothing—in some cases kaffirs also ask for food—they call you the worst names imaginable. I had this experience that they even look in at the windows and spit at one. I think that police should be appointed at the stations, even though it be coloured policemen or native policemen, to keep these youngsters away from the stations. There is no reason for them to be there unless they want to take the train. They only come there to be a nuisance to other people or to play about and cause trouble. Then another point. At the Rand the Jeppe station is built in a such a way that there is no necessity for us to use the same steps as the natives in going down to the station. The natives go up on the one side and the Europeans on the other side. But if the steps come up from the eastern side and the other steps come from the western side, then the natives still walk across the path of the Europeans, with the result that when the train arrives they rush from the western side and crowd us out on the station. I think notices should be posted up warning the natives to descend by their own steps, and not to walk across the platforms where Europeans are standing. It was always a source of trouble at the old station at Jeppe, that there was only one step, but at the moment although there are two steps, we still have the trouble which I have mentioned. Then I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the Estantia station. People have asked me specially to bring this to the notice of the Minister, and I personally have also experienced this difficulty. There is no platform; the trains are high, and the other day I had to put two suit cases on top of each other and assist an old woman to climb up in that way. I personally also experienced this difficulty. The result was that my suitcases were damaged. It is impossible for any woman to get into the train at Estantia station, because the platform is too low and the train is too high. Then another question in connection with the bedding. Can the Minister not make another arrangement in connection with this matter? If I travel to East London, for example, I have to change into another train at De Aar. I use the bedding for one night, and the following night I have to get other bedding again. Assuming a family of four is travelling. That means four times 3/6d. in respect of bedding for the first night, or 14/-, and the following night it is 14/again. There are people who cannot afford this, and for whom this is too expensive. The bags in which the bedding is contained are all marked. Can arrangements not be made so that the bedding which has once been used can be brought over to the other train and used the following night? Can this not be done where the person who used the bedding makes such a request? They can put the name of the person who wants to use it the following night, on the bedding, and it can be delivered to his compartment in the evening. Then I also want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the people who provide the bedding are not honest. On the last occasion when I came here by train, I gave 5/to a coloured person just before the train arrived, in order to pay for my bedding. In any case I would have given him a tip of 6d., but he never again put in an appearance with the l/6d. which I had to get back. He knew very well that there was only a minute left, and he simply pocketed the money. Then there is another little experience at De Aar station which I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister. I detrained there in order to visit certain people. I delivered my baggage to the porter. He then told me that I would have to make arrangements with another porter, because he would only remain for an hour before being relieved. I then paid the first one 1/and I paid the second one 1/-. When I said that I would be away for three hours, the second porter said that he was being relieved after two hours, and that I would have to get another porter to look after my baggage during the third hour. In respect of the three hours, I therefore paid 3/to three different porters. I do not think that is right. I do not know whether the porters relieve each other in this way, but if that is not the case then they are not honest. This type of thing should not take place. With regard to the new type of meals on the trains, I want to tell the Minister that there is great disappointment. The other day there were a few officers on the train who had returned from the North. They had to leave the table still feeling hungry. I myself was hungry. I am not a big eater, even though it may appear so, but I must say that all the officers complained and said that it seemed that in future they would have to bring their own food. They had to get off at the station in order to buy fruit in order to satisfy their hunger. A person, an Englishman in the compartment next to mine, said “If Sturrock thinks that in future he will get our votes, he will be very disappointed, because he need not think that we will tolerate starvation.” The Minister is saving on stewards; now he is also saving on food. The position is very unsatisfactory. What did we get? Two spoonfuls of soup. The one spoonful one could scoop out; the other was on the edge of the plate and one could not get at it. The bread was sour and mouldy. Then we got a small piece of fish. I saw some of the men eat it in one mouthful. I got two bites, but they were small bites. In the third place we got a small slice of roast mutton or corned beef, with half a baked potato and a small piece of pumpkin with the mutton, or a little salad with the corned beef. It is not sufficient to satisfy the hunger of a child of three years. Thereafter we got a small helping of stewed fruit with custard over it, and then coffee. One could also get a few biscuits and a small piece of cheese, so small that you are ashamed to take the whole piece. You therefore leave a small piece. I believe that a child of six years would not have got enough from the whole meal. I think this is economy in the wrong direction. When I go back I shall take my own food along. [Time limit.]

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a matter which I notice has been referred to in the newspapers. I notice that it is the intention of the Minister and of the Railway authorities to curtail the long distance travelling facilities of soldiers to once every six months instead of once every four months. I do not know whether the report is correct, whether it is the Minister’s intention to give effect to that, but I understand that it is likely to be done. I want to pay a tribute to the Railways for the way they are carrying on under present conditions and for the amount of traffic they are carrying to assist the Government’s war effort. Everyone is agreed that they are deserving of such a word of tribute. And when we come to realise that it is sometimes essential to a man who has been serving his country, like our soldiers have been doing up North, to travel a distance by rail and take their holidays with those they left behind, then surely the Minister should try not to cut down these facilities to once in six months. I want to appeal to the Minister in face of the difficulties which the Railways are coping with, to see if it is not possible to maintain present conditions. I hope the Minister will do his best to see that the position is maintained.

Some time ago I put this question to the Minister, namely whether Spoorbond would be entitled to collect the subscription fees from its members on railway property, and whether the Reddingsdaad could do so, and whether money could be collected for the Governor-General’s Fund on railway premises. The Minister’s reply was that Spoorbond and the Reddingsdaad would not be allowed to do so, but that collections could be made on railway premises in respect of the Governor-General’s Fund. Now I want to ask the Minister why there should be this discrimination amongst these three. Railway officials are entitled to pay their contributions to any trade association on railway premises. Why this discrimination? On what ground does the Minister justify his attitude? What right has the Minister to prevent anyone who is a member of the Reddingsdaad Bond and who is a railway official from collecting contributions for the Reddingsdaad Fund on railway premises? Does the Minister realise what he is doing? He is insulting a large section of the Afrikaans speaking people. The Reddingsdaad Bond is no political movement; it has nothing to do with politics. Its object is to give assistance to a section of our people who require assistance, and I want to ask on what grounds the Minister is differentiating between the Reddingsdaad Fund and the support which is given to the Governor-General’s Fund? I want to ask die Minister whether he will also prevent anyone from paying contributions to the Caledonian Society or the Sons of England on railway premises. If the Minister does not do that, on what moral grounds can he justify such a differentiation between those associations and Spoorbond and the Reddingdaad Bond? This is nothing but discrimination, and it clashes with all feelings of justice and fairness on the part of the Minister towards the officials. The Minister’s reply to the question which was put to him was framed in such a way that, even according to that reply, it is not permissible to collect for the Reddingsdaad Fund or to get contributions for Spoorbond in the houses which officials lease from the Railway Administration. Even there they may not pay membership fees, because they are on Administration property. What right has the Minister to do that? I can give the Minister the assurance that the railway officials are deeply aggrieved at the attitude which the Minister has latterly adopted. It clashes with any feeling of justice and fairness. We heard of articles manufactured in railway workshops with railway materials for the Governor-General’s Fund. Those people who did this were not punished. We also heard of cases where Administration officials have to sell raffle tickets on the trains for the Governor-Geenral’s Fund. I asked the Minister whether he gave instructions for them to do so. The Minister replied in the negative. Now I want to ask the Minister who the official is who gave instructions that the stewards on the trains should sell raffle tickets for the Governor-General’s Fund whilst on service? The stewards are very busy nowadays, and now they still have to walk about selling those raffle tickets. But on the other hand, an official may not give 1/for the Reddingsdaad Fund if he is on railway premises. This is an untenable position. Surely the Minister must not adopt the attitude that because he is in office he can do what he likes to the Afrikaans speaking people? We expect fairness and justice. And if there is an Afrikaans speaking Minister, we expect that he will also be fair and just towards English speaking people. I want to ask the Minister what he would think if an Afrikaans speaking Minister were to state that a member of the Caledonian Society has not the right to collect subscription fees on railway premises, but that officials will have the right to sell raffle tickets on the trains for Afrikaans purposes, for Afrikaans associations? Is that just and fair? There is another matter which, in my opinion, is serious, and which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. During a previous debate I put a question to the Minister, and he gave me certain information. I told the Minister that expenditure on rolling stock had been curtailed very considerably notwithstanding the fact that the railways are today much busier than they were in the past. Less is being spent on rolling stock. I am not talking about new acquisitions now, but of repair work to locomotives and carriages. The Auditor-General reports that rolling stock is today being used which would have been discarded in other circumstances. In other words, rolling stock is to-day being used which ought not to be running, and which would no longer have been used in normal circumstances. That is reported in the reports of the Auditor-General and in the report of the General Manager. The fact that so little repair work is being done is ascribed to the fact that the artisans of the railway workshops are engaged in manufacturing war material. For that reason they have no time to do repair work to rolling stock. I am also told that the railways are so busy that there is practically no opportunity to get carriages into the workshops for repair purposes. But in the report of the Auditor-General of 1935, which was also an excellent year, we find that more men were appointed to work in the workshops because there was so little time to bring the rolling stock into the workshops. This work had to be done more quickly, and for that reason more men were appointed. To-day that is not the case, and the repair work is being neglected.

I might just clear up one or two points at this stage, otherwise I shall have so many to deal with that I may miss some of them. I would like to make it quite clear that I do not intend in any way to use an expression in respect of Mr. Klopper which might have a meaning other than its recognised English meaning. Mr. Klopper was disciplined on a charge of breaking the emergency regulations. In the English meaning of the word—the word misconduct— it is properly used in this connection, but if that word has another meaning in Afrikaans than it signifies in English, it is not justifed in any way as far as Mr. Klopper is concerned. He was disciplined for a breach of the emergency regulations. He was found guilty ultimately on the evidence, and finally appealed to the Railway Board. The Railway Board, which is always an extremely careful and impartial body in these matters, found that although Mr. Klopper was guilty of a technical offence, the punishment meted out to him was out of all proportion to the evidence, and therefore while giving him a recorded reprimand, they reinstated him with his former emoluments in his job and paid him for the period during which he was suspended. I think if ever there has been a case which shows how excellent the railway machinery is for seeing that justice is done to railway employees, that is shown up in the Klopper case. In any ordinary undertaking a man is dismissed on the first investigation, but in the railways he is not dismissed on the first charge; he is not dismissed on the second investigation, not until he has gone to the Rail Board itself is he finally dismissed. He has never been dismissed; his service is now continuous, and that shows the excellence of our machinery. It is not correct that Mr. Klopper won his appeal. His punishment was radically reduced, and he was reinstated. I am glad that the matter of Mr. Ballantine was cleared up. Let me tell hon. members that Mr. Elmer was retired on re-organisation. He was interned twice, and on the second occasion he was interned on the strength of an affidavit made by his father.

A bad father.

The affidavit by his father was the reason for his internment, and I think subsequent investigations showed that it was unfortunate that his father had made such an affidavit against him. It is not my duty to defend the interment officers, but I do think they were entitled to assume that when a man’s father makes an accusation against him, there is some substance in it. A point was made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District (Mr. Haywood) about cutting down the passenger services for the war effort. I want to make it quite clear, so far as the war effort generally is concerned, the South African Railways and Harbours support the war policy as such. The Government’s war policy is the policy of Parliament. There is no question that the railways, even if they were not connected with the Government, are bound by the decisions of Parliament. Today it is in favour of the war, and tomorrow it may be in favour of something else. But the Government’s decision must be carried out loyally by the South African Railways—any decision taken by Parliament, and the railways must do their bit in connection with the policy, and they must do what the railways are expected to do under war conditions. They must undertake the transport of war materials and do all those things which fall to be done by a railway in times of war. This is a war declared by the constitutional machinery of the country, and therefore we have to carry out our duties in so far as the war effort is concerned. Exception was also taken to our senior officers having military titles. I would point out, however, that under our defence machinery the railways take their special place, and the general manager immediately becomes Director-General of Transport, and as such he needs a military title. He could not function in the capacity of Director-General for Transport unless he had that title, and apart from the individual, the general manager, as such, must be Director-General of Transport and he must get the title. It has always been the case. There has never been a general manager of railways who did not have the title of colonel. It is true that recently, owing to the elevation of military ranks generally, it was necessary that the general manager should be a brigadier, and a brigadier he is. In the same way our system managers must be majors. They must be majors in the matter of the docks, because it is only as majors that they can give the necessary permits. It is a bit unfair to make these imputations which have been made. These gentlemen are performing a very essential part of the war work.

Our charge is that they are doing too much, but in the wrong direction.

Rather sneering references have been made to them, but the point is that they are performing an essential function in the war machinery of our country, and it is only because of that that they carry those titles. I would like to tell the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) this. I had experience recently in connection with a jam that occurred on the Carnarvon line owing to the movement of large flocks of sheep on account of the drought. Special steps were immediately taken on that line in this time of emergency. We opened up four special sidings to take those sheep in. We were moving 10,000 sheep a day, and we had only been moving them for a day or two when we ran short of sheep. We were not only oble to do what the farmers needed in that time of emergency, but we were able to do more than they needed. We actually overtook them, and ultimately we had to wait for the sheep to come along. That shows that we are not sacrificing anything in that direction. It is true that farmers have complained about getting things away to the market. We have had complaints from certain districts that they are not getting their timber away. But the railways in those cases satisfied themselves that the markets to which those things were consigned were overstocked. The railways make sure that the goods they accept will be off-loaded immediately. The farmers do not ultimately lose, because when there is a delay it is very slight, and in those cases where things have been held up for a day or two, that was done because the markets to which those things were to go were already overstocked, so that there was no urgent reason for sending the goods immediately. In peace time we can still despatch all consignments immediately, but we cannot afford to do it today. With regard to the question of coal preference, there is no preference for coal. We make a special effort if a convoy comes in and needs coal, to get that coal to the port, but on the whole the coal traffic probably interferes less with other traffic than any business, because the coal traffic is largely carried in trucks that are only suitable for the conveyance of coal. With regard to the question of excursions, I know that excursions have been stopped, because it is essential if we are going to deal with the food situation in this country, if we are going to deal with the hundred and one essential things that the country as a whole needs, it is essential that passenger traffic be cut down, and it is no use trying to cut it down unless you abolish excursions. Whilst on the one hand I am being accused of giving everything to the soldier, I am being told by others that I am not generous enough to soldiers. We reduced soldier traffic too; the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden) has pointed that out for six months. Well, it is once more the necessities of the case that make it necessary for us to do that. We have no choice but to do so, if we are to keep running with the enormously increased turnover which the railways are facing. With regard to cutlery and crockery which the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) raised, there is different cutlery and crockery. The non-Europeans’ crockery is white with a green band and the European is white—or vice versa—I forget which. The cutlery is different and normally the same cutlery and crockery are not used, but let me be fair and say that we are frequently in a jam. It often happens that we are very short of cutlery and short of crockery, and I would not give an affidavit that there is never any overlapping, but that is the general policy of the railways, to keep these things separate, and I think the hon. member can accept that. Now, the question of coloured people being served by Europeans is a matter which we have in hand, as the hon. member knows. We are trying to make improvements there, and I should like hon. members opposite to be a little reasonable about these matters. We have the natives here and we have the coloureds here, and they have to travel, and unless we are going to run the trains with two dining saloons and everything in duplicate the position will become impossible …

You can use the same people you use now in the third class.

That is the line we are working on. The hon. member for Vrededorp (Mrs. Badenhorst) objects to natives and coloured people on railway platforms. We do try as far as we can to have all the necessary supervision to keep their people in their own part of the station, to prevent them using the subways and other parts, and as far as we can do that we do do it. If there are individual cases where anyone finds that the supervision is inadequate we shall be glad to have it reported to us to see if we cannot tighten things up. In regard to the question of leaving luggage with porters, I do not know why the hon. member leaves her luggage with porters. The railways provide cloakrooms, and if hon. members prefer to tip three porters rather than pay the nominal charge for our cloakrooms that is something which we can hardly be held responsible for. But I would suggest to the hon. member that if she has luggage to be left she should leave it at the cloakroom and not with the porter, and as a matter of fact it is quite wrong for porters to store luggage for passengers. In regard to the two railway stations mentioned by the hon. member I shall have the matter looked into and see if improvements can be effected. Now I come to the question of beds being changed from the one train to another. I would remind the hon. member that the cost of our bedding service in this country is extremely reasonable. And it can only be so reasonable on the 3s. level if it is a straight through service. Still I am inclined to sympathise with the point of view that there is something to be said, even if you cannot keep it at the 3s. level, where people have to change over into two or three trains. I shall ask the General Manager to look into that aspect of the question.

It used to be 2s. 6d.

3s. is a very reasonable price for the use of a bed. We find as a matter of fact that we make no profit out of our bedding service after washing and depreciation is taken into consideration—no profit worth speaking about. I think that on the whole the charge is very fair, but if the journey is broken it may be rather hard to have to pay 3s. two or three times over. Of course there are dishonest railway employees. We have 75,000 Europeans and 50,000 non-Europeans, and it would be a miracle if there were no dishonest men among that number. I am sorry the hon. member lost her 1s. 6d., but let me also tell the hon. member that she could buy her bedding tickets at the railway office before starting. If she did that she would not only not lose her change but she would save 6d. on the cost of her bed. I therefore suggest to her that in future she should buy her ticket at the railway station before she starts.

Being a Scotsman you would say that.

I am sorry the criticisms about the meals are so trenchant, and I can sympathise with the hon. member for Vrededorp if she is a good railway traveller. I am a good railway traveller and I eat well on the train myself, but I should like to tell her that we have had quite a number of complaints about the portions being a little bit small, and we have taken steps to see if these cannot be increased. I hope there will be an improvement in respect of the amount of food supplied. I may say so far as the fish course is concerned there is a difficulty sometimes. Fish is extremely scarce in this country at the moment and it is difficult to get it at some places at the moment, and therefore we may be obliged to cut the portions somewhat small, but that does not apply to the soup, and if the fish is reduced, perhaps they can give bigger portions of something else.

Put more water in the soup.

We do save on staff to make it clear that in fact we are saving food. It is the saving of staff that we are concerned with, and I should like to make it clear that in face we are saving almost 25 per cent. of the staff under the new system, and almost 25 per cent. in time, but it is true it is a new system and here and there the staff have not got the hang of it yet, and you may have had experience where a new staff starts it for the first time, and there may be hitches, but I ask hon. members to have a little patience and they will find that it will work well.

Are you correct in saying that you save time?

Well, the tests show that you save nearly a quarter of an hour in the hour. But it may be that in the first preliminary trials when the staff was not accustomed to it it did not work well—the staff for a start may not have known how to handle it, but it is working well now and the tests have shown that we are actually saving time. On the trip which we took to Bellville we had that experience too. I tried it out myself. Now, in regard to the question of Spoorbond and the Reddingsdaadbond not getting stop orders like the Governor-General’s Fund. The Governor-General’s Fund originally was called the Mayor’s Fund and then it was not allowed on railway premises. We do not allow collections for these funds—we do not allow collections on railway premises for anything. We find that system hopelessly abused if we allow people to come over the railway premises for these things—we find people coming through for everything, badgering the staff, so we have laid it down that no collections are allowed on railway premises. But the Governor-General’s Fund became a National Fund, and a Government Fund, and as such it is allowed, and if the Reddingsdaad fund can be put on the same basis it will also be allowed. But the position is that the Governor-General’s Fund escapes the one regulation which we have made. So far as raffles are concerned they have been stopped. I understand that they were extremely successful in raising funds, but when I heard about them and saw the dangers of things of this sort on a public service I suggested that they should be stopped, and they were stopped. In regard to the matter of rolling stock I want to emphasise this, that the railway engineers, the civil engineers, and the chief mechanical engineers have to give certificates every year to the Governor-General stating that the rolling stock and other stock, and the permanent way and so on, are in good and proper condition and well maintained, and it is their responsibility, they are the best judges, and for that reason we accept their certificate and these certificates are still forthcoming.

The Minister need not have teased me about the 3s. which I paid at De Aar. I want to point out to him that the fault was not mine; the fault lay with the Railway officials. A porter told me that the cloak room would be closed until 8.15. It is not my fault therefore. I spoke of the young Cape boys at the stations, of the young Cape boy who smacked my husband in the face, and of the boys who spit in one’s face if one does not want to give them anything. They only come to the station to cause mischief, and I should like to see the police take steps in order to keep them away from the stations. There are hundreds of them, and there is no reason for them to be at the stations. If they were travellers, then it would be a different matter. But they only go there in order to cause mischief. Then there is another matter. On the 1st March I had to wait for a train at the station. The train was due to arrive at 3 o’clock, according to the information given to me when I made enquiries. In reality the train did not arrive before 6 o’clock. From Johannesburg to Cape Town the train takes 45½ hours. This train was on the road for 45½ hours, and, in addition to that, the train still had to wait for 45 minutes outside the station before it could pull in. The other day we stood outside the station for more than half an hour before we could pull in. I now want to ask the Minister whether it is necessary for trains to stand so long outside the stations before they can pull in? Is it necessary for trains to take 45½ hours from Johannesburg? It is true this train came through the Free State, but it has never before taken as long as it did on that occasion. There was unnecessary delay at the station. I am glad to hear that the Minister will go into the question of food. I said that I was not speaking for myself, but on behalf of the troops who come from the North. They told me that they got sufficient tinned food up North, and they thought that when they return to this country hey will get decent food on the trains. I was sorry for those people. Then I also want to ask the Minister this: He did not reply to me in regard to the station at Estantia. This is a station near Breyten on the Ermelo side. It is simply impossible for women to get on to the train there. They have to stand on a box in order to get on to the train. I find it difficult to do so, and it must be even more difficult for women who are older than I am. It is extremely inconvenient for them, and I hope the Minister will go into this.

There are two points I should like to be enlightened on. The one is in regard to the very interesting and very promising thing it is intended to do at Kaalfontein. I understand the Minister is starting on the building of a big training school there, and I really feel that I must congratulate him on the good sense he has shown in having picked on Kaalfontein, because from the health point of view it is a very excellent place, in addition to which it is well situated. I understand it is his intention to use prisoners of war, and particularly Italian prisoners of war, to do the work. A good many buildings have already been erected there for the housing of these prisoners of war. Now there is only one thing I want to ask the Minister, namely, when he proposes starting on this big job— in other words, when will the prisoners of war be arriving there? In the meantime may I tell the Minister that I very much appreciate his business sense in starting a very useful institution of that nature at Kaalfontein. Now, there is another matter which I have been reading the paper about —this is a matter on which, so far as I know, no special information has been vouchsafed to the House. I am referring to the Cape Town Docks. I see in the Press that the British Government will contribute £750,000 towards the cost of the proposed new £2,100,000 graving dock at Cape Town. Let me just read what the paper says—

Hear, hear.

Yes, my friend says “Hear, hear”, and I think we all very much appreciate the gesture of the British Government in offering this £750,000. I take it that this Press statement is a true statement, but what I do not see is this: here we have to build a graving dock; the intention is that we shall be able to repair ships using Cape Town as a harbour. Now either of the two—we want a big graving dock or we don’t. If we want it we have to build it, and to build it properly and pay for it. If we don’t want it we don’t build it. Now, sir, I do appreciate that the British Government is offering us three quarters of a million, but what I cannot appreciate is our accepting that gift. Why should we accept it? It is our graving dock. I understand that after it is ready the ships making use of the dock will have to pay the ordinary dues. Now the question arises in my mind whether that money will have to go back to England. No, it will not, because I understand that England will give us the money. Then why should we get the money from England if we can do it ourselves? It can only mean that in return we shall undertake certain responsibilities. I have no details, of course; I only know what appears in the papers.

The details are in the Supplementary Estimates on your desk.

Well, I hope the Minister will tell us what his reasons are for accepting this £750,000. I say that while we thank England very much for her kindness, and while we appreciate very much that she wants a place here in Cape Town Harbour for the biggest ships that she has on the seas, other ships, after the war, say American ships or even German or Italian ships, will want to make use of that big graving dock, and I want to know whether they will be allowed to use it. Certainly they will. I cannot for the life of me see that it is a reasonable thing for us to accept this free gift from England, and therefore I say that we should not do it. Now, sir, I have another newspaper cutting here—I am sorry having to delve into newspaper files. This is a report of a speech which the Minister made to Railwaymen, and that speech is very interesting, very interesting, indeed, because the Minister was speaking of politicians on that occasion.

Which he knows all about.

Does he? I do not know whether he has been reported correctly. If he has not been, I hope he will interrupt me at once and tell me. But, anyhow, the Minister was reported as having said this—

A very wise thing to say and a very wise thing to do, and I hope he will succeed, but, sir, I am afraid he will find’ it a very difficult job. But then the Hon. the Minister continues, and this is also very interesting—

And there was laughter and applause when he said that.

That is Scotch.

I don’t know whether it is Scotch, but it is true.

Everything Scotch is good.

I quite appreciate that the Minister may be an ardent student of Plato, and we know that Plato says “Know thyself”. I am sure the Minister knows himself, but, on the other hand, may I ask the Minister this: When he makes such a statement he is inclined to give things away a bit—may I know when he says that politicians are out for themselves, whether he is becoming a follower of the New Order? Because we know that the New Order has started its career—I nearly said its distinguished career —by denouncing politicians, and I am just wondering whether the Minister’s words must be regarded as a portent to show us that he is inclined towards the creed preached by these hon. members on my right who are led by the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow).

The claims made earlier from the Opposition side about Europeans serving non-Europeans on the Railways are most interesting. Now, I want to put forward this point of view. I want to put forward the point of view of the African traveller on the Railways. There are quite a number who are men of some position, and they have had some very unfortunate experiences recently in the kind of service they get. I don’t want to go into this, except merely to touch on the matter. The cases I have in mind have already been brought to the Minister’s attention. We know that representations have been made about an African medical doctor from Johannesburg having the greatest difficulty in getting served. There was another case of a member of the Native Representative Council, a statutory body, who also had similar difficulties. As I say, I don’t want to go into these matters because representations have been made to the Minister. Now, let me say that the attitude of the African is this: “We don’t want to be served by European stewards, we already have our own part in the train. We want our own people there to serve us. We want our own bedding boys, and our own stewards.” I submit that that is a perfectly reasonable demand. Hon. members here object to Europeans doing these jobs for non-Europeans. Very well, my answer is: “Let native workers be appointed to do this work.” Let us have our own people appointed to these jobs. The present situation is this. Normally speaking, on the Railways the natives cannot get beyond the rank of a labourer at 5s. 6d. per day at the outside —and the vast majority don’t get that. So I hope the Minister will meet the complaints made from this side of the House, and I hope he will appoint native people as stewards, and so on to wait on the native travellers on the railways, but I hope he will pay them a rate of wages which bears some relation to what a steward’s wage should be. That brings me to the second topic on which I want to say a word or two to the Minister, even at this late stage of the session. Earlier in the session I put before him, as I am afraid I always have to do every session, a long list of grumbles in relation to the African and coloured staff on the railways. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) also raised these matters, and the Minister said he had to be careful to see that his skin did not get too thick with all these constant complaints. Well, sir, we have always prefaced our remarks by emphasising that since the present Minister of Railways has held his portfolio the position of non-Euroepans on the railways has definitely shown some improvement. We have always made that admission. There was a 3d. per day rise in wages last year. And previous to that there were other increases. I think I am right in saying that no labourer, except on the swell section of the line, who gets a cash wage, gets less than 2s.’ 3d. per day plus the cost of living allowance. I know that the position has been improved from what it was previously, but I want to emphasise that the African rate of wage is still a very low one. This year, with a surplus of over £6,000,000, we did feel that something more could have been done for the non-European workers. The Minister knows what our views are in this connection, because we have proclaimed these views on so many occasions: the Government should not pay its non-European workers less than what private employers have to pay their workers under the Wage Board Determinations. If the present average wage of unskilled African workers on the railways is about 2s. 6d. to 3s. per day, and if you increase that average to 5s. per day, assuming there are 50,000 workers on the railways, and there are 300 working days in the year, that would cost the country something less than £2,00,000—less than one-third of the surplus which has been distributed. We know how much of that surplus has been put to reduction of interest-bearing capital. All these reductions and all these appropriations, I am sure, represent sound finance, but I want to say this again, that before the Minister starts stabilising the position of the railways he must put his house in order, and have a position which it is worth stabilising, and at present these rates of wages are not worth stabilising. I know it is too late for the Minister to do anything this session, but I do ask this, that with the railways doing so well, I ask him to look into the position again during the recess and see whether it is not possible to put the unskilled workers’ wages on the railways on a really satisfactory basis. When I say “really satisfactory” I only ask him to adopt the criterion which I mention, and that is that the Government should not pay its own unskilled workers less than what private employers are obliged by the Government through the machinery of the Wage Act to pay their employees.

The Railway Administration is such a vast concern that I should not like to trouble the Minister with small points. But nevertheless we find that these small points count, and if we neglect the small points, we are later inclined to neglect bigger points. I have already urged the Minister to explain to us why the guards have to work nine hours per day whilst the enginemen work eight hours per day. I want to know from him why this injustice is done, and why these people are not treated on an equal footing. Surely they are all people who belong to the same large family. They all belong to the Minister. He is regarded as the father of all railway officials, and why does he treat his children differently and unjustly? Another matter in connection with them is this: the guards have to work nine hours per day; they have to be on the trains during the cold winter nights, and the Minister does not want to put a heater into the coach for them. You promised me that you would do so, but you have not yet done it.

The hon. member must address the Chair.

The hon. Minister promised me this, but he has not yet done it. I am reminding him of it now, because I want him to do it. This year he has a very large surplus of £6,000,000, and what is he going to do with that money? I can tell him one thing that he ought to do. He must take care of those railway people who starve. There are hundreds of people, Europeans, who experience great difficulties; it will be very difficult for them to keep their families together and to clothe and feed them properly, especially in the times which lie ahead of us, when everything is becoming unbearably expensive. The Minister does not give consideration to the fact that those people should get an increase in wages. Do not only pay them an allowance, but give them a permanent increase, and then you will get infinitely better services from those people. The Minister has such a large surplus that he wants to build hotels for tourists. I understand that he wants to build a large hotel in Cape Town. Why does he not first assist his own family on the railways? He must first take care of his own family, and then he can worry about strangers. The Minister has a large surplus, so large that he is going to ask the Governor-General for permission to make use of that money by giving it to the Controller of Foodstuffs for the purchase of rubber. He wants to spend money on that, but he does not think of his own children on the railways. The Minister must place himself in the position of a father who wants to take care of his own family before assisting other people. The Minister has many European children and many black children on the railways. They are not his own children; I hope that he understands that I am talking figuratively. Many of these coloured people have to work on an empty stomach from morning till night. There are eighty miles of railway line in my constituency, and I come into contact with those people. The foreman sits there and eats, and on the other side some of the coloured people sit, and they have absolutely nothing to eat. The foreman told me: “Sir, they are not in a position to buy food.” My servants on the farm who get 2s. 6d. per day are a hundred times better off, better fed, and better clothed than those coloured people. These people are dependent on the shopkeepers, who fleece them. I think they should get higher wages. The other day I received a letter from one of those people. He complained to me and said: “Baas Jan, you must help us now. We cannot go on. From time to time the natives penetrate more and more into our work. They are now becoming foremen over us. They are appointed, and we have to work under them. They are the masters.” I know that the natives are aboriginees of this country, but surely the coloured person is ranked very much higher, and the Minister must not appoint the native in charge of him. He must see to that. It is unfair towards those people. No European will serve under a coloured person, and no right-thinking coloured person will serve under a native. We should see to those things. Then there is another matter which I brought to the notice of the Minister last year already. We prayed and begged the Minister to assist the Divisional Council of Ceres with the bridge in Mitchell’s Pass. People used that pass for a long time before the railways came there. They have been using it for a hundred years already. Now they have spent £30,000 in broadening the road and macadamising it, and taking out the bends. But now the railway line also goes through the Pass, and it is dangerous when people drive fast. They must build a bridge over the road. They pray and beg the Minister to help, and he does not do so; he refuses.

That does not fall under this vote.

This is money which has to be spent.

The hon. member can raise that under the loan votes.

The minister must assist. Then I come to another matter. Reference has frequently been made in this House to what the Steel Factory can do. I asked the Minister for a railway bus to Ladismith. He said that if I could persuade the people in Czechoslovakia to send a railway bus, then he would give it to us. I cannot do that, of course, but I should like to know whether the Minister cannot have a railway bus built in our own workshops. The passengers all travel by motor car now, because they cannot get proper railway conveyance. A mixed train is run there which waits at every station for a long time. If there were a railway bus the passengers, even from Calitzdorp and Oudtshoorn, would make use of it. I mention these few matters, and I hope that the Minister will give his attention to them and assist these people.

The Defence Department has a very large number of horses resulting from the fact that they were collected for the mounted units, and the department has now decided virtually to disband those mounted units. May I offer as a suggestion to the Minister that the Railway Administration might be well advised to purchase those horses? They are available for sale, as we were told by the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Defence, the other day. The Railway Administration has the opportunity of putting these horses into immediate use, and I think that at the present time, with the petrol problem and tyre problem offering difficulties, we shall be required to fall back more and more on horse-drawn vehicles for cartage, and I offer that as a matter which I think worthy of administrative consideration. There is another matter. The Administration, I understand, is now making a refund to Railwaymen on active service of the 2s. ration allowance, the daily ration allowance which, needless to say, is very much appreciated by Railwaymen, but I understand that this procedure dates from June, 1940. If that be so, it is difficult to appreciate why that consideration cannot be extended to those men who joined earlier. It does not affect a large number because active recruiting did not start until well after September, 1939. In respect of such cases where it exists it is a consideration which means 2s. per day, and some of these men have seen service amounting to close on two years.

We should very much like to assist the House, so that the Minister need not come back after 6 o’clock, but nevertheless there are many cases which we want to bring to the notice of the Minister. In the first place I want to correct the Minister with regard to one point he mentioned here. He stated that we object to railway people doing the work which they are instructed to do. Let me tell him immediately that we do not object to the fact that every railway official and every railway worker who is in the service of the administration should do the work he is instructed to do, even though that work is in connection with the war. Every order which a railway worker receives concerning work which he must do for the administration, must be carried out. Our objection is that the General Manager of Railways and the Assistant General Manager of Railways put those people in a very difficult position. We mentioned here as an example that the General Manager and the Assistant General Manager had addressed meetings of railway workers in regard to matters which had nothing to do with the work of the railways. I want to tell the Minister this, he knows that anything of that kind places the poor railway worker in an extremely difficult position. Everyone of them would like to get promotion, and here the boss and the assistant boss comes along—because they do regard those people as their masters and as the people who are responsible for their promotion—and they hold meetings in which they ask these people to do things which they are against and which do not relate to railway work.

That was in connection with the C.P.S.

Yes, I know it was in connection with the C.P.S., but I shall explain in a moment what the C.P.S. means to those people. Here the General Manager and the Assistant General Manager of Railways come and ask those people to join the C.P.S. I personally, feeling as I do, would not like to join the C.P.S., and other people feel just as I do in regard to the matter. It is against their wishes to join anything like that, because their conscience would prick them if they did it. And here the two heads on whom they are dependent urge them to join up. It is against that that we object, because it practically compels those people to act against their own conscience and against their own feelings. Why should the General Manager of Railways and his assistants address these people in regard to matters of this kind, if it is not with the object of bringing a certain amount of pressure to bear on them, so that they may join? We know that the railways are supporting the war policy of the Government today. Well, that is the policy of the Government, and since the railways are under the Government we can understand the railways being used for that purpose. But why should the General Manager go about in order to address those people? Surely he must know that this is indirect pressure on those people. Leave it to the people concerned to decide for themselves, so that they can voluntarily join. I want to tell the Minister why I personally, and why many of those people, are not willing to join the C.P.S. It is because that movement has been given the character of a movement which supports the war. In the first place, these people are required to wear a uniform, and they are required to take an oath. They must take an oath of allegiance to the king. Feeling as I do, I feel that I cannot take that oath of allegiance to the King, not because I want to throw bombs or blow up things. But we simply feel that we cannot take that oath and agree with the policy of the Government. We do not support the war policy, and those people feel that they cannot agree with those things either. They are asked to take an oath of allegiance to the King, and it is wrong to bring indirect pressure to bear on those people to do so. Let the Minister use the railwaymen to work as hard as they can, and to support the war policy of the Government as railways. Let the General Manager function as General Manager of Railways, but let him leave aside the war in dealing with his workers. Indirect pressure must be out of the question. Then we come to the surplus of £6,000,000. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl) asked what the Minister was going to do with the surplus of £6,000,000. But I should like to know from the Minister whether there is really a surplus of £6,000,000.

That does not fall under this vote.

I refer to the surplus of the railways.

The hon. member may speak on that during the Budget debate, but not under this vote.

Surely I am entitled to talk about the method in which the Minister uses the surplus, and to ask whether there is such a surplus. I put the question whether there is really a surplus. In reply to questions the Minister said in this House what amounts the railways had received from the Defence Department. He told us that the railways had received more than £2,500,000 from Defence. That means that the money was taken out of one pocket of the Government and put into another pocket. Then he received £159,000 from war activity in the harbours. That is also something which we must take into consideration, so that the surplus is not as large as the Minister pretended. In the country it is said that the railways are well managed and that as a result of that we have such a large surplus today. These are factors which we must take into consideration. Then I want to come to another matter which I feel I should mention here, a matter which I have already referred to previously. Reference was made to a dry dock in Cape Town. Various members urged the Minister in the past to have a large dry dock built in Cape Town. We on this side supported the Government in opposing the building of a dry dock in Cape Town. But in order to show how far the Government has gone in its war policy and in its idea that everything should be sacrificed in the interests of the war, one need only mention what took place in connection with this dry dock. The Minister of Railways and the Government faced about, and now they are engaged, heart and soul, in building this dry dock in Cape Town, which is going to cost over £2,000,000; and we learnt that the British Government would give £275,000 towards it. The estimated cost of the dry dock will be £2,500,000. We do not need such a dry dock in South Africa, and in the past the Minister supported that attitude. But now Great Britain wants a dry dock here, and now the Minister and the Government are no longer averse to building it. They only consider the fact that Great Britain wants this dry dock, and for that reason it must be built. On a previous occasion the Minister of Railways and Harbours stated that a person cannot be in his right senses if he wants such a dry dock in South Africa. But now he is nevertheless going to build it. Trouble arose in the East, and the Minister was immediately prepared to use this ground for the purpose of building a dry dock in Table Bay, notwithstanding the fact that he was so concerned about this ground that he said that no right-thinking person would surrender it for a dry dock. These are the influences which now rule in the railways. All they are prepared to do is to dance to the tune of the British Government. Trouble arose in the East. Singapore and other places fell, and now we have to build this large dry dock in South Africa. I want to go further and put this question to the Minister. Assuming the war is over and this dry dock is finished in South Africa, will South Africa still be such an important route for ships? The Mediterranean Sea will be open again. The ships will be able to go past Gibraltar again, and shipping will take its normal course as in the past. Why then should we build a dry dock which the Minister himself disapproved of in the past? The Minister cannot help himself. In Scotland there is an express train which they call the Flying Scotsman because it travels so fast. Here in South Africa we have a “fly Scotsman.” The Minister must explain to us what his attitude is, because he has changed his opinion as quickly as that Flying Scotsman travels. He must explain to us why he now wants to build this dry dock, and whether he is now under the impression that this dry dock will be an asset to South Africa and to the Cape. If he replies in the affirmative, then I should like to know from him where he gets that idea from, and whether he thinks that when shipping resumes its normal course we will have this large shipping traffic at the Cape, and whether ships will not go through the Mediterranean Sea again. But we dance to the tune of Great Britain.

With regard to the question of the dry dock, perhaps I might say a word about that. There were two reasons why it was a little difficult to go on with the dry dock in the early stages of this war. Let me make it clear that a dry dock is an essential feature of any properly equipped dock. It would have been monstrous to have built the Cape Town Harbour as we are building it today without ultimately having put a dry dock there.

Then why does not the Minister …

Just a minute. The hon. member is given a free run when he tries to address this House, and perhaps he will allow me the same courtesy. We would ultimately have had to have a dry dock because the present dry dock is completely inadequate for the present requirements of Cape Town. There were two considerations, the one was—what size of dock would we build, and the second was, if we started to build a dock in war time, could we ever finish it, because hon. members will appreciate that a good deal of machinery has to be imported — electrical and other machinery, and I made it perfectly clear to the Chambers of Commerce that I would not agree to start this dock unless I could finish it. Two considerations cropped up in this connection. After considerable negotiations, which went on for a long time, the British Government agreed, or let me say the British Admiralty agreed, that we could get priority for pumping machinery and other requirements for the dock if we went ahead. That meant we could go on with the dock, and it is desirable to go on with it if we can finish it, because we have the plant for filling up the ground and all other things that are necessary. Therefore we were justified in going ahead with it. The second point is the question of size. It was felt by many people that we should have a dock large enough to take the largest ships using South African harbours, a dock able to take some of those big ships calling here. But it was suggested that we should make it larger still, and if we did that the British Government would supply part of the funds. It is a purely economic arrangement. Cape Town will get a better dry dock and your manufacturers will be able to berth bigger ships. I think I have stated the case clearly. In regard to the question of the Brigadier and the Major of the C.P.S. Administration, I don’t want to pursue that further, but I want to say this, that the purpose of the C.P.S. is to protect our own property, railway property and other property, and I do not think anyone need strain his conscience unduly, but the C.P.S. must be part and parcel of the whole organisation, and they must conform in regard to questions of discipline. I am looking into the foot-warmer question. There is difficulty in getting the necessary apparatus, but foot-warmers are always wanted for our guards. I would like to say this in regard to the question of natives, nonEuropean and other wages. We have already made considerable concessions in respect of native wages and conditions. I am prepared—I hope some time before very long —to consider further concessions, but we can do no more for the native unless at the same time we do something for the lower paid European worker. Until I can do the whole I will not do a part. I would like to see the wages of the lower paid workers raised as well as the wages of the natives, but I will not deal with the one section unless I am able at the same time to deal with the other section. I do not think there is anything more I can say in regard to the question of eight or nine hours a day. That has been the system for many years, and up to date no good reason has been advanced to justify a change. I think the hon. member will realise that after all an engine driver’s job is certainly a bit more trying than a conductor’s, even though the responsibility may be the same, and the hours are justified.

I would remind hon. members of Rule 62, that no member shall converse aloud. It is quite impossible to follow these debates when these conversations are carried on.

Booh!

Now that hon. members have finished muttering, because I rise, I shall make use of my rights to stand up as much as I please, and properly set out my points until the closure is applied. If hon. members act in this way, they must expect that. May I, Mr. Chairman, avail myself of the half-hour rule?

No, I cannot allow the hon. member to do that.

Why not?

I need not give any reasons.

There we see now that we are not living in a land of democracy, but in a land of dictatorship.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

Let me say then that we are not living in a land of dictatorship, but in a land of democracy.

The hon. member must withdraw, and he must not proceed with that.

I withdraw that we are not a land of democracy, but a land of dictatorship. I withdraw unconditionally. Now, I want to take my time and touch upon and expose all those matters which must be raised, because I have never yet heard such muttering in which disciplinary measures are applied in the service. I particularly have in mind the case of Mr. H. P. Botha, of Queenstown. He occupied a good position, and he was degraded on account of misconduct. He was degraded from the position of guard to ordinary shunter. Botha appeared before the Civil Court in Sterkstroom, and was acquitted of the charge which was brought against him, that he had made himself guilty of misconduct. Thereafter the department stepped in and Botha was arraigned and tried before them, and they found him guilty. As a result thereof he was transferred from Queenstown to Burghersdorp, and he was degraded to the position of an ordinary shunter. Botha is a person who had a house at Queenstown on which he had paid off half the purchase price. He came to Burghersdorp and had to lease a house there. The punishment was that he would be degraded for an indefinite period. Normally, when disciplinary measures are applied, it is stipulated for what length of time the punishment would apply, but in this case it was imposed for an indefinite period. Now Botha has asked to be sent back to Queenstown. He was told that this request would be granted, but up to the present he has not succeeded, and in the meantime various other shunters have been sent to Queenstown. He also applied to be re-appointed in his post as guard, but without success up to the present. Nor is he told for what length of time he will be degraded. The position is that in the meantime Botha acted as guard; and if he is permitted to act as guard, what objection can there be to his being re-appointed to the position of guard? This is a matter of principle with which I am dealing now. I wonder if the Minister attaches so much value to the disciplinary measures of his own department, that, when the ordinary Civil Court finds a person not guilty, the Railway Department can find him guilty? This is a far-reaching inconsistency. I want to ask that where the court finds a person not guilty, the Minister should not in any event take such stringent steps. This is a very unfair case. Hon. members spoke of the dry dock, and the Minister said that he did not propose to continue with it, but then England was kind enough to provide an amount of £750,000 for a dry dock, and now he has changed his opinion, and he is proceeding with it. England, I understand, will assist with the machinery. Since we are now proceeding with the dry dock under the most difficult conditions, and at a time when things are most expensive, although the railways are so busy that they cannot devote sufficient attention to repair work, I want to ask the Minister how he can justify this? Why does he proceed with the dry dock? What concession will England receive in return for the £750,000 which she is prepared to grant if the dry dock is built? Will England have any rights? Will England have any servitude on the dry dock? What privileges will England receive? The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) correctly said that we expect to develop our own shipping in the future, and then it would be perfectly in order to build a dry dock for our own ships, but what are we going to do with the dry dock when the war is over? I am altogether in favour of South Africa developing her own shipping, and of our getting a dry dock. But as we are proceeding now, it seems to me that we are putting the cart before the horse. I am only thinking in terms of a farmer. It seems to me we are acting like a man who buys a farm and who spends his money on fencing with jackal-proof wire, without his having sheep to farm with. We have not got our own ships yet, but now we are going to build a dry dock. [Time limit.]