I just want to ask the Prime Minister to give us an explanation of one item which looks a bit queer to us. It is on page 11—Provision for maintenance of official premises and furniture in Switzerland, Italy, Belguim, Holland, Germany and France. And then the amounts are given: Switzerland £100, Italy £400, Holland £500, Belguim £200, Germany £500, France £400. We have also voted this amount last year, but it looks queer. Have arrangements been made to maintain our buildings in those countries, and why do we vote this money?

Those buildings are being looked after on our behalf by the protecting power, viz. Switzerland. Switzerland is responsible for all legations and maintains them on behalf of our country. We remunerate Switzerland. This is the annual expenditure connected with this provision.

I should again like to raise a question here which I have touched upon previously, and to lodge a complaint with the Prime Minister against certain Ministers. He is the responsible person ultimately, because the other Ministers serve under him. On a previous occasion I lodged certain complaints against the Department of Justice. I told the Minister of Justice on that occasion—I am sorry that he is not here at the moment—that I intended doing this. He told me that he could not be here because he had to go away, because the Prime Minister had given him certain work to perform. I notice that the Minister of Justice is now entering the House. I was not here when the Minister of Justice replied, because I had to go to the Free State. Now I should like to talk to the Prime Minister concerning the matter, and I want to tell him that one of the most serious charges which I made against the Minister of Justice was not dealt with by him, namely the delay in bringing certain cases to trial. The Minister of Justice said, in connection with the investigation for which we asked in relation to these matters, that he could not cause an investigation to be instituted because certain people might then get into trouble, people who furnished information to the Government in regard to certain individuals. I want to remind him of the fact that I personally had to suffer in the past as a result of this. I proved the year before last that a totally false document concerning me had been sent to the Minister of Justice. In that document it is stated that I acted as chairman at a meeting of a certain union, of which I had never heard, and which was alleged to have been engaged in espionage. The police officers of the whole country were notified of that document, which did not contain a single word of truth. The date which was given for the meeting, was a date when I was in Lichtenburg, engaged in the election. Nevertheless the document states that I was in Bloemfontein and that I had acted as chairman of the meeting. What happened to the people who gave that false information to the Minister; what steps were taken against this person who, as the Minister had to admit, had given him a false document? What steps does the Minister of Justice take against these false informers? I agree that when people furnish reasonable information to the Government at a time like this, then they must be protected if that information is correct. But when false information is given, the people ought to have the assurance that those false informers will be exposed. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he will not assist us in putting a stop to this sort of thing. People are arrested on false information. I have mentioned the names of persons who were wrongly detained. Certain information was given in Bloemfontein, and a certain Mr. Kolbe was arrested. He was detained for a whole day, and they then discovered that they had arrested altogether the wrong person. Kolbe No. 2 was then arrested and he was imprisoned for three or six weeks. Then it was discovered that he too, was the wrong person, and that there was nothing against him. He was released, but he lost his employment. Fortunately Kolbe No. 1 was employed by a firm which was well disposed towards him, and he retained his work. Kolbe No. 2 was dismissed, although he had worked for that firm for eighteen years, and although the Detective Head Constable had told him that there was no case against him. What has become of such cases where people were falsely arrested? Will the Prime Minister not take steps to ensure that justice will be done and that there is not such a delay in bringing these cases to trial? Is it necessary to imprison a man for six, seven or eight weeks without giving him a trial? There are the cases which I have mentioned, where the department had all the information, but where the people were imprisoned, not for two or three weeks but for three months without trial. In other cases it was six months. In the case of the Cape Town students, the Minister cannot say that they did not have the information. The evidence which was led in Court, could have been obtained immediately after these people were arrested, but they were kept in gaol for months without any reason. That is what happens in all these cases, the large number of cases which have been referred to in this House, where people were detained for months without trial. Another question which was raised, was why the legal advisers of those people were not allowed to visit them? I want to tell the Prime Minister that the Minister of Justice has levelled a serious charge against the legal practitioners. He said he could not allow the advocates to interview these people, because they interview the people with other motives and conveyed certain information to them. He prevented me from visiting two young boys of twenty and twenty-one. Their parents had asked me to see them and to do for them whatever I could. I want to know from him whether he accuses me of this type of thing, that I go there with other motives and that I convey information to these people?

No.

The Minister now shakes his head, but why was I not permitted to see Steyn and Du Plooy? I wrote a letter to the Minister, setting out all the circumstances. The Minister did not even reply. Later I heard that these people had been tried before the magistrate. The Minister did not even reply to me, although the parents had asked me to act on behalf of their sons. I am not advocating that when people are guilty they should not be punished. I understand that these boys were punished. That was perfectly correct, because they had done something wrong. But why am I refused permission to go and see them? The Minister’s excuse is that members of the legal profession are abusing their positions. I must therefore take it as a charge against me. I was refused permission, and that is the excuse which is advanced, and now the Minister admits that I did not abuse my position. I want to tell the Prime Minister that these things create a great sense of grievance in the minds of the people. No one wants people to go unpunished who commit crimes. But treat them in accordance with their rights. I want to tell the Prime Minister that the Minister of Justice takes shelter behind the emergency regulations, and then he proceeds to break the law. Under the emergency regulations he says that once the man has been imprisoned, the advocate or the attorney may not see him. But when it comes to the trial, the person concerned is tried before the ordinary court. I can mention the case of Steyn and Du Plooy. When they were tried, it was an ordinary charge of robbery and theft. But when they were imprisoned, it was done under the emergency regulations. This is a serious matter. If a person is taken into custody under the emergency regulations, let him be tried before the emergency court. But do not treat him as someone who was arrested under the emergency regulations, and who is then deprived of the ordinary rights which the most brutal murderer and the ordinary thief have under the ordinary laws of the country. But the Minister always takes shelter behind the emergency regulations. I say that this creates an impossible position, and that type of thing must come to an end. I should like to know from the Prime Minister whether he approves of such a long delay in bringing the people to trial, and that the people who are arrested are prevented from seeing their legal advisers, and that at a later date they are tried not under the emergency regulations but under the ordinary laws. In recent years there has been a violation of the legal system of our country in this manner. Then we have the case, to which I have referred, of a certain Oosthuizen, who died. The Minister said that this was not under the emergency regulations. I have the statement of the surviving Oosthuizen, in which he says that it was explained to them at the police station that they were being arrested because something concerning them had to be ascertained, and they were being detained under the emergency regulations. They asked why they were being arrested, and the statement is that they were told that they were being detained under the emergency regulations. I have the statement here. I do not want to read it now, because at a later date we shall again have to deal with the Minister when we come to his Vote. Here is the statement of a person who interviewed Oosthuizen in gaol, and who says that Oosthuizen was critically ill, and that although he was critically ill—he later died under the operation—he still had to walk to the magistrate’s court. [Time limit].

I entirely agree with the previous speaker that the Prime Minister in the last instance is responsible for malpractices in the departments of other Ministers. He is the Prime Minister and in the last instance has to accept responsibility for the purity of the Administration, whoever the Minister may be who is immediately concerned. The hon. member who has spoken just now, brough a matter to the notice which affects the Minister of Justice. He was quoting from his own experience. I want to read what the Court itself thinks of the Administration of the Minister of Justice, I am reading from the South African Law Reports (1941), Orange Free State Provincial Division. It is a decision of Judge van den Heever in the case of Rex vs. Yeld. I am going to read it to the House, so that hon. members can see for themselves what the Court thinks of the action of the Minister of Justice, and the misuse of his power, and of his interference in the ordinary procedure of justice—

This is a scandal. It shows the way this Minister interferes in the ordinary and normal procedure of justice and how the Court objects to his action. We know the methods of this Minister. It is well-known in the country, and I need not enlarge upon it. We know his methods of administration, and all I can say to the Hon. Prime Minister is that it is high time that he should have a thorough enquiry into the actions of this Minister and the administration of his department, and that he should see to it that the administration of justice in this country is kept clean and pure.

I must at once answer the accusations of the leader of the opposition. I want to say at the start that I am not in any way going to make any remark or answer to the remarks of the judge. I am only going to give the facts as they are. The position is that in the case against Yeld there was a preparatory examination, and an indictment was drawn up. It was to have come before the Circuit Court at Heilbron. The Leader of the Opposition will admit that the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart), who appeared for the Crown, would not deliberately have misled the judge. With that I have nothing to do. I only want to give the facts with regard to myself. The position was this. After this case had been pending in the Circuit Court the accused received notice that the preparatory examination would be reopened again on September 6. Representations were then made that that would not give him enough time if the hearing was to begin on September 18. But apart from that, there was a legal reason why he could not appear on that date. I am certain that the judge was not aware of the fact, or otherwise he could not have made the remark that he did make. The law lays down in the Free State that 30 days must elapse after the preparatory examination before the case can be heard. The Attorney-General knew that notice was given that the preparatory examination would be reopened on September 6 and for that reason it was impossible for the case to be heard on the 18th, and I therefore agreed to the postponement of the case. The case was heard in Bloemfontein in October. Well, if all the accusations are made in such a light-hearted way—I say in a light-hearted way because the hon. member did not come and discuss the case with me—then I can only give one explanation of that, and it is that the aim is not justice, but to make propaganda. I have previously explained—this has not been taken into consideration—that the Crown could not have let the case against Yeld be heard at Heilbron.

Was notice given that the preparatory examination would take place on September 6?

Yes, and 30 days had to elapse after the preliminary examination, before the case could be heard. If the preliminary examination was reopened on September 6, then trial could not take place on the 18th. The 30 days were not to be calculated from the date on which the preparatory examination began, but from the date when it ended. The Attorney-General gave notice that the preparatory examination would be reopened, and therefore the trial could not take place on the date that had been fixed. As regards the action of the Department in this case, there was every justification for it. I say that these attacks of the Opposition are all made on the same ground, not so much because justice was threatened, but because they are making these attacks for propaganda purposes. Then I come to the further attack by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) and the fact that I was not here when he made his speech. I waited until 4 o’clock. He could easily have spoken earlier in the afternoon, but he waited until 6 o’clock in the evening.

That is untrue.

He could have asked the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) and the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) to give him a chance earlier seeing that he had to go away that night.

You told me that you had to go away because the Prime Minister had given you work.

I did not say that. I said that I had received a request that made it necessary for me to go out. It was a private conversation between him and me. The hon. member knows that I was here until 4 o’clock, and he waited until 6 o’clock in the evening. Although he knew that he had to go away, he allowed two back-benchers to speak before him. I mention this merely by way of explanation, or otherwise the position will not be understood. In so far as the letter is concerned which he wrote, and to which I did not reply, I can say that I have tried to find out about the letter. We can find no trace in the Department that that letter was ever received.

It is not the first time that I have not received an answer to my letters from your Department.

I do not want to go into that now. The hon. member has mentioned a definite case. He says that he has sworn statements by the persons concerned. Why then did these people not make sworn statements when my Department asked them to do so? They were asked to do so, but they did not want to do so. Nevertheless they give sworn statements to the hon. member for Winburg to make an attack on the Government. If we investigate a matter, then they should give information to us so that we can investigate. They refused to give information, but the hon. member gets information with which to attack us. If a person is not prepared to give us a sworn statement in connection with an important matter, we need not concern ourselves any further with him. As regards the Department, we are prepared to investigate any statement, and to investigate it carefully. We have done so in many cases only to find out that there is no truth in the statements. I come now to the detentions. It has nothing to do with the court case. It occurs under the regulations which apply only to sabotage.

But why do you retain the people so long?

I am going to deal with the matter in general. I am not goning to mention or deal with specific cases, because if I once agree to deal with specific cases, then it is going to force me to give information which I ought not to give. We have for example a case where a person gives information about people with whom he was an accomplice. We know that he is guilty on his own statements. We must now institute an enquiry into the information that he has given us in connection with other people and in the meantime we cannot let him go. It may take two or three months. In one case it took six months to get the information on the grounds on which we could take action. Mr. A. admits that he is guilty of sabotage; must we let him go because he has admitted that he is guilty and has given information about other people …

But take the case of the students.

I am not going to deal with any specific cases and I will tell you why. We arrest people because they are guilty of sabotage, after we have instituted careful inquiries. They perhaps admit guilt and mention the names of other people. We must investigate carefully in order to find out whether the other people are guilty before we take action. I can justify all the cases that have been mentioned. We must remember that these people are not taken into custody under the ordinary law. They are not told that if they make a statement it can be used against them. Although they have perhaps given us good information, it is not evidence that could be used in a court of law. Therefore, although we have the correct information, we must first be sure that we are going to get legal evidence to place before the court. This causes delay. [Time limit.]

I do not want to go into the matter which the Leader of the Opposition has raised here. But the Minister of Justice mentioned my name here. I do not want to go into that matter, because I appeared as advocate in the case concerned, and I know a great deal about it. But the Minister of Justice said something against me which is not proper. He said this: “I accept the fact that Adv. Swart did not deliberately mislead the judge.” In other words, I did mislead him but I did not do so deliberately. I can only say that I acted on the instructions of the Attorney-General who said to me that all he knew about the case was that a notification had come from the Minister of Justice to the effect that application must be made for the postponement of the case. He could not give me any information, and I could therefore give no information to the court. Nor did the Attorney-General have any information concerning the application, as the Minister himself knows. If it was unlawful to bring the case to trial on that date, the Attorney-General could not proceed with the case. I do not want to go into that. I only gave the information to the court which was in my possession, and the Attorney-General could give me no further information to submit to the court. The Minister can summon the Attorney-General of the Free State and ask him whether that is not the case. We did not mislead the judge, deliberately or otherwise. The Minister is afraid to go into concrete and specific cases. He spoke here in general terms. I specifically asked him, in the case of the students at Cape Town, for example, to tell us why there was delay. I do not want to go into all these things. Even where people admitted their guilt, they were still detained in prison for months thereafter without being brought to trial. The Minister cannot exonerate himself by talking of the general principles only. We referred to concrete cases here, and we want those concrete cases to be investigated. That was why I asked the Minister to cause investigation to be made. The Minister can very easily advance reasons in this House as to why this, that or the other is the position, but experience has taught us that we cannot always rely on that. I want to read something here to show that we cannot always accept what the Minister says in this House. Last year I complained in this House about the treatment of prisoners in the gaols. The Minister then got up and stated this, according to Hansard 44, column 6313—

The previous occasion to which he referred, appears in Hansard, vol. 43, column 3113, when he stated—

I have not got up to defend Dr. van Rensburg and the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow). They are man enough to defend themselves. I wanted to ascertain what the position was, however, and I then wrote to the Secretary for Justice, asking him to refer me to the Government Gazette in which the hon. member for Gezina promulgated these regulations. I wanted to see what the regulations of Dr. van Rensburg and the hon. member for Gezina were. I wrote this letter on the 9th May of last year. On the 15th of June I had not yet received a reply. I again wrote a letter asking what the position was, because I had not received a reply to my letter of the 9th May—something which has happened to me more frequently in connection with that department. More than a month later I wrote the second letter, and on the 26th June, a month and a half after my original letter, I received the following reply from the Secretary for Justice—

I still remember clearly the bombastic voice of the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter), who shouted “hear, hear”, and I remember the applause which went up from the back benches of the other side when the Minister said that these regulations were drafted and promulgated by the hon. member for Gezina and Dr. van Rensburg. His statement was not correct. This type of thing is very unsatisfactory, if a Minister does not give a correct reply. I want to tell the Minister of Justice that he must be careful about the statements he makes, and that he must not give wrong information to the House. As he put it in connection with me, I too want to say to him now that I accept the position that he did not do it deliberately. But here we have a case where the Department of Justice has to repudiate what the Minister says. I want to repeat, however, that we mentioned concrete cases. The Minister does not want to reply to those cases, nor does he want to allow an investigation. It will not avail the Minister to come forward with generalities. We want to know whether those cases to which we referred are in accordance with the policy which he alleges he follows, and whether an injustice was committed. The Cape Town students had to wait for months, although the authorities were in possession of the evidence. In other cases people admitted that they were guilty, and nevertheless they were detained for a long time before they were tried. That type of thing must come to an end, and we must have a proper investigation. Then I again want to ask the Minister in any event to withdraw that attack on the legal profession. If one man acts improperly in Cape Town or in the Transvaal and abuses his position, then that is no reason why he should want to punish me. If he has evidence against such persons, then it is his duty to report them to the Law Society, but he must not reproach me with it and refuse to give me permission to interview these people.

I just want to dispose of the point with which I was engaged on the previous occasion. I am not going to deal with special cases, because if I do so, hon. members may be able to force me to reveal very important information which will be of the greatest importance to the saboteurs.

What became of the person who gave false information against me?

I am not going to deal with specific cases on grounds of public security. In the second place, I am not going to deal with specific cases, because what justification can there be for our giving away the name of a person where some one gave us information which helped us to catch a guilty person. It would be an impossible position if I dealt with these specific cases. I explained the case very clearly at the start. With regard to the case in Heilbron I do not want to say that the bench was wrongly informed. I will not accuse my hon. friend of having misled the bench. But one thing is certain, it should have been brought to the notice of the Attorney-General that the preparatory examination was to have been re-opened on September 6, and that 30 days should elapse after the conclusion of the preparatory examination before the case could be heard.

Why did the Attorney-General not know about that?

He did know about it, because notice was given on his instruction.

Why did he not then give that information to the advocate for the Crown?

That is a matter between him and the hon. member for Winburg. Where the Crown is asked by the defence to postpone a case so that it may have an opportunity of presenting its case to the court, and the Crown agrees, it is final. Because there can be no worse charge than that a person did not have a proper opportunity of presenting his defence to the court. We have a duty to justice and to the court. In this case it was all we could do.

Do you not know that the case was not defended and that the man pleaded guilty?

It may be so. It is wonderful to me that the man who appeared for the Crown is now taking this attitude. It was his duty to inform the court properly, and instead of attacking us here, he ought to defend us.

I made no attack.

The hon. member ought to know that afterwards certain charges were withdrawn, and that on other charges he pleaded guilty. It is an absolute pity that someone who appeared for the Crown should now act in this way in connection with this case.

Who dragged my name in?

It seems that the hon. member did not have all the facts that he ought to have had.

It was not my fault. I acted in accordance with the information and instructions that were given to me.

My hon. friend will have his chance to say his say. My hon. friend mentioned his own case. I have already given an answer in connection with that. Information was given, but, as far as I remember, there was no affidavit. It was information on which we could take no steps. But it is an exaggeration to come and say here that my hon. friend was followed by detectives throughout the country. It is laughable to say it.

All the police stations throughout the country received that document.

The hon. member was not even on the suspect list. I want to repeat here what I said on a previous occasion, that we have to do here with cases of sabotage. When the State is in danger, exceptional measures must be taken which we would never apply in ordinary circumstances and which no one would eagerly apply. What is so strange, however, is that the leader of the Opposition accused us the other day of receiving statements and of not acting strictly enough on the strength of those statements. On the one side it is said that we do not deal with them strictly enough, and on the other side it is said again that we act too strictly. I want to repeat what I said …

Deal with your speech on the regulations of the hon. member for Gezina.

You know that every Minister, when he comes in goes over the regulations and either approves them or not. The point is not whether those regulations were drafted by him or not, but that he applied them. Everyone who was in the House will know that I said here that those people are being dealt with under regulations which were applied by Dr. van Rensburg and the hon. member for Gezina. It is possible that I used the words “drafted and issued”. My meaning was that the hon. member for Gezina could make no objection to those measures, because he applied the same measures in connection with the diet scales. As Minister of Justice he must have approved and applied them, if he took an interest in his department. Whether he drafted them or whether he approved them makes no difference in practice. The cardinal point is whether they were applied or not. My point was quite clear that, if it is stated that we are treating these people unfairly, it is the way in which he dealt with them himself. If I perhaps used the wrong word, I am sorry and I admit my error. I admit that I sometimes make an error. Let my hon. friend make a point now of the word “drafted”. My point was that we treated those people fairly in accordance with regulations which were also applied by the hon. member for Gezina.

The Prime Minister has listened to this debate, and I want to ask him to reply to this aspect of the debate. The leader of the Opposition read from the South African Law Reports the verdict on a request by the Crown in a case against Yeld. From the report it appeared that the advocate for the Crown appeared and was unable to give the judge any information as to why the case should be postponed. He simply acted on the instructions of the Crown in asking for a postponement. Now the Minister of Justice stands up here and says that if the court had been in possession of all the facts, the court would not have made those remarks.

I am certain of that.

He says he assumes that the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) did not deliberately wish to mislead the court. What now is the insinuation? It is that the hon. member for Winburg was in the possession of certain information which he withheld from the court, or that he was in possession of certain facts which the Attorney-General did not give him. It is the one or the other. He indicates that the Minister of Justice is the person who gave the instruction that a postponement should be asked for, while the Attorney-General should have asked for it.

I acquiesced in the postponement.

And then the Minister drags in the hon. member for Winburg, and he makes an ugly insinuation against him.

I made no insinuation against him.

The Minister said here that he wished to assume that the hon. member for Winburg did not deliberately mislead the court. That compelled the hon. member for Winburg to give an explanation of the position so as to defend himself against that insinuation, and he said that he went to the Attorney-General, or that when he received the instruction from the Attorney-General, he received no reason from him as to why he should ask for a postponement, except that the Minister of Justice had ordered it. In other words, the initiative was taken not by the Attorney-General, but by the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Justice did not give the Attorney-General reasons why the case should be postponed. The Attorney-General again instructed the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart), as advocate for the Crown that the case should be postponed. No reasons were given. The Minister merely said that the case should be postponed. Has the hon. Prime Minister yet heard of such a scandalous situation, that the Minister of Justice gives orders to the Attorney-General without informing him why the case should be postponed, and that the Attorney-General should give an instruction that the case should be postponed, without the advocate in the court being informed why it was done? The Attorney-General, the advocate for the prosecution and the court are left in the dark. They know that the case must be withdrawn, but they do not know why. Perhaps the Minister had good reasons for witdrawing the case, but why does the Minister come and give the impression that the instruction came ab initio from the Attorney-General? That is the impression that he created. If there was neglect of duty, then it was the neglect of duty of the Minister of Justice and not, as he tried to create the impression, neglect of duty on the part of the Attorney-General. The Minister tried to create the impression that the initiative came from the Attorney-General through which the advocate for the Crown was simply informed that the case was being postponed, while the real guilty person is the Minister of Justice. I want the Hon. Prime Minister’s attention for this misleading impression that was created.

Where was there deception?

The Minister of Justice created the impression that the initiative came from the Attorney-General, on the request, of course, of the defence.

I acquiesced.

Therefor it came from the Attorney-General and the Minister acquiesced?

On a point of explanation, I said an application was made to me for postponement of the case and that I acquiesced.

By whom was the application made?

On behalf of the accused. I said that. I said clearly that such an application came to me and that the accused received notice that on September 6 the preparatory examination would be re-opened. I not only acquiesced, but it was my duty to acquiesce. The law requires that 30 days must elapse after the preparatory examination. That was complied with.

It now appears from the Minister’s statement that the request for the postponement of the case did not come from the Attorney-General, but that the Minister passed over the Attorney-General and postponed the case at someone’s request. But when he ordered the Attorney-General to postpone the case why did he not acquaint him with the reasons why the case should be postponed, so that the Attorney-General might also inform the advocate for the Crown? Through the Minister’s action the court and the Attorney-General and the advocate were kept in the dark and they stood there like fools. The defence apparently did not go to the Attorney-General, to present their case but went direct to the Minister, and the Minister simply granted a postponement and the Attorney-General, without reasons being given, was informed that the case had to be postponed. Now just one other matter in connection with the Minister of Justice, and it is this: He issued emergency regulations that if a civilian attacks a member of the Defence Force who is in the Army or the Navy, he must receive imprisonment without the option of a fine. He must go to prison unless the Minister himself mitigates the case afterwards. But on the contrary, is it not the case that if a soldier attacks a civilian, the civilian does not receive the same protection against a soldier or sailor. Now I want to ask the Minister who commit the most assaults, civilians on soldiers, or vice versa, soldiers on civilians? The soldiers and sailors are protected, but decent citizens may be assaulted in the streets, and there is not that protection for them. There is still another aspect of the matter. The number of assaults by soldiers on civilians are not so great, but far and away the most cases are cases of soldiers and sailors committing assaults on other soldiers and sailors. Sometimes very serious assaults come before the courts, and then you find that practically in every case the Minister makes use of this power to lighten the sentence imposed by the court. In every respect, even where attacks by soldiers on soldiers are concerned, the soldiers are protected but the civilians do not receive the least protection. I want to ask the Minister and the Prime Minister whether they think that it is fair administration of justice if gifts and favours are played about with in that way towards a certain section of the population, while another section does not receive the necessary protection. Why should the soldiers and sailors not be as severely punished if they attack persons as when civilians commit the assault? Why is the distinction made? I want to ask the Prime Minister, who lays down the policy in these things, why it is so.

I think of the scrubbing, I cannot say the washing, that the Minister of Justice received, and I want to leave him alone for a little while. I do not know what excuse he had on his part, but I noticed that every time he looked at the other Ministers, especially the Prime Minister, to see whether he could not obtain assistance there. I want, however, to speak about a person who is no less guilty of oppression of Afrikaners than the Minister of Justice, namely, the Prime Minister. We have been told here in the House that persons who are physically fit are not kept or put out of work if they will not take the oath, except when they are in the place of people who have gone to the war. That was the Prime Minister’s statement. I put a question to the Prime Minister about the De Beers factory at Somerset West and the treatment of persons who go to work there. The Prime Minister gave a particular answer to the question when I asked him whether the Government has anything to do with the De Beers factory at Somerset West. I asked whether any arrangement had been made between the Government and De Beers, and if so, what arrangements. The Prime Minister answered—

The Prime Minister said further, in his capacity as Minister of Defence, that the pay of about 450 European and 1,500 non-European employees was included in the costs of products of the war supplies factory. I asked whether barracks or huts had been erected for the non-European soldiers, and the Prime Minister answered in the affirmative. I asked who bore the costs, and the answer was that it was the Government. But they are built on the ground of the Cape Explosive Works. It does seem a peculiar situation. I do not know whether the granite houses can later be picked up and put down at another place. But what I do know is that if Afrikaners come there to seek work, that dynamite factory treats Afrikaners derisively. The Afrikaners are told: “You of course are one of the true Afrikaners, go to the Cape Town Castle. We have no work for you if you are physically fit.” Does the Prime Minister know that that goes on? If not, I am prepared to mention in the House the name of the person who acts in this way. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he knows that even during the by-election at Hottentots-Holland the factory, in which the Prime Minister pays a large number of employees, gave certain people 14 days and three weeks off to act as agents for the United Party? Does the Prime Minister know that at the by-election the heads of the factory stood at the polling booth? People came there who were registered in other districts. They received permission to go and vote, but they had to vote by declaration. These are people whom the Government pays, and under direct or indirect compulsion they go to vote at the polling booth. But I want to go further. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether the £12,672 that is being voted here, and of which he does not know how much has already been paid out, is being voted for the building of houses on De Beers’ land at the De Beers’ factory? I asked him what agreement has been concluded with De Beers, and he admitted that an arrangement has been made. Will the Government now use its influence to protect the Afrikaners who go to seek work there against the insults, and will the Government now ensure that people who are physically fit will not be excluded from the work because they are Afrikaners or because they do not want to enlist? Is the Minister aware of the fact that refugees from Malaya, who fled when the Japanese came there and who are physically fit, are given work by De Beers, while Afrikaners who seek work and are not physically unfit cannot obtain work? Throughout the country we can obtain affidavits for the Prime Minister in support of the assertion that the Government’s supporters announce everywhere that it is not true that people who are physically fit cannot get work with the Government. Here you have a factory that is controlled by the Government, an ammunition factory next to a dynamite factory, in which the Government pays a large number of people, and there it is asked directly whether a man is physically fit or not, and there the Afrikaner is mocked, just if he has an Afrikaans name. It is very difficult to keep calm when you talk about the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister will still bemourn the path he has now taken of exercising indirect compulsion on Afrikaners to join the war. And that while supporters of the Prime Minister declare that no pressure is being exercised. I now want a definite statement from the Prime Minister as to whether he approved of such a policy as is applied at De Beers or not? I do not think one of the hon. members opposite will dare to stand up to deny that Afrikaners are being kept out of work, and that other people are taken in from other countries, without protest from the other side of the House. Now another case. The date of the by-election in Hottentots-Holland was made known about six months after the vacancy was announced in this House. We asked in a letter to the Prime Minister why he postponed the date so long, and in his reply he, of course, made the accusation against the Leader of the Opposition that he would have done the same in the past, and that for that reason the present Minister was now doing the same. Here in the House he had quite another answer, namely, that the by-election was not postponed for so long. But the peculiar thing is that somewhere from the office of the Minister of the Interior a message must have been sent to the office of the United Party, Hottentots-Holland. Agents of the United Party went around there, and they issued cards to people who might be brought over to become members of the United Party. When they came to certain persons, they mentioned the date on which the election would take place. But they said that the people should not make it known, because they wanted to spring the election on the Opposition. Peculiarly enough, the date was correct. But, moreover, before the date of the by-election was announced, the halls in the constituency were reserved by the United Party for the night before the election. When we came there the halls were already reserved. The only place where they could have obtained the information was the office of the Minister. We already have a Minister of Justice, of whose utterances one can take little notice; we have the assertions outside that Afrikaners are not kept out of work, but you see the things happening before your eyes, and now we have the position that even in an election the other side obtains information which is denied the Opposition, to give the Government side an advantage. [Time limit.]

When the discussion of the Prime Minister’s vote was in progress last Friday, the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) asked what the policy of the Government was in connection with wool, and the Prime Minister asked by way of interjection what policy the hon. member could suggest. The policy that the hon. member for Cradock indicated was not at all satisfactory to me and others, and it was also not satisfactory to a large section of the farmers. I want in all modesty to present something to the Prime Minister which in my opinion could be suitable during the war, and also for the period after the war. We expect that for a number of years after the war the difficulties will perhaps be great. Well, the policy that I want to propose is this—

Is that a proposal?

Yes, that is what we want to suggest. Meetings have been held on the initiative of the National Wool Growers’ Association, and the majority of the farmers present there voted for a scheme proposed under the Marketing Act. I see that the establishment of the Wool Control Board under the Marketing Act is being suggested, and that in the Free State and the Transvaal the proposal has already been approved. But I want to contend, in the first place, that a very small percentage of the wool farmers of South Africa attended the meetings, because of the fact that a large section of them are not organised. In the second place, a large section of the farmers who voted for the motion of the National Wool Growers’ Association did so under a misconception. The matter was mostly put in such a way that they were asked to approve the control of wool, especially after the war, but the implications of the Marketing Act were never represented to them. They were also told that if a change had to be made, the wool farmers would again be consulted.

You are killing your own Minister.

I did not interrupt the hon. member, and I hope he will now give me a chance to explain my point of view, too. I am convinced that if the wool farmers had had the opportunity of hearing the matter from the other side, the result of the voting at the meetings would have been quite different. The National Wool Growers’ Association sent the envoys out to enlighten the wool farmers, and they made use of the fund created by the levy on every bale of wool, but the other side of the matter was not represented to the farmers. Where it was done, as at Steytlerville, Aberdeen, Graaff-Reinet, Middelburg, and other places, a large percentage of the wool farmers voted against it. But the Marketing Act, No. 26 of 1937, provides that such a control scheme be presented to the Minister, then he can advertise such a scheme, and post it up in public places, like a magistrate’s office, to obtain the opinion of the farmers. One may essentially expect, where such a radical change is envisaged for the wool industry, that a similar method will be followed to obtain the opinion of the wool farmers. The wool industry is not like the wheat industry and the maize industry, because 90 per cent. of the wool that is produced must be exported. We may erect a wool factory here, but not more than 10 per cent. of our wool can be used in South Africa. In view of the competition that our farmers will encounter after the war, I think I have proposed a sound policy. As the wool farmers will experience no difficulty for the duration of the war and one year thereafter, and difficulties may subsequently be expected, I suggest that we let the matter rest there, at any rate, until that period.

I do not want to go into this whole question very much further, but I feel called upon to say a few words in regard to the attack, the fierce attack by the Minister of Justice on me in my personal capacity. I shall not allow that to deter me; I shall not allow myself to be discouraged by the sneering statements of the Minister, in bringing these matters to the notice of the House. But I am sorry that he has attacked me personally and my profession in such a way. Let me repeat briefly what the position is. I simply cannot understand the attitude of the Minister. The week before last I raised a few matters here, and now the Minister of Justice makes a violent attack upon me in regard to a matter which I did not raise in this House. The case in connection with which he now attacks me, was raised by the Leader of the Opposition, not by me. I did not even discuss it with him, because as advocate for the Crown I did not want to do so, and the Leader of the Opposition can say whether or not that is true. I did not know that he was going to raise it. I had nothing to do with it. I did not attack the Minister and I did not say a single word in regard to it. I have a great deal of information about the matter, but I do not want to deal with it because I was concerned in the matter as advocate. But now the Minister of Justice proceeds to make an attack upon me as though I deliberately misled the judge. I then had to defend myself, because there was no misleading on my part. The question was who had given the instruction to the Attorney-General, and I merely indicated what my instructions from the Attorney-General were, in order to reply to the accusation on the part of the Minister. That is all. On the strength of that he then made a harsh attack on me, although I had said nothing on the point. In only defended myself when the Minister attacked me. Is that fair? The Minister now drags me into the matter as advocate for the prosecution; he drags the matter into politics and he makes an unworthy attack which is based on entirely wrong facts. I think it was very reprehensible on the part of the Minister to make such a personal attack upon me. I attacked him in his capacity as Minister of Justice; why must he attack me personally? It is to be regretted very much. Then the Minister of Justice also spoke of a letter which he never received, and he created the impression that I had never written to him. Here I have the copy of the letter of the 29th May, and on top of it is written: “No reply received”. I think that if the Minister makes a search amongst his documents, he will find quite a few letters from me which have not been replied to.

At intervals in the course of this Session, I have been raising two matters which I regard as of considerable importance, in the hope that I might be able to get a declaration of Government policy in regard thereto. So far, I have failed to elicit the response I have looked for, so I wish to put these two points to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in the hope that he might be able to give some indication as to what the Government intends doing in these matters, in the hope of ascertaining the Government’s attitude. These two matters are a living wage as the basis of a social security code, and the growth of bureaucratic tendencies in South Africa. First of all, in regard to the question of the living wage; it is an accepted fact that, so far as the majority of the labour force of this country is concerned, we do not pay a living wage. If we need any conformation of that position, we had it recently in the report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the social, health and economic conditions of urban natives. That Committee, in its interim report, presented to the Government last year, accepted the proposition that £7 10s. per month is the lowest wage on which an African family can maintain any sort of decent existence in an urban area. That is approximately £90 per year. Later it accepted, at least by implication a minimum of £7 14s. Looking through these estimates of proposed expenditure on Government department, I find no wage that comes anywhere near that for any Government department at all. The Agricultural Department put down as the rate for its unskilled, its native labourers—incidentally it is only in Government circles that there is a differentiation between unskilled labourers on a racial basis—the Agricultural Department pays £18 to £54 per annum. The Pensions Department pays £3 10s. per month to a night-watchman and £3 5s. per month to labourers; inland revenue has two natives who are paid a total of £93, that is less than £4 per month. Customs and Excise employs 50 natives who receive on an average £47 per annum; that is just less than £4 per month. The South African Mint employs 110 natives who are paid an average wage of £52 per annum, less than £4 10s. per month. The Industrial Schools and Reformatories employ 101 natives at local rates, which I venture to believe are not any higher than these. I have specified there is thus a very large gap between the rates of pay paid by the Government departments and the level which the Inter-Departmental Committee has laid down, and I suggest that the people who are being paid these rates are essentially urban workers in the sense that their families are dependent on the breadwinner’s earnings to maintain the family. I know that private employers are also not paying what the Inter-Departmental Committee has laid down as a living wage. There is a very large gap between the £90 odd which the Inter-Departmental Committee suggests as a basis, and the rates of pay that are laid down by the Wage Boards for Private Employers. In Port Elizabeth, for instance, the average is £5 17s. a month. In Cape Town, until this year, it was £6 10s. per month, but under the proposed wage determination it is going to be much nearer £90 per annum. In East London, it is £5 14s. 2d.; and so it goes on. But these rates in private employment are actually considerably better than the wage paid by the Government; and here I would like to pay a tribute to the awakening conscience of South Africa, which is reflected in two marked improvements last year. The Durban Corporation reviewed their own position and went outside the Wage Determination to lay down for their own employees a wage of £5 1s. 4d., rising to £5 10s. 4d. a month. The East London Municipality, I am glad to record, has not only accepted the wage determination of 22s. 6d. a week, but has agreed to pay a proficiency allowance to its own employees of 1s. a day above the basic minimum. These are two gestures towards the establishment of a living wage which we must welcome as showing that the public conscience has been stirred in this matter, and that private employees are taking a serious view of this case. But there still remains a considerable gap between a living wage and the wage laid down in the Wage Determination; but it is not as large a gap as that between a living wage and the wage paid by the Government itself. I do want to ask the Right Hon. the Prime Minister whether he does not agree that the absence of a living wage creates problems that a social security code cannot deal with, that in fact, it simply paves the way to a large unproductive expenditure in meeting declining health and progressive criminality, and all the rest of it. I want to ask him whether he does not agree that a living wage is, in fact, the only reasonable basis of a social security code, and whether he does not agree that it is the business of the Government to set an example in this matter, to accept the principle of the living wage, and to elaborate and enunciate plans for the achievement of that living wage. Now I want to turn to my second point, which is the question of the growth of bureaucracy in South Africa. I have had occasion to speak about this before on other occasions. I feel very much concerned about it, because of the report of the Social and Economic Planning Council, to which we have looked for guidance on future progress in this country. I am convinced, sir, that the Social and Economic Planning Council is facing its responsibilities as bravely as it can, with the inadequate machinery at its disposal. I am sorry that the Prime Minister did not see his way clear to appoint the sort of social and economic planning council that was originally asked for by the Agricultural and Industrial Requirements Commission. I feel that the appointment of the sort of commission we have got without the essential qualifications in many cases, to investigate the cases that call for investigation, has faced the council with a certain number of administrative difficulties, but I am alarmed at the way it is proposing to overcome those difficulties. The council itself is proposing a series of committees that will assist it in the work of planning for the future, and in nearly all cases those committees are committees of the civil service. Where those committees are to be given the duty of simply creating machinery for accepted policies, I have no objection to that at all, but two or three of the committees that are proposed in this council are committees to which will be given the express duty of formulating policy. There my anxiety begins. I feel that it is very unwise to move the policy-making centre of your constitution from where tradition and constitutional practice imagines it is, that is in the representative assembly of the State, where the responsibility can be placed upon both groups and individuals for the policy which they propose, and to place it on a body which was never trained to carry this burden and which cannot be made responsible in the same way as Parliament can be made responsible. The whole basis of our civil service is that it should be administrative, and we have protected our civil service by a privilege which keeps them out of the arena of criticism in a matter of this kind, because they are supposed not to be a policy-making body. [Time limit.]

I just want to reply briefly. I accept what the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) has said, and I have said at the beginning that I do not make any reproaches against him. I do not think that I became heated, but I was a little disappointed when he made certain interjections. It was not my intention to attack him personally in this matter. I just want to say this, that as regards my Department, whenever we think that the accused has not had sufficient opportunity to place the case before the court properly then the opportunity is given to him.

But not by the Minister alone.

The Minister has also the right to grant a postponement for special reasons. I had special reasons which I am prepared to give to the hon. member, but I do not want to go into that. As regards assaults by soldiers, the soldiers had to be protected because there was a movement, or let me say, because it was a fact that soldiers as such were attacked for no other reason than that they wore uniform. There were many such sases and therefore action had to be taken. The regulations were then issued that imprisonment must be imposed where a soldier is attacked. That is being revised, and where it is clear that it was an ordinary argument or where a soldier has acted with provocation the imprisonment is suspended. I do not think that hon. members will object to this. It was a special war measure to protect soldiers against unlawful attacks. But where it is clear that a soldier is the cause, or has been the cause of an argument, then the matter is investigated and imprisonment is not imposed.

To supplement the appeal I made to the Prime Minister a few days ago to combat the rapid deterioration and impoverishment of our soil, I want to say a few more words. The Prime Minister asked me whether I could suggest anything. I do not want to be so impertinent to say that I can suggest something a hundred per cent. perfect, but I think it will be a good thing if the Minister will establish a board which you can call a board for the protection of the soil, or an advisory council and then a section should be created in the Department of Lands that can make a beginning with the great work that we have to tackle on the advice of the board and in collaboration with the Minister. I want to admit that it does not date from now, but it is almost as old as the European civilisation here. Such a board would then inquire into the conditions and causes that have given rise to the critical conditions that exist. There are numerous applications that are made to the Farmer Assistance Boards year after year, by people who cannot pay their interest on small loans which they have received from the State in order to start again. I believe that this shows that the man is occupying a piece of land which is exhausted and is being exhausted, and who cannot rehabilitate himself. They are forced to exhaust the soil by circumstances. This to a great extent is the position in the north of our country, but I am told by people who ought to know, that the soil in the grain areas here in the Boland has been exhausted to a great extent. Therefor they must use fertiliser in order to get another harvest. Well, super-phosphate is an excellent fertiliser provided it is used together with a sufficient quantity of other fertiliser, but if it is used alone, then it burns up the soil. Super-phosphate is a fertiliser which causes other wealth of the soil that are component parts of the soil to be consumed more rapidly. In this way the soil becomes exhausted, and one reaches a condition where the land can no longer produce anything.

That is the reason why you have rich parents and poor children.

The hon. member is quite right. The condition has developed still further in the past 50 years and we must now tackle the problem. Drastic action will be necessary, but something will have to be done. If necessary, the Prime Minister must impose £15,000,000 or £10,000,000 in taxation for this purpose.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

When business was suspended I was asking the Government to encourage farmers to cultivate their land in an effective manner. This can be done in various ways. I personally believe that the time has come when we here in South Africa should make a difference between the farmer who cultivates his land scientifically and the farmer who applies methods that exhaust the soil. This will mean that a certain reward will have to be made to a farmer when he cultivates his land in a scientific manner and thereby does not exhaust or destroy his soil. But now I want to bring another aspect of the matter to the attention of the Minister and that is this: When a farmer finds himself in a position in which the South African farmer finds himself today where he continually gets a low price for his produce, then it is impossible for such a farmer to make the necessary expenditure to purchase the necessary fertiliser for his land. In other words the Prime Minister will understand that when a farmer, as happened last year, has a total failure of crops, and he gets a price for his produce that is so small that he cannot even pay his phosphates account, then that farmer cannot maintain his soil in a healthy condition by getting the necessary fertiliser. We are today using doses of opium to keep the soil alive, and later we reach a condition where the soil can simply not yield anything without these doses of opium. The farmer gets such low prices for his produce that it is out of the question for him to try and keep his soil fertile in a scientific manner. The hon. Minister of Agriculture recently made a statement that for this year the price would be fixed at 12s. 6d. I want however to make the claim that with the fixing of that price the Minister did not take into account what it costs the farmer to use super-phosphate. In other words, the Department of Agriculture bases its calculations on a system of soil exhaustion. When they calculate the costs of production of a farmer, then they do not go into the question of what it will cost that farmer to produce on a scientific long-term system, but they base it on soil exhaustion. According to the price that they fix, its amounts to this that the farmer is encouraged to exhaust his soil and later to sell it to a settler or someone else when the soil is completely exhausted. I think that the real cause, the root cause of these conditions of soil exhaustion in South Africa is the low prices that the farming community get for their produce. I know that in the first instance it was the result of this spirit in South Africa to get rich quickly. One man has bought shares in the mines in order to get rich quickly; then another man wants to buy a farm in order to get rich quickly. There soil exhaustion originated. If we can one day come to a position where we can grow two blades of grass where one grows today, in other words, if we can double the production of our soil, then we have two Unions of South Africa, the prospects of the future of South Africa have been doubled for every son and daughter, and therefor I make this appeal to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister.

I would like to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) as to the question of wages in Government Departments. I am sure that not only are there many on this side of the House who endorse the view which she put forward, but that the Right Hon. the Prime Minister himself, by his various declarations, has shown that he agrees with the principle, and I am sure that he will use his influence with the other Ministers to see that non-European labourers are paid at least as much as is paid by private employers. Then the question was raised by the hon. member about the Planning Council, about which I do not propose to say anything at the moment. But I would like to point out that on a previous occasion the Prime Minister gave an elucidation of the work this Planning Council is doing, and perhaps it might be possible for him, in the course of the present Vote, to indicate whether the Planning Council is taking into consideration not merely the question of converting war industries into peace industries, as an important element of social reconstruction after the war, but that some steps will be taken to ensure that we will get plant and machinery at the earliest possible moment when the sea routes are open, in order to make such reconstruction possible, and that the import of such commodities will be carried out under Government control, so that it will be in the interest of the nation as a whole and not in the interest of private enterprise. I want to touch briefly on two matters of external importance. The Prime Minister, in a most illuminating statement that he made during the week-end, indicated inter alia that consideration is being given as to how the Atlantic Charter is to be applied in such a way that it will embrace the wellbeing of the whole world. At present it is necessary to dot the “I’s” and cross the “T’s” of the Charter. I feel that the Prime Minister will agree that the Atlantic Charter is so vague that there is doubt in some quarters whether it specifically deals with the relationship of the Jewish people with Palestine. There is an impression abroad that those claims have been excluded. I am sure that the Prime Minister will see to it that the rights, claims and contribution of the Jewish people to Palestine will be considered more specifically than appears to be the case in the Atlantic Charter. I wish to touch on another matter. I know that the Right Hon. the Prime Minister feels as strongly as anyone else on this subject; we have become accustomed to the savagery of the Nazi gangsters throughout Europe, but the conscience of the whole world has been aroused in recent months by the infernal methods by which people, regardless of race and creed—but more especially Jewish people—have been massacred, have been put to death and starved in the European countries which are ruled by the Nazi authorities, and in that connection the United Nations, with which I am sure the Prime Minister is fully associated, has made a declaration of protest. The House of Commons has given evidence of its feelings and the Senate of the United States has only a few days ago passed a resolution in connection with the matter. Only a few days ago also the Governor of New York State declared a day of mourning, and I feel that it is right to suggest to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister—possibly quite unnecessarily because I am sure he sympathises with this view—that he should use his influence in the negotiations which are taking place, not only to check the continued extermination of innocent men, women and children, but also to see to it that some practical steps are taken in order to salvage those who can escape from the Nazi tyranny. That might especially be possible in the case of large numbers of refugee children who are stranded in neutral ports at the present moment, and I hope the Prime Minister will by his inflence and precept persuade the United Nations to throw open their portals to save these children.

I should like to have a little more information from the Prime Minister in regard to the lease-lend procedure. As I understand the position, the Government of the United States is prepared to give us anything in the way of war supplies, and yet not debit anything against us. I assume that these things are not debited to any formal account. But I fear the Danaids even when they bear presents—and I am rather disposed to distrust this whole position. I should like to know definitely from the Prime Minister whether no quid pro quo whatsoever is being given to the United States, except the little bit he has mentioned, namely, the feeding of the United States forces which pass our harbours on their way to other parts of the world. Can they not claim any other quid pro quo? And when I speak of a quid pro quo, then I do not only mean financial compensation, but what I particularly have in mind is whether no legal or moral obligation is imposed upon us. In any case, seeing that the United States have generously assisted us, I feel sure they have not done so for nothing. Obligations have been incurred by the countries which have received those gifts—in the form that they have leased certain bases to the United States, either for limited or an unlimited period of time. I want to know whether there is any moral obligation on our part, whether it has been laid down openly in a contract, or by way of a secret contract—I want to know whether there are any contracts which impose on South Africa any obligation towards America for those presents which America is now giving us? Hon. members will realise that the public are not accustomed to Governments, and particularly the Governments of large countries, being so liberal that they simply give away money and goods to somebody else, and then say that they are not debiting those goods against the person to whom they have given them. A great deal of distrust is felt that there is something else behind it all, and we want to know whether we have any moral or legal obligation placed upon us? I do not wish to put any restrictions on my question—I do not want to limit my question in any way whatsoever. I am simply asking the Prime Minister whether there is any legal or moral obligation on us, whether such an obligation has been laid down openly, or in a secret treaty? I shall be very glad if the Prime Minister will give me a definite answer on this point, because we are very anxious to have a definite statement from the Government. We do not want to be placed in this position, that in a few years’ time, when there is another Government at the head of affairs, that Government may be asked to adjust the accounts—not so much a monetary account, but an account of a moral obligation which may have been a consideration for the lease-lend assistance which we have received from the United States. In the last report of the Auditor-General we find an amount of £13,000,000 on the War Expense Account for war cost repayment account. It is dealt with further in paragraph 1 (b). The Auditor-General in this connection said this—

We therefore have an account of £13,117,000 consisting of credits, the major part of which have been debited against other Governments, or are to be debited against other Governments. Part of those amounts are perhaps in respect of expenditure incurred during the previous year. Then one of the items is especially mentioned, namely, an advance to contractors in the United States —£714,000. Now I should like to know what is the relation between that and the statement that we get all those war requirements free of charge? Had those commitments been incurred before the policy of lease-lend was adopted? I understand that there is no complete contract, but we are going on at the moment as if there were a contract. Are we to regard this amount as a debt which was incurred before this informal agreement had come into being? If that is not so, then it is difficult to explain the matter. Part of this expenditure mentioned by the Auditor-General is apparently connected with the United States, and there is just one other point, and I particularly want to address this to the Prime Minister in his capacity as a former Minister of Justice, and as a practitioner at the Bar of our courts of justice. This arises out of what was said in connection with this case at Heilbron, and I should like to have a reply from the Prime Minister. It would be reassuring for the public as a whole, and it will be very important for the further course of our jurisprudence if we could hear from the Prime Minister whether he approves or not of administrative intervention with our courts, such as apparently happened in this case. A very important principle is at stake here, and we should like to hear what the Prime Minister has to say about it. On a previous occasion, when addressing my remarks to the Minister of Justice, I quoted what one of the greatest judges in England said—that it was almost more important that there should be an appearance of justice than that justice should be done. Anything that is going to give the impression in the mind of the public that our course of justice is not run on a pure basis must be destructive to the continuance, the dignity and effectiveness of our system of justice in this country. We are dealing here with a principle. In passing I want to say that the explanation given by the Minister of Justice is no excuse whatsoever for intervention. He said that one of the reasons was that the preparatory examination was to be re-opened on the 6th September. The Minister nods that that is so. If that is so then I am surprised that the Attorney-General of the Free State—if there was to be a re-opening of the preparatory examination—of which we should have known—should have allowed the trial to be fixed for sixteen days ahead. This is a serious charge against an official. Either he could not have known that there was to be re-opening of the preparatory examination, which is practically unthinkable, because that is done on the instructions of his department, or he did know it and yet refused to recognise the accused’s ordinary rights. It must have been one of those two things. This constitutes a very serious charge against the Attorney-General. I want to say this, that if it is so then I would have thought that he would have been the first to have agreed that that man should not have been brought before the court on that date. The Attorney-General would have been the first to have realised it and he would not have said that he had been forced by the Minister to do so, or that he had been obliged to do it on the instructions of the Minister. But leaving that point there. I am addressing myself to the Prime Minister. Here is one of the most important principles which goes to the very root of our system of justice, and that is that there shall be no intervention by the executive authorities with our courts. We are dealing here with a matter which is fundamental to our system of justice. We are not dealing here with war measures taken by the executive authorities. We are dealing here with the ordinary procedure of justice, with an ordinary crime of which a person has been accused. There is no reason whatsoever for the Government or for a Minister to intervene in this. The ordinary justice has to take its course under the law of the land, and I shall be glad to learn from the Prime Minister what his opinion is about a matter of this kind, because I assume that the Prime Minister wants to see our courts upheld, and he wants to see the purity of our system of jurisprudence maintained,—he is just as keen on that as all of us are, and I take it for granted that he must have felt displeased at these facts which have been brought to his notice.

The House has apparently not yet finished with the Minister of Justice, but I feel that the House is waiting for a reply from the Prime Minister. Meanwhile I want to do the same thing now as I did this morning, and put a question to the Prime Minister—because he is the man who in the end has to bear the responsibility—I want to ask him what his attitude is in regard to a matter coming under the Minister of Railways. The House often forgets that the Minister of Railways falls as much under the supervision and authority of the Prime Minister as any other Minister. I want to refer to a matter which was raised in this House on the Railway Part Appropriation Bill. It was shown on that occasion that a certain circular marked “confidential”—it was not allowed to become public property—had been sent out by the General Manager of Railways. The position in regard to that circular briefly is this. In the Railway Service the previous Minister of Railways, the late Mr. Charlie Malan, did the same as was done in the Public Service. What was done in the Public Service in order to give effect to the requirements of the Constitution in regard to equality of language was, as the Prime Minister knows, that a rule was laid down to the effect that after a certain date nobody in the Public Service was to be appointed to a clerical capacity unless he was properly qualified in both languages. Under unusual conditions an extension of that period was subsequently granted. When that period had expired the rule was laid down that a unilingual person could not be promoted unless there were special reasons for such being done. That backdoor was left open. Only if there were special reasons for a unilingual person to be promoted, could he be promoted, and in no other circumstances. That is the rule in the Public Service. The late Mr. Charlie Malan proceeded on the same basis so far as the Railways were concerned. He also laid down the demand for bilingualism. A certain date was fixed from which that policy would come into effect. He was succeeded by the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), who, in special and exceptional circumstances, gave an extension of that period. That extension terminated in 1939. What has happened now is that the General Manager of Railways has issued a confidential circular —I don’t know why it should have been done in this secretive manner, upsetting the whole of this policy. In the first place, that time limit has been removed; secondly, it has been laid down that if a unilingual official does not receive promotion, there must be special reasons for his not being promoted. Hon. members will notice that the sound policy based on Clause 137 of the Act of Union, is that unilingual people can only be promoted if there are special reasons why they should be promoted. The General Manager turns it round, and says that if they are not promoted, there must be special reasons for their not being promoted, and he goes further than that and demands that the officials who in the first instance deal with the giving of promotions shall report to him if they do not promote such unilingual people—they have to report to him what the special reasons are for their not doing so. This is a complete reversion of the whole basic principle of the Act of Union, of the whole foundation on which the mutual confidence of the country rests, and on which our equality of language rests. The Minister of Railways has had this matter brought to his notice, but he has not said a single word about it. He has been asked to express his opinion about it. He has been asked whether the circular was issued with his knowledge, or his cognisance, but we have had no reply from him. After the matter was brought to his notice we asked him whether he approved of it, but we have had no reply. In these circumstances we are compelled to approach the Prime Minister, under whom the Minister of Railways is operating, and we have to ask the Prime Minister whether he approves or disapproves of this action of the Minister of Railways in regard to the rejection of the basic principle of the Act of Union.

It seems to me that we are now turning over to another point of the debate, but before we do so I must deal with some of the points raised here this morning. I do not propose at once to reply to the last point raised by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan), but I shall first deal with the other subjects which were discussed here this morning and after that I shall come back to the matter raised by the hon. member. We started this morning with a discussion on certain incidents in the Department of Justice. Certain accusations were made against the Minister of Justice which were addressed to me as Prime Minister and I was asked to account for these matters. I want to say at once that in one respect I fully agree with the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges). In dealing with questions of justice and the administration of justice even the semblance of intervention must be avoided as much as possible. It is self-evident that the bulwark of the State is the impartial administration of justice and immediately that corner stone of our existence as a State is tampered with, we are in serious danger of going off the rails. In principle I entirely agree with the hon. member. But I think the House will agree with me that an unnecessary amount of temper was allowed to enter into the debate this morning. It arose largely on personal grounds. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) had received the impression that the Minister of Justice had made an allegation against him, that he had been accused of having failed in his duty; that he as a practitioner was not trustworthy, and that he had held back certain things in the case against Yeld. Unfortunately those allegations, which the hon. member thought had been made against him, were the cause of the temper shown in this debate, temper which was uncalled for and which should never have been shown.

That only happened in passing. That has nothing to do with the big principle at issue.

I am now speaking of the spirit in which the debate was conducted. The hon. the Minister of Justice said repeatedly this morning that he had not the slightest intention of making any personal charge against the hon. member for Winburg or of referring to him personally, and I think it was the hon. member’s duty to accept that. When the Minister of Justice in the course of his remarks referred to practitioners who had to be handled circumspectly where cases of the kind we are having nowadays are concerned, he did not have the hon. member for Winburg in mind at all. There was no reference at all to the hon. member. I even go further than that. Not only was the hon. member for Winburg not referred to, but we know that in the particular kind of cases which are now before our courts and the political troubles in which our country has been plunged by all this disturbance among the people about fundamental matters, the legal practitioners find themselves in great difficulties and one can well understand that in such circumstances, there may be practitioners or there are practitioners in respect of whom we have to act with a certain degree of reticence and discretion. The Minister of Justice did not say that the hon. member for Winburg was one of those practitioners. He made a general comment and his remark did not refer to the hon. member.

He did not have the right to make that remark about members of the Bar.

We want to uphold the reputation of our Bar, and our Side Bar, and of the administration of justice as high as we can. We have reason to be proud of them. I do not believe that there is one country where the administration of justice is so pure, so impartial and so beyond reproach as it is in this country. What applies to our Parliament and our public life also applies to the administration of justice, and it is all to our credit. I do not think that hon. members have any reason to feel hurt when such statements are made here, because those remarks were not intended to reflect on them.

But it is because there are danger signs now in connection with the administration of justice that we are bringing this matter to your notice.

The subject is one in which all sides of the House take an interest. It is to the credit of the country and to the credit of all parties. It is a matter on which we are all in agreement. However much we may differ on political questions, so far as the foundations of our administration of justice are concerned we are all at one. My hon. friend’s next objection to the Minister of Justice was that he had taken such a long time to reply to a letter of his and that in some instances he had had no reply at all. Well, I want to appeal to hon. members opposite. We know the kind of letters that are continually being sent to the Departments. I get heaps of letters from time to time, many of which it is quite impossible for me to answer at once. Questions are asked which have to be looked into. There are certain complicated matters which usually have to be brought to the notice of the Minister himself. Questions are asked in regard to the administration of the country in particular areas. To begin with the Minister knows nothing about them. The letter is not addressed to the subordinate official concerned, but it is addressed to the Minister himself. All other channels are cut out and the letter is addressed immediately to the Court of Appeal—to the Minister himself, to the highest authority in connection with the questions at issue. And in such a case the Minister replies and his reply has to be authentic. It has to be given in a spirit of responsibility. The Minister has to make an investigation before he replies. Sometimes it takes months before a letter can be answered, but the answer does eventually arrive. Surely the hon. member does not want to accuse the Minister of Justice of discourtesy? That charge is laid against me sometimes, but the Minister of Justice is the very last man against whom it can be made. He is everybody’s friend.

That’s a serious charge.

No, I do not think that we should discuss these questions in such an atmosphere. We are doing our best under very difficult circumstances to keep ahead of things and our colleagues on both sides of the House are dealt with in the most considerate manner possible. Now let me come back to Yeld’s case. I know nothing about that case. All I know is that there was a judgment by Judge Van den Heever which I read in the Press. I have been listening to the discussion and I should like to tell the House how I understand the matter—I may be wrong in my conception. The position is this, if I am correct, that Yeld’s trial was fixed for a definite date, I believe the 18th September. Meanwhile, before the final trial had started, the case was postponed I believe by the Attorney-General of the Free State.

You can take it from me that that is not so.

That is how I have to take it. The administration of justice in the Free State takes place under the Attorney-General.

No, the Attorney-General did not postpone the case.

My hon. friend must allow me to tell the House what my conception of the case is. Further evidence in the case was being called, and that further evidence was to be taken on the 6th September—according to the dates which have been mentioned here.

That is wrong, your facts are wrong.

I have listened to the way in which the case has been represented in this House. As I see the matter the position is that the case was to have been tried on the 18th September. In the meantime further evidence was taken in the case I believe on the 6th September, on the instructions of the Attorney-General of the Free State. After that, according to law, the final trial could no longer take place on the 18th September, because in terms of the law thirty days had to pass and I understand that that was the position in which the Minister of Justice found himself when the request was made to him.

Why a request, if that was the law?

There is something inexplicable in the matter.

Hear, hear!

Let us consider the case on the facts, and not on suppositions. Was there more evidence given on the 4th September on instructions from the Attorney-General? If so, then the final trial could not take place on the 18th September. It may be that there was a misunderstanding on the part of the Attorney-General or on the part of the Crown Prosecutor, but if so they owe us an explanation.

I am only speaking of the instruction which the Attorney-General gave me. I had to act on those instructions.

There may have been a misunderstanding on somebody’s part, but this is a case of fact. If further evidence was taken on the 6th September, the final trial could not take place on the 18th September. Why then this charge of unnecessary intervention or interference with the administration of justice? Surely that never was the intention of the Minister of Justice. I believe that he believes just as strongly in the clean administration of justice as all of us do.

In such a case it is a matter for the State Attorney and not for the Minister.

But why those charges against him?

He has admitted that he gave the instructions.

But were those instructions correct?

It is a question of the preparatory examination which was re-opened.

The Minister of Justice says that that was done by the State Attorney and not by him. The further preparatory examination on the 6th September, was ordered by the State Attorney.

Cannot the documents in this case be laid on the Table?

The facts are there.

What about the documents?

If the hon. member wants to put a pertinent question on the Order Paper, it can be pertinently replied to. Who gave the instructions? The State Attorney gave instructions for the re-opening of the preparatory examination on the 6th September. If that is so then the whole allegation of a scandalous condition of affairs, as the hon. member for Waterberg called it, falls away. We have the facts, we have the two dates, the 6th and the 18th September. If it is so, that the further hearing of evidence was ordered by the State Attorney then the whole case against the Minister falls away. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) wants to know what the position at De Beers at Somerset Strand is? I replied to a question which he put to me on a previous occasion. De Beers is a dynamite factory, it is a private concern which has been in existence for years. During war time there has been an expansion there under the division of War Supplies, to provide for the needs of the State. An additional factory has been built. Now people with Afrikaner names come along and they want to get employment in those factories, both of which are administered by De Beers. De Beers are the proprietors of the one factory and the Government is the proprietor of the other one, but both those factories are administered by De Beers. A so-called Afrikaner comes along, a man with an Afrikaans name and wants to get employment there. Surely the House will realise, and anyone with common sense will realise, that one cannot just employ anyone in a factory where explosives are being manufactured. It is an extremely dangerous business.

Do you mean that an Afrikaner cannot get employment in that factory?

What is an Afrikaner? The hon. member is one, and I am one, but if a man comes along and says that his name is Hofmeyr and that he wants to be employed in the explosive factory, does that mean that we have to take him on? I feel that the people in charge of the factories have every reason to be careful, and to demand that such a man shall bring a certificate from the Castle. They cannot employ just anyone, because the factory may be blown up, and millions of pounds of damage may be done, and hundreds of human lives may be lost. I therefore quite understand their policy of asking for a certificate to show that the man looking for employment is reliable.

The question is whether a man is turned down because he is fit for active service.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay also referred to the Hottentots-Holland by-election, and he complained that it had taken such a long time before that election was held. Well, that’s the sort of thing that often happens. The Government sees to it that a vacancy is filled before a Session of Parliament takes place. I think that is necessary, and that is the rule, so that the electors will be represented when the Session starts.

It is not merely a question of representation here in Parliament.

The hon. member was Minister of the Interior and he knows that often months and months will elapse before a by-election takes place.

Only just before a General Election.

There are few other points which I want to discuss. There is one point which was touched on by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker), and also by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Mr. Hayward). Apart from the arrangement made by the Government for the period of the war and a year after, I can quite realise that there is a feeling of anxiety among the farmers about the future of wool. It is a very serious matter. Wool possibly is our most important agricultural commodity, and the future is not too rosy in view of the expansion of synthetic wool factories and other things. There is no guarantee as to the future, and I can quite understand that there is a certain feeling of anxiety. I asked the hon. member for Cradock last week what the policy of the farmers was. He wants the Government to lay down a policy. We have laid down a policy for the period of the war, and, notwithstanding criticism from certain sources, the policy is one which has been to the benefit of our wool farmers throughout the country. But the question is what is going to happen afterwards? I should like our wool farmers seriously to concentrate their thoughts on this subject, and not to leave everything to the Government, and then blame the Government afterwards if something goes wrong.

The farmers are giving their attention to this matter.

I know that a co-operative scheme is being developed which they want to come under the control of the Marketing Board. I hope the matter will be taken seriously by the farmers. It is their responsibility as well. The hon. member asked me the other day what our policy is, and I asked him immediately afterwards what the policy of the farmers is.

Will the Government be prepared to carry out the farmers’ policy?

If it is the right policy, yes. We always want to give effect as much as possible to the wishes of the farmers themselves. But they must not sit still in the expectation that if difficulties arise the Government will help them out of their troubles. They themselves must consider the matter with a full sense of responsibility. We shall give effect to the policy of the farmers if we are of opinion that it is really in the interest of the industry to do so. The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) again touched on the question of soil erosion. This is a very serious matter, which has often been discussed by this House. I do not think there is a more serious problem than this one facing the country today. Hon. members are aware of the steps which have already been taken in this regard by my predecessors and myself, in order to cope with the evil of soil exhaustion and destruction in the country. The problem is a tremendous one. Ever-increasing parts of the country are being ploughed up, grass is being eaten up, veld is being trampled out and destroyed, and conditions are arising which present a serious danger for the future, a danger which is really disquieting. For a number of years steps have been taken to cope with the position by means of building dams, by the growing of grass, by fencing, by the conservation of water supplies, and so on. There is no doubt that the matter has become serious, and even under present conditions we are to a certain extent still continuing with these measures. The hon. member suggests that we should now create a new body, a sort of Conservation Board which will deal with the whole subject and which will see to it that the destruction which is going on at the present moment will be systematically counteracted. The idea is one which deserves consideration. I believe the hon. member has in mind the creation of new machinery, so that it will no longer be left to the Department, but that there will be a special organisation to combat the evil. Other matters of an agricultural nature are linked up with this. It is not just a question of soil erosion, but there is, for instance, the prickly pear and other noxious weeds. There are a number of serious dangers which will threaten us if the soil is impoverished any further. The suggestion made by the hon. member will have to be seriously considered. Hon. members are aware of the difficulties with which we have to contend today. We have not got the staff, we have not got the means. All forces are required for the tremendous battle in another direction, and we are not able today to do everything that is necessary in the interest of the country, but I do hope that we shall bear this idea in mind, and I hope that at some later stage it may perhaps be possible to give effect to it.

I come now to what the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) has said about a living wage. Much of what the hon. member has said is common cause. It is perfectly true, especially in our big cities and our industrial conditions, that the wages that are paid to the native today in industry are not sufficient to keep up a decent civilised standard of living. But we agree to that, we have had investigations which have proved that, and we know it is a fact that natives in industry do not get a square deal, and a great distance has to be gone yet before we shall do justice to that section of our community. The hon. member also pointed out that the Government is a great sinner in this respect. She says not only that the general standard is below what is required, but she says, with some justice, that the Government does not set an example, and she mentioned items in these Estimates to prove her case. Well, it is quite easy to prove the case, it is admitted that we shall have to go a long way before justice is done, but where I do not agree with my hon. friend is this. It will take us some time to cover that gap. She cannot accuse the present Government of not moving steadily forward in the right direction.

Steadily backward.

We are talking of native wages and industrial conditions; my hon. friend may accuse us of going backward in other directions, but certainly not in that; we are steadily moving forward. The Wages Board is improving native wages practically all over South Africa; they have had a special instruction ever since this Government has come into power to give special attention to the lower grades of labour in industry, whites and African. The organised industries, high class artisans, well organised into trade unions, are well able to look after their own interests, and on the whole they are very well looked after. But what is wanted here is to watch the interests of what we call the under-dog, those workers in our industries who are not organised and not able to look after themselves. The Wages Board has now for the last couple of years steadily moved forward in that direction, and has fixed wages in many areas in this country which have almost outpaced public opinion. My hon. friend knows the difficulties we have had in certain areas in South Africa, where the wages fixed, although perhaps not as high as a real standard of living requires, are yet far beyond what had been customary so far, and we have been in trouble over some of these cases. But we are steadily moving forward, and we shall move forward in Government employ, too. My hon. friend knows that the Minister of Railways only quite recently gave a rise to native workers on the railways, which was an advance, perhaps not a very great advance, but the total of that advance was very large. We must remember that when you are dealing with huge masses of workers, tens and hundreds of thousands, even a rise of 3d. or 6d. totals up to a very big figure, indeed. So we are moving, although perhaps not as fast as my hon. friends would desire, perhaps not as fast as many would wish, but we are moving in the right direction. I hope the hon. member will not despair and accuse us as mere reactionaries in the matter, which I think does call for our attention as a Christian and civilised country. Do not let the natives get the idea in this country that we are neglecting their interests and are disregardful of their claims. We know the contribution they are making in the development of this country; we know what that vast labour force means to South Africa, and if we did not have it, where would South Africa be? We know how much we owe to them, and we shall do more and more, until ultimately substantial justice is done to the under-dog, whatever his colour in this country. I do not think you will have a prosperous South Africa, I do not think you will realise the destiny to which this country is moving unless social justice is done, and wages go a long distance in bridging the gap which separates present conditions from social justice. The hon. member will remember that when this Inter-Departmental Commission was appointed to enquire into urban industrial conditions, they had a special mandate to see in what other ways one could help besides giving higher wages, what other ways could be adopted to help our African workers. If I may diverge just for a moment, Mr. Chairman, I was very much struck by what happened a year or two ago when a Governor of one of our neighbouring colonies visited us here. He wanted to see something of what was going on in our urban locations, and I took the necessary steps to send him to several of our great locations, so that he might see what the conditions were. When I saw him afterwards I asked him what his impressions were, and he said: “You know, the thing that struck me most was the lot of unnecessary stuff that I found in these locations”. Even with the low wages which our African workers get in the towns, they are buying all sorts of things on which they set a value, but which in the opinion of this authority on native affairs, had no value whatever. So it is not merely a matter of higher wages; very often higher wages simply mean that the native buys things that are unnecessary, things that do him no good, and things that really mean a waste of those wages. I have often thought whether it would not be possible instead of merely raising wages, to give improved conditions—lower tram fares and railway fares, and making living generally cheaper for these people rather than by putting money into their hands which perhaps they may not use properly. It is from that point of view that this Commission had that mandate. Improved conditions and an improved atmosphere will probably do more good than merely increasing wages which are not properly used by those who are not educated enough to apply money properly. I admit that more will have to be done, but I think my hon. friend, in all fairness, ought to admit that we are moving steadily in the right direction, in industry, in commerce and in Government Departments too. My hon. friend raised another point which is of considerable importance, and that is the character and the working of the Planning Council. The original report made to us by the Agricultural and Industrial Requirements Commission, was that we should have a Planning Council which would be an all-time body. The Government had to decide that point first of all, and they came to the conclusion that we had not the material at present for an all-time Planning Council. The sort of men you would want, the members you would want for such a body, would be of a very high class indeed, because they would help the Government in settling major policy in this country, and you could not take the ordinary citizen from the streets and appoint him to a Board like this as a whole-time member. It was necessary for us, under the circumstances, and with the shortage of personnel that we have now, especially under present conditions, to go slow, and we thought it much better to appoint part-time men and women, whom you could get now, quite high class persons, but whom you could not get on such a salary as we could pay them for full-time services. We have appointed this body, and I expect a great deal from them. The hon. member seems to be under the impression that this body is responsible for the policy, but I would remind the Committee that they are only responsible to advise the Prime Minister on large questions of policy. We are not erecting another bureaucratic machine. We have been very careful about that; the ultimate responsibility must rest on the Government, whatever policy is recommended by this body, if it is adopted by the Government. It will be subject to criticism of this House, we shall not be able to shelter behind some autocratic, bureaucratic body which is saddling policies on this country.

We are not allowed to make any suggestions?

Oh yes, you can.

Where is the machinery for that?

You may give evidence before them, and you may make suggestions—you make suggestions even to me, don’t you?

That is what we are here for.

These enquiries that are being made by the Planning Council involve a lot of investigation, and I am sure Dr. Van Eck would be only too glad to exchange ideas with my hon. friend if he does not go too far to his extreme left. I think we have avoided the danger of establishing a body which is going to saddle a policy on this country. The questions this body has to deal with are very important, long-range questions of future policy for which most of us have little time. We are so occupied with the daily struggle of administration, the daily work which members of Parliament and members of the Government have to do, that we have little time for long-range thinking, and fundamental policies. That is what this body is for. I have a very high opinion of them. I look upon that body as experimental—I have told them clearly that they are an experiment, and if they make good they will probably be a larger and a permanent body. I want to see how this works out before I make a final choice. Things are shaping fairly well, and I hope it will be found in the end that this organisation, not very showy in its first appearance, is going to produce very fruitful results for this country. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) has asked what is being done for the conversion of our vast machine of war production to peace purposes afterwards. I may tell the Committee that all the necessary steps to that end have been taken. The Government has asked all the departments to prepare their plans for the future, and I have given special instructions to the Director-General of War Supplies to start planning now, and I know steps are taken now to start planning for the switch over from war production to peace production. A certain portion of our present machine for war production will have to be scrapped. You cannot make shells and guns—there will be no demand for them, and a certain portion of that costly machinery will no doubt have to be scrapped. A certain part can and will be turned to peace production and another part can be changed to be adapted in whole or part to peace production. All this requires careful working out, and all that is going on, and I look forward to the recommendations of Dr. Malan—no, Dr. Van der Byl and his Committee.

Coming events.

No, not so soon. The hon. member has referred to the Atlantic Charter and its general terms, and especially its relation to the Jewish people who are now suffering horrors of persecution such as are unknown to history. I need only tell my hon. friend that the present state of affairs is deserving and is receiving the closest attention of every allied government in the world. They are all taking the most serious view of what is happening and I think something will be done, something practicable will be done, in order to deal with the question which is the most tragic almost in the history of the world. A whole race is being wiped out and we know that a great deal will have to be done during the war and thereafter to save what can be saved, from a purely humanitarian point of view. I only want to give the hon. member for this Committee the assurance that this matter is receiving the closest attention of all the principal allied countries, and they are devising steps to meet the danger now emerging.

*The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) has asked me about the lease-lend system, and he has again raised a point that was discussed last year already and to which I answered, in how far there is a secret idea or plan in one form or other in connection with the lease-lend system. I said last week that the only quid pro quo that we give today for all the material and services that we receive from America is the provisioning of convoys and ships that pass our coasts and the repairs of ships. So far there is nothing to which we are bound. Of course what we get from America is much more. If hon. members think of the number of aircraft that we receive from America and what is must cost, then they can see what a surprising contribution America is making to our war supplies.

It looks as if there is something behind it.

It is too good to be true.

Yes, it almost looks as if there is something behind it, but I can give hon. members the assurance that this is not the case, that it is the policy of President Roosevelt and his advisers to get away from the position that arose after the last war, namely that the victors were so deeply indebted to America that it became impossible for them, that they subsequently had to repudiate, and that America eventually did not get anything out of it. President Roosevelt and his advisers are convinced that that situation should not again he allowed, and that it is much better to pool our resources. We contribute in our poverty, so to speak, what we can to the prosecution of the war; from our meagre existence we contribute what we can. America on her side, with her colossal resources, contributes much more, but she now asks us to give what we can, and so far she has asked for only the two things which I have already mentioned. The question of bases has not been mentioned, and the whole system is to get away from the bases question.

Where does the lease-lend come in then?

I do not know upon what these words are based but I know that we have not been asked to keep any accounts. We are doing what we can. We must arrange with America what we can do, and so far nothing further has been asked for

It is not lease-lend; it is donatio mortis causa.

The one can produce a lot from its wealth and the other very little from its poverty, but everyone does what he can. I have already said that further negotiations will take place. The American government has offered to make an agreement like they have already made with Britain, Australia and New Zealand, and a negotiator will come here shortly, and then we will see if there are further terms, whether anything further is expected of us than the meagre contribution that we have been making so far, namely to supply provisions to ships and to do repairs.

Have you copies of the agreements with the other countries?

Yes.

Can you lay them on the Table.

I can show them to the hon. member if he wants to see them. There is no secret about them. I think this covers the points that have been raised, and I will not now go into the question about railways that has been raised by the hon. member. Perhaps my colleague, the hon. Minister of Railways, will first say something about it.

I want to refer to a case which concerns the Minister of Railways. The Prime Minister has cast a little oil on the troubled waters. As far as I am concerned, I shall let it go at that for the moment. Now I want to bring yet another charge to the notice of the Prime Minister. I now want to associate myself with the hon. Leader of the Opposition in bringing a charge against the Minister of Railways to the notice of the Prime Minister. I want to touch upon a certain matter in order to show the Prime Minister what is going on in a Department like the Department of Railways. Some time ago I raised the question of the wages of casual artisans, and I hope that the sleeping Minister of Labour will pay a little attention to this matter. I want to point out an injustice which was committed over a long period of years, and how we had to fight and struggle to remedy the matter. A grade steward representing the casual artisans at Bloemfontein came to see me. He alleged that for many years he had not received the wages which he should have received. He alleged that he was paid at the rate of 2s. 7½d. per hour, while the Act laid down that in the event of the Railway Administration engaging casual artisans in Bloemfontein, they must pay to those casual artisans the same wages which is paid by private concerns, namely, 3s. 3d. per hour. The grade steward asked for that scale, but it was refused. He fought for a long time, but the Administration would not pay him. The matter was then taken up by me, and I had to write to the System Manager. The matter was then referred to the General Manager. I waited for a month, and at a later date I had to make an appeal to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. Eventully the arrear moneys which were due to the grade steward were paid out. The Minister of Labour will notice that in this case the men were paid at the rate of 2s. 7½d. per hour instead of 3s. 3d. This money has now been paid to the grade steward, but there are still a number of other men who are in the same position, and who have not yet been paid. One would expect that the Department would immediately have proceeded to remedy the injustice in the case of all the casual artisans because now the point has been yielded. But, notwithstanding the fact that these arrear moneys were paid out to the grade steward, there were still a number to whom it had not been paid. The Administration refused to pay them. I raised the matter in the House of Assembly, and gave the particulars to the Minister in writing, and after all this investigation it has been established that for something like four years the Railway Administration had underpaid these men. If we had not raised the matter, it would never have been rectified. During the past week a sum of approximately £4,000 was paid out to 16 men in Bloemfontein. This represents arrear monies which were illegally withheld and which accumulated during the past four or five years. After I had raised the matter in Parliament, it was repaid. But now there are still a number of men in the maintenance section who have not yet been paid; there are a number of men in the mechanical and signal sections who have not yet been paid. Then, too, there are the widows of men who have died in the meantime. There are other men who have been paid off in the meantime, and they have not been paid out. I want to point out to the Prime Minister what is going on. The Administration admitted in the one case that they had illegally withheld wages. The other cases are precisely the same, but they wait until we raise the matter here. Now, I want to ask the Prime Minister why this sum of £4,000 was withheld over a period of four or five years? The grade steward who raised this matter was rebuffed by the Administration time and time again. He then approached me, and told me that he was being threatened with victimisation, that he was being threatened with disciplinary action.

Disgraceful.

He said that he was prepared to stand up for his rights, and eventually the Administration had to admit that they were wrong, and they had to pay out to him the arrear moneys. In one particular case an individual received £296, which was unlawfully withheld from him, and only after a struggle in Parliament it was refunded to him. I want to ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to see to it that this victimisation does not take place. The person who raised this matter was the grade steward of the men, and he is being threatened with victimisation because he fought for the rights of his men. His name is J. A. Brummer. He caused trouble because those wages were unlawfully withheld from him and his men over a period of four or five years. Approximately 5s. per day was unlawfully withheld from these men for five years, and now that their grade steward wants to rectify the matter, he is threatened with victimisation. I want to ask the Prime Minister to see to it that these things do not take place. How is it possible that these wages, laid down by law, were not paid? Why is it that when in the one case the Administration admitted that the arrear moneys were due, they did not proceed to make that refund in the other cases as well? The other men were told that arrear wages in respect of three months would be paid to them, but after I had disclosed it in the House, the arrear moneys were refunded to them as well. We raise this matter under this Vote; we discuss it under this Vote because we realise that the Prime Minister cannot always be here, and for that reason we attack the various Ministers under this Vote, so that the Prime Minister may know what is going on. This is a cruel injustice which was committed over a long period of years. What is the Administration going to do in the case of those who have died? Will those arrear moneys be paid to their widows? What about those men who have already resigned or who were dismissed from the service? I should like to know from the Prime Minister whether he will see to it that justice is done in the other sections as well, and in the case of those people who have resigned or who were discharged, and in the case of the widows. Why should this injustice be perpetuated, and why is it necessary for these people ultimately to invoke the assistance of members of Parliament? That should not be necessary. In despair they eventually go to members of Parliament. I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister to see to it that this matter is adjusted, and that the arrear moneys are paid out to all those who are entitled to it.

To deal with a point raised by the last speaker first, I should like to remind him of my reply to the Part Appropriation debate when I told him that I would go into the cases at Bloemfontein. He has sent me full details and the whole matter is being gone into. He will appreciate that it is impossible for the Minister of Railways, leave alone the Prime Minister, to know all the details of the working on his various systems. Let me make this clear, that in regard to the payment of outside casuals and the regular railway men there was a great deal of confusion owing to the instructions being misinterpreted. It is the case that where we employ outside casuals we pay the standard rates of wage for the locality laid down under the Wage Board Determination, and if anyone has not been getting it he is entitled to get it, and we shall see that he does get it. There has been a misunderstanding, and we have had to make good where outside men have not got what they were entitled to.

Why should there be all this delay?

I am looking into the matter. The hon. member knows that as far as Bloemfontein is concerned it has been in the hands of one whom he regards as a very competent system manager, and these things should not have happened. I am very pleased to see that the hon. member is continuing his interest in the lot of the railwaymen, and I was also interested to note that some railwaymen made him a presentation because of his previous efforts on their behalf.

Yes, I have it here, a very nice brief case.

I am sorry to see the nature of the presentation made—I was hoping it might be a portmanteau. I had the idea that the hon. member had worn out his portmanteau in his various political attempts and that he would need a new one—but I am afraid that little case will not carry him very far—it will only enable him to carry his speeches about.

Will widows also be paid out?

I will look into that but I am not going to commit myself at the moment. Now in regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Piquetberg—I did, in fact, deal with the various confidential circulars referred to in the Part Appropriation debate and I pointed out that all these circulars if they are carefully examined will show that the Railway Administration—the Minister and the General Manager, according to what the nature of the appointment was, were merely looking for information, and the fullest information in regard to the men eligible for appointment. Hon. members opposite regard my desire to know something about my men and their qualifications as an attempt at victimisation. Nothing is further from the truth. I want to be fair to the men, and when the hon. members over there tell me that Mr. Charles Malan established a scheme whereby they were going to be treated for five years in a certain way, and that the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) said that he would extend that period to 1939, and that thereafter I continued to carry out the same scheme … . well, if hon. members say that, then they really do not know what they are talking about. They don’t know what the law is. Mr. Charles Malan did not have to make special arrangements for five years. The law provides for five years exemption in respect of bilingual requirements. The hon. member for Gezina did not have any right to extend an arrangement until 1939—if it was not within the law—and if it was within the law then he had no right to terminate it in 1939. When I became Minister of Railways, the first thing I did was to look up the position. The whole position is contained in Section 8 of Act No. 23 of 1925. Section 8 (1) deals with any person appointed within five years of the commencement of the Act and makes various provisions for special consideration being given to unilingual men for five years because it was felt that it was unfair to spring a change on the Administration’s servants without giving everyone a chance to comply with the requirements of the Act. I need not deal with the whole of this Section. Now we come to Section 8 (2). It is a very short Section and I shall read it—

Perfectly clear. After five years no one could be appointed to a clerical post—no matter what arrangements the hon. member for Gezina made or extended. The law is quite emphatic. So far as clerical posts are concerned men must be bilingual. And then, Section 8 (3) says, that in appointing any person to a post in which a knowledge of both languages is necessary the Administration shall be satisfied that such person possesses the qualifications necessary for the efficient discharge of the duties attached to such post. That is the law as passed by Mr. Charles Malan himself. And that is the law I have followed. I have administered that law in that way, and I challenge hon. members opposite to give me a single case where I have not insisted on that, and if I have appointed a man to a clerical post if he was not fully bilingual, I shall be glad to hear of it. If there has been such an appointment, it has been made inadvertently and without my knowledge. If any man was appointed without his possessing the necessary qualifications then I want to hear of it. The House will see how necessary it is that we should know something about the bilingual qualifications of the officials ourselves.

The question is with how much you will be satisfied.

The hon. member can, of course, always doubt the spirit in which anyone would administer anything. But I think the House can be satisfied and is satisfied that I shall administer things fairly. I do not blindly accept a certificate by anyone that a particular man possesses the necessary qualifications. I often ask: “Now, what does this mean, what qualification does he possess?” and if there is any doubt the matter is referred back. I am carrying out the law and if hon. members can suggest any way in which I can carry it out more fairly I shall be only too glad to be guided.

The hon. Minister has now indicated that he has replied on this matter. He has said practically nothing more than this: That circular letter No. 2293 of the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) was a contravention of the law, and that he, when he became Minister of Railways, he saw to it that that contravention of the law came to an end, and that the provisions of Act No. 23 of 1925 were applied. That is the Minister’s argument. He wants to put an end to the irregularities that took place when the hon. member for Gezina was Minister of Railways. I have already raised it in this House before what the hon. member for Gezina did, and just to get the gist of the matter I want to quote to the House Schedule (A) of circular letter No. 2293, which the hon. member for Gezina issued when he was Minister of Railways. It reads as follows—

In short, it means this, that where a person has made an effort to become bilingual, that person will not be disqualified for promotion because of the fact that he is unilingual. Now the Minister comes and says that he wants to do away with this irregularity. If he wants to do away with the irregularity, why did he write this confidential letter on 22nd May, 1940?—

I can continue, and, as I have already done, quote various things from these confidential letters. This letter was followed by a further confidential letter on 28th July—

Now the Minister says that he wants information. He wants information so that he can carry out the law as it should be. What does he want to do with information about people who can be promoted illegally? Does he want the information in order to commit something illegal? If the Minister tells us that these letters were written in order to carry out the law, then I want to tell him that he is insulting the mentality of this House to say such a thing here. He is insulting not only the powers of perception of this side of the House, but also those of his own side. He goes further. He says that he does not want this anomaly created by the hon. member for Gezina to continue. This so-called anomaly was that if a man has made an effort to qualify in both official languages, then he could be taken into consideration. But what is said in this letter?—

1. (2) In each instance where a unilingual servant referred to under (1) is nominated, a certificate is to be furnished—
   1. (i) That the servant concerned complied with the lingual requirements of the post in terms of Section 8 (3) of Act 23 of 1925.
   2. (ii) Full particulars of the attempts made by the servant to qualify lingually are to be indicated.

What does this mean? Where the hon. member for Gezina gave an opening to a person who tried to make himself bilingual, the Minister comes with a query that is made, of which the purpose is that special provision must be made for a man who has tried to qualify in the second language, and then he comes and says that he made this inquiry in order to carry out the law. How does he want to carry out the law in connection with unilingual persons? I do not want to continue and quote all these letters. But I would be very pleased if the Minister would give an explanation in connection with a later circular which he issued, namely on 15 December, 1942. He then issued this circular letter—

It appears here that the General Manager issued these confidential letters without the knowledge of the Minister of Railways, and therefore the Minister himself issued a letter. I have on a previous occasion put this question to the Minister, and I want to do so again. Were you aware of these letters that were issued, and were they issued with your approval? I very much want to know this. I assume that the Minister gave his approval to it, or otherwise he would not have said in his budget speech that he and his Government had full confidence in the General Manager. And therefore I want to put this further question to the Minister. It is an important question: Was it on your instruction that these confidential letters were written, which you want to contend were written by the General Manager in order to get information? And then I want to ask you: What did you want to do with that information; why should only some of the staff have known about it, and what did the Minister want to do with the information?

Circulars of the kind indicated by the hon. member are sent out by the management in the ordinary course of their work. I have looked through them all, and there is no circular that does not correctly interpret my wishes. I cannot say that I had pre-knowledge of any of the circulars going out, but I have no objection to any that have gone out. None of them do more than ask for information which enables the Administration to comply with the particular section of the Act. I think I have answered the question.

The Minister took it amiss when the interjection was made that we were not satisfied with regard to bilingual qualifications when servants received promotion. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. Minister is perfectly sincere and endeavours to carry out the spirit as well as the letter of the Act. But the trouble is, as the Minister has admitted, that he does not know all that is going on in his own Department. The fact remains that for quite a number of years serious complaints had been continually made in regard to promotions in the railway service. The provision in the Act which the Minister referred to is 8 (3)—

It must be clearly understood by the Committee, Mr. Chairman, that this does not entail an examination being passed by the servant concerned. The preceding clause provides for servants passing a language examination, but this particular clause provides that the Administration has merely to be satisfied in regard to the bilingual qualification of any servant, and this Mr. Chairman, is where the main complaint comes in. Now, who must actually be satisfied in regard to the linguistic qualification? Certainly not the Minister. The Minister does not know about the hundreds of promotions going on monthly; he does not know about the promotion of a third grade clerk to the second grade; the Minister never hears about that or any other promotion. The trouble is the degree of satisfaction demanded by the Administration, and there is not the slightest doubt about it that in a very large number of cases the degree of satisfaction demanded is of such a low standard that a particular employee may only know what “ja” and “nee” means. That is where the complaint comes in. I know personally railway employees who have received promotion and are supposed to be bilingual, who know as much Afrikaans as probably the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) knows.

[Inaudible].

I think there are very few employees that don’t know very much more English than the hon. member knows Afrikaans. The Minister, in his reply to the Budget, stated that he initiated a new policy of promotion, he said that in future the Administration is going to promote employees not on the basis of seniority but on the basis of efficiency. He gave us the impression that that was a new method of promotion that was going to be introduced, that in future they were not going to worry about seniority but would appoint a young man if he was more efficient than his senior. That is no new policy, it is provided for in Act 23 of 1925. Section 9 (1) reads—

In fact, Mr. Chairman, Act 23 of 1925, provides that promotion shall only occur on the basis of efficiency, and only when efficiency is equal will seniority be taken into account. Here again Mr. Chairman, our trouble is this, that the Administration does not regard bilingualism as a factor of efficiency. For instance, you will find that the names of two servants are submitted for promotion. They may be regarded as being equally efficient, but the one may be completely bilingual in every sense of the word, able to write and read Afrikaans and speak Afrikaans, while the other servant may have a certificate under the provisions of Section 8 (3). This would not be taken into account when it is decided as to which of the two servants is the more efficient.

How can you say that?

It has happened in many cases. I do not want to throw the names of employees across the floor of the House, but the fact remains that that is one of the complaints that has been made for quite a number of years. Bilingualism is not regarded as one of the factors of efficiency when promotions are made. The Minister may be concerned about carrying out the spirit and letter of the Act, but the fact remains that in the interpretation of the Act, not sufficient regard is given to the bilingual qualifications of the servant. As my friend behind me stated, when the management know that they have an English-speaking Minister at the head of affairs, they endeavour in every possible way to get unilingual servants or rather servants who are not efficiently bilingual, promotions.

I have appealed for some years now to get a measure of justice for pre-Union unilingual officials. The Prime Minister, in his message to England, said that we were fighting for a square deal for every one. The hon. Minister of Railways has consistently stated that he is going to adhere to the provisions of the Act of 1923, but he has not considered whether that is a square deal for these pre-Union unilingual officials. I again make the appeal to both sides of the House on behalf of these men. I am not asking for anything for inefficient men, nor for men who understood exactly what they were doing when they entered the service, but I do ask the House as a whole to realise that men who were in the services prior to Union and who received the assurance that unilingualism would never interfere with their promotion, should get a modicum of justice, the square deal that the Prime Minister promised to all when he spoke to the people of England.

I can fully realise that the Prime Minister is not able to keep his finger on everything in the administration of the country. Many things keep him busy, and he is not able to know about everything in every department. Therefore I want to make use of this opportunity to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to conditions in connection with the hearing of internment cases. I have already brought it to the attention of the Minister of the Interior, or rather the Minister of the Interior was not here, and I asked the Minister of Justice to bring it to his attention. Whether he did so, I do not know. I bring it to the attention of the Prime Minister, because I do not think that he is aware of the circumstances that surround the hearing of internees, and I hope that if he is now informed of it, he will see to it that steps are taken to improve the matter. I do not know whether he is aware of it that persons have now already been waiting for six or seven months for the hearing of their appeal cases? Let me mention a few cases to bring the Prime Minister’s attention to what the real position is, and how extremely unsatisfactory it is. On 26th October of last year I received a letter from a woman in my constituency, whose husband had been interned. She informed me that he had already been told the reason why he had been interned, and that he had given notice of appeal. I communicated with the Department, and on 3rd November I received an answer in which I was informed that the matter was receiving attention. It was the ordinary official statement in answer to a representation. On 23rd November I received a letter, in which I was told that the appeal of Mr. A. Theron—that was the name of the person—was awaiting hearing. I waited, and heard nothing further. After I had arrived here in Cape Town, I again received a letter from the woman, in which she informed me that her husband had already waited five months to have his appeal heard. She writes—

I then again communicated with the Department, and also with the Minister. The official concerned later pointed out to me that the case was still pending. I then asked the question: But when will the case be heard? The official merely shrugged his shoulders, and said that there were hundreds of cases waiting, and he could not give me any idea when the case would be heard. Here is another case of a similar nature, of a certain Meiring, who has also been waiting a long time for his appeal to be heard. Then I have the case of a constable with the name of Benadie, who was taken into custody. This person is about 22 or 23 years old. Someone else wrote a letter to me about him. His father has died since he was interned, and his mother lives at Kimberley. There is no one to provide for her, while there is also a young brother who is dependent on him. Apart from the merits of the case, application for parole cannot receive any attention before the appeal has been heard. He asks that his appeal should be heard as soon as possible, so that his application for parole can be dealt with. Here is another case of P. F. du Plessis. According to this letter this person suffers from a serious stomach complaint, and has already spent the greater part of his stay in the camp in the Pretoria Hospital. The authorities are therefore fully acquainted with his extremely serious health condition. The letter says further that Du Plessis definitely maintains that he is altogether innocent, and the request is that the Department should take all this into consideration, and give him an opportunity to get well, or to go and die with his family. Here is another case of Constable P. H. Pieterse. His case has also waited for seven months for appeal. This man was locked up alone for about six months. I have brought this matter to the attention of the Prime Minister, for this reason: Will it not be possible to appoint more Commissioners of Appeal? My information is that there is only one Commissioner of Appeal. He has now been given an assistant, but the assistant must act under his guidance. The Prime Minister will agree that if these cases can be expedited so that the persons can know what the position is, even if their appeals are thrown out, then it will clear the atmosphere very much and create a better spirit. Today the Commissioner of Appeal is simply overloaded with work. He cannot manage it. The official concerned said that there were hundreds of cases waiting, and if the Commissioner alone is compelled to hear them all, then perhaps months, and even years, will pass before all have been dealt with. I feel that with a view to the seriousness of the situation and the bitterness that exists, it will really be in the interest of the improvement of conditions in general, if the Government will seriously consider appointing another four or five Appeal Commissioners. If this is done these cases could be expedited. If it is not done, then I fear that this internment is going to create a very unhappy spirit, or rather then it is going to very much aggravate the ill-feeling, because the people must wait so long before they know where they stand. Therefore I must make an urgent appeal to the Prime Minister to give his attention to this matter. I feel convinced that the Prime Minister is not aware of what is going on in connection with internment matters. He cannot possibly be acquainted with everything. That I assume, and therefore I make an appeal to him to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister concerned.

I just want to make use of this opportunity to bring the Prime Minister back to his own sphere by putting a question to him about the world peace, a question that was put in this direction recently. I want to ask the Prime Minister if he does not think it is advisable, that before we get to that stage when peace is declared, an invitation should be sent to those who think that they understand something about the world position and international relations, to send constructive suggestions in the form of a memorandum to the office of the Prime Minister in order to show the Prime Minister what, in their opinion will bring about a lasting peace. Why I ask this is because when an important matter has been dealt with—take the last world peace—then people come when the matter is over and criticise and say that this or that should have happened; that this would have been a better model, or that would have been a better system. Now I want to suggest that the Prime Minister’s office says: Very well, all those people who think that they have a wonderful brain, can draw up a memorandum in which they suggest what they think should be done. He can say that he has made a study of world matters, that he has regarded matters from all sides, and that this is the scheme he suggests. The Prime Minister, from the outbreak of war until now, has been overloaded with responsibilities. He has not yet had an opportunity to study the matter from that point of view. His officials are overloaded with work. They cannot get an opportunity to think about these matters and make a proper study so that after the war they will be able to make constructive suggestions. I say that it is becoming necessary for us to give particular attention to the world peace, and that the Prime Minister should issue such an invitation from his office. It will of course be impossible for the Prime Minister and his officials to go into these suggestions in detail. But the Prime Minister can appoint one or two of them to sort out the suggestions from those memoranda, and the remarks that appear in them, they can lay before the Prime Minister, because we all assume that he will represent our country, and he can consider the suggestions. I cannot imagine that if there should be peace tomorrow that there will not be an immediate delegation from our country, and that the whole world does not expect that the Prime Minister will play a very important part. The Prime Minster will perhaps have to go overseas immediately. He will take a part in the peace treaty that will have to be concluded. When we speak of peace, then we mean a lasting peace for the world. If we follow such a policy as I suggest here, then we have an opportunity of getting the best results, and of getting the benefit of the brains of the people who have made a study of these matters. There are such people who have made a good study of things, and they get no opportunity to say that this or that suggestion should be accepted, that this or that would be practicable and acceptable. Where the Prime Minister has not now the opportunity to study those matters, although he would like to study them, I say that in this way an invitation should be given, and that he should make use of the brains of the people who have made a life study of these matters. The Prime Minister can say that it is not necessary for him to make such an invitation. But if the Prime Minister does not tell them that suggestions will be welcome, then they will think that it is useless to send them to the Prime Minister’s office, because they would be used as waste paper. But if the Prime Minister would say that he gives an opportunity to those who have studied matters, to send in a memorandum and that it will be considered, then I think that those critics and boasters will have time to consider what they lay before us. Recently a book was issued by Abercrombie. That book contains his ideas. There are other people who have ideas, but they cannot all write books. They cannot publish a book, because there is no paper. If the Prime Minister gives the right to those who have studied the matter to send memoranda to his Department, and that they will be sorted out, and that they will possibly be used, then it will give those people an opportunity to submit ideas to him which will perhaps be important. I suggest this in all seriousness. Then I want to come back to the Minister of Railways and Harbours. I think the country was rather surprised and shocked when we read in the newspaper what has happened in connection with the wages question which the hon. member (Mr. C. R. Swart) has raised. I want to congratulate him on what he has done, but I want to ask the Minister of Railways where the good, first-rate and perfect General Manager and staff is about which he spoke in his budget speech. Where are they? The Minister owes it to the House to say where the fault lies. It is not a matter of a casual administrative error, but it has gone on for years and there have been frequent complaints, I imagine, until it went to the extreme and a case had to be made against the Railways. I associate myself with the hon. member for Winburg that it would not at all be strange if the man were victimised. If the Minister does not prevent it, it will be nothing unusual for him to be dismissed, but it will be the wrong man who is dismissed. The man who is so perfect according to the Minister, ought to be dismissed. We feel that we have to do here with a point that does not only apply to the Railways, but to other Departments. Someone there in the Department who holds a very important post, imagine that he is a dictator and that he can contravene the law. Did this System Manager think that he could shield behind the fact that his Department could not be taken to court? The Government and the Railways ought to give an example to other employers in the country, but to think that a sum of £4,000 too little has been paid in the last four years and now has to be repaid to the workers, leaves you standing amazed. And that in spite of the fact that the attention of the Department was drawn to it; in spite of this they refused to pay the legal wage. I expect the Minister to make a statement on this point today. He owes it to the country. I think that he will feel immediately that if it is a few pounds that have to be paid back to a System Manager, then it will not take four years to do so, but here we have to do with ordindary members of the staff, and the man who on behalf of his fellow-workers took the matter up is threatened. I think that we must lodge a very strong protest against the action that was taken. The Minister ought to make it quite clar to his Department that they cannot shield behind the fact that they cannot be taken to court. When complaints are raised in connection with language, then the Minister is always a big man and he has strong arguments for his side, but here we have to do with a matter of oppression and it has gone on for four years, and now the arrear wages are paid out. What would have happened to a person in private employment who did such a thing? Has our democratic system then brought us already to the situation that Government Departments must be subjected to inspection to see whether they treat their workers honestly? I think that this complaint is also not limited to Bloemfontein. I am inclined to think that if an inquiry were made in South Africa, you would find more of these cases where Government Department workers are paid too little, not the legal wages. Who concerns himself about that?

We do.

Now for the first time there is proof that such a thing has happened. In any case the Minister will have to satisfy the country that the same thing is not going on in Durban, Johannesburg and other places. If one Government Department contravened the law on such a large scale for such a long time, after attention had repeatedly been drawn to it, then the time has come that this House should ask the Government to subject all Government Department to inspection by inspectors. The Minister has spoken about the wonderful efficiency of the Railway Department. It is certainly no proof of efficiency if at one centre you have to pay out £4,000 in arrear wages. There must be something wrong with the System Manager and the Minister owes the country an explanation. [Time limit.]

I just want to come back for a moment to the Prime Minister and to say that I am very grateful to him for having openly declared the principle of noninterference. But I do not think that we can be satisfied with lip service to the great principle, but that we should also be prepared to apply the principle in practice. In the case which we had before the House, even if the facts are given by the Minister of Justice are correct, there was interference by the Administration in the ordinary administration of justice in the country. The Prime Minister made a statement here which is correct “that there was an application to the Minister for postponement.” Is that the correct way of obtaining a postponement of your case? Must you apply to the Minister? There are the usual channels to ask for a postponement, and if the Minister lends himself to becoming the guide for applications for postponement, it is tantamount to interference in the administration of justice in the country, and it does not become the Minister of Justice to take it upon himself to decide whether or not a postponement shall be granted. The Prime Minister said that the great point was whether there was a re-opening and that if that was the case, so he argued, there could have been no trial on the 18th September. That is not the point. The point is not really whether there was a re-opening of the preparatory examination, but the point is that if there was a re-opening, then it was the easiest thing in the world for the accused, if he appeared for trial on the 18th, to say that he asks the court for postponement in view of the re-opening. What the Minister has done here is that he has taken upon himself the function of the presiding judge at the trial. If the facts had been submitted to him, even if the Attorney-General had erred, the presiding judge would have been in a position to rule that the trial of the case must be postponed on the application of the accused, because the law is in his favour. But there is yet another point, which I do not want to go into at great length because it is a legal point. But the other question is whether, since the preparatory examination was re-opened for the express purpose of proving previous convictions, the relevant section of the Act was still applicable in that case. I let it go at that for the moment. What are the facts? The facts are that the preparatory examination was obviously re-opened exclusively for the purpose of proving previous convictions, not for the purpose of leading new evidence, but to place the record of the accused before the court. I again want to ask the Prime Minister to confirm the principle which he has enunciated here, of non-interference in the ordinary administration of justice by Ministers of the Crown, by expressing his disapproval in this particular case of the action of the Minister of Justice. I do not even want to refer to the fact that there is a difference in regard to the facts, but on the statement of the Minister of Justice himself, it is clear that an application for postponement was directed to him, and because he was apparently afraid that the Attorney-General would make a mistake, he interfered in the case. That is a principle which we must strongly condemn, and I hope that the Prime Minister will have the courage to condemn it. Then I want to come to another point, and that is in connection with the Planning Council. The Prime Minister gave us the reasons as to why the Planning Council could not be composed of full-time members. The recommendation was that there should be a council consisting of full-time people, and that they should be people who are capable. It is said that the report of this Commission is one of the best which has ever been published, but it is nevertheless ignored. Now the Prime Minister gives us a reason as to why the recommendation cannot be given effect to. Now I should like to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister what the Planning Council itself says in that regard. In their first report they say—

But then the Commission goes on to say—

Now, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to give effect to the recommendation of the Planning Council, that is, to appoint a few full-time officials at any rate, and rather to get rid of the present hotch-potch composition of the Board, and to appoint a smaller Board or a smaller Council of men who are capable? When I say “capable” I want to say that criticism in this connection does not only come from this side of the House, that it is not based on political grounds, but on an economic basis. The Prime Minister himself told us how important this Council was, and now I have here the opinion of an economist of the standing of Professor Richards, who made a statement in regard to the composition of the Planning Council. I do not want to go into details, but I just want to bring one paragraph to the notice of the House, and that expression of opinion cannot be regarded as founded on political considerations. He says that he is afraid of being accused of interfering in politics when he expresses an opinion, but then he goes on to say—

That is the opinion of a man who knows what he is talking about. He draws attention to the inconsistency that not one economist was appointed to what is called an Economic Planning Council. That is one of the weaknesses. Is the Minister not prepared to accept the recommendation which came from the Planning Council itself, after they had ascertained the reasons which had induced him not to appoint a full-time Council? I also want to ask him whether he will accept the recommendation that, as the Council says, it is of particular importance that they should be financed by a block allowance, and that they should have a say in regard to the appointment of personnel. Is the Minister prepared to accept this principle? And then this further question: In their informal recommendations the Commission said that the Economic Planning and Advisory Council must refrain from engaging in political and sectional activities. The hon. Minister knows that out of the eleven members who were appointed at first, there were not more than four who were actively taking part in politics, and, strangely enough, the four members who actively take part in politics are all supporters of the Prime Minister’s politics. [Time limit.]

As I said the other day, and I want to repeat it, the Department of Justice will welcome any criticism, and I shall welcome any criticism directed against the Department, and I shall meet those criticisms with facts. I must say, however, that I cannot really appreciate what the object of this criticism is. It is an old case, and the case is quite clear.

It is a matter of principle.

If criticism is exercised, those who exercise it must in any case properly investigate the available facts. When the Prime Minister spoke it was said that the preparatory examination had not been re-opened. Now it is said that it was re-opened only with the object of proving previous convictions. But that is tantamount to a re-opening.

What does the Act say about it?

After the re-opening, the postponement took place. But I just want to say that I personally saw the notice, and it was not only a re-opening to prove previous convictions, but also for other purposes. In the meantime, however, my Department was in touch with the Attorney-General, and I just want to give the facts. Here it says “preparatory re-opened for further evidence, 28th August”. The preparatory trial had therefore again been re-opened on the 28th August, and thereafter again on the 6th for the purpose of proving previous convictions.

Only for that purpose.

But the 28th August is only a week before that, and that was for another purpose. That is not interference. I do not believe that the hon. member had any ulterior motive, but I want to say that whatever the criticism is, this Parliament decided that in cases of prosecution, the final decision rests with the Minister. He has the responsibility. If unreasonable prosecutions take place, he is criticised, and if he has the right to stop a prosecution in the interests of right and justice, then he is also entitled to postpone a case, especially when it is intended to give the accused a proper opportunity to submit his case. We all know that a case of embezzlement involves great trouble to defend such a case properly. On the 16th August, 1941, we …

Then it had been in progress for nine months already.

The last evidence was only taken on the 16th August. And what are the facts? The facts are that he could not have been tried. Must you, when an accused approaches you, say that he must go to Court, although you know that the Court cannot try the case? Must all these extra costs be incurred? Would it be reasonable?

How could the case ever have come before the Circuit Court?

It was tried at Bloemfontein a month later, on the 18th October.

But why was it placed on the roll of the Circuit Court?

After the 16th August it was placed on the roll, but thereafter the Crown Prosecutor thought it fit to re-open the preparatory examination. That made it impossible for the case to be heard in Court on the 18th September. That is the whole point. When he approached me there was no reason to refuse the postponement. It would have been foolish on my part to say that there could not be a postponement because the case had to be postponed. Now the question is put as to why I granted it, and not the Attorney-General? I usually refer these points to the Attorney-General, not that I have to do it, but I agree with what the Prime Minister said, namely, that it is a better policy to do that. I do not want to say that I have not got the right, but in this case there were particular circumstances. On a previous occasion the Attorney-General and I had a conference, and we agreed that the postponement would be granted. In this case a great deal of pressure was apparently brought to bear from a certain side that the case must be brought to trial. The Attorney-General then told me that he was placed in a difficult position because he was a relative of the accused and that it would lend a wrong colour to the matter if he granted it. When they approached me, therefore, I did not want to throw the onus on the Attorney-General, but I notified the Attorney-General that I had granted the postponement, and then it was further dealt with by him. I think hon. members will see that there is nothing wrong in that. The matter was properly investigated by the department, but the Attorney-General was in a difficult position because the accused was a relative of his.

Is that the excuse now?

There was not the slightest interference. The case is fair and right. The question as to whether a case will be tried rests with the Crown. If the Crown is convinced that the man is not guilty, the case can be withdrawn.

Who must decide whether or not postponement can be granted?

If there are grounds for a postponement, and application is made by the accused, the postponement is usually granted. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) cannot refer me to a single case in his experience where grounds did exist, and where on the application of an accused the postponement was not granted. The case was on the roll, and for that reason the request was agreed to on application. That is not interference. I cannot understand what the objection of hon. members is.

On your own facts, there was interference.

The accused asks for a postponement. The Crown regards it as justified, and agrees to it. That happens in every case where there are sufficient reasons.

Does it rest with the Minister?

I notified the Attorney-General. I think the Minister has the fullest right to grant the postponement of such a case. It is not interference if I act according to the rights which assist under the Act.

You have not got the right.

Why not? I have already said that I did not want to drag the Attorney-General into this.

Why did you not say all these things this morning?

Because I did not want to drag the Attorney-General into it. I am finally compelled to do so, and to mention the family difficulty.

I also want to bring a few things to the notice of the Prime Minister. This is a matter which mothers and parents and children and men instructed me to bring forward. The first point is that there is a great need for a second Commissioner of Appeal. The people in the internment camps, in many cases, have been there for a number of years. Some of them are sickly and the sooner their cases can be dealt with the better. I have in mind the case of J. P. Gouws, for instance, with which I dealt two months ago at Johannesburg. He suffers from heart trouble, and should never have been placed in an internment camp. I should like his case to be dealt with as soon as possible. Then I have a further request. In Pretoria I found that the entrance to the gaol was for both Europeans and non-Europeans. At the entrance there is a small hall, where all the women and children have to wait until the time arrives for them to see their people. Natives pass to and fro amongst them with their dirty clothes, and in this manner diseases can easily be spread. Every few minutes natives are allowed to pass through. It is degrading for a Afrikaner woman to sit there when natives pass to and fro. They cannot continually keep their children on their laps, and the children play about on the ground. The children also run the risk of being contaminated. As it is, the room in which these people have to wait is small and stuffy. I asked the superintendent whether it could not be changed, and he promised that he would go into the matter. Whether he did so I do not know. In any event, it is humiliating. Now it is said that if the natives do not pass where the women are seated they would have to go along the passage where the men are. I am convinced that the men will put up with it as long as the natives do not push past the women. Then there is another matter also. When relatives come to visit the internees and they travel a distance of 400 miles to visit these people, they are allowed to spend two hours with them. But where they travel more than 400 miles, then they are allowed to visit the internees for two hours on two successive days. It must be remembered that these people have to travel great distances, and they only get two hours. They see their family behind the wires. There is a fence and then a passage, and then a further fence, and they can only see their relatives through the wires. I saw how they tried to kiss each other through the wires. Why cannot this be changed? Let there be a guard with the people, but give them an opportunity to greet each other properly. Surely we are Afrikaners, and we are accustomed to geeting each other when we have been parted for a long time. With regard to the provision concerning 400 miles that should be altered too. This is a great distance. Then there are people who sent boxes of biltong, but the biltong was taken out and was not given to the internees. Biltong is not perishable. Are they afraid that the people will hit each other over the head with the biltong? Are they afraid that it will be used as a weapon? Surely that is ridiculous. Why cannot biltong be sent in? It cannot go bad, nor can it be used as a weapon. Then there is another point. When any internee has to be punished, the whole camp is punished. They are not allowed to receive letters, their parcels are withheld and other restrictions are imposed upon them. I think we should be a little more humane. It must also be made known clearly what is regarded as contraband, but biltong ought certainly not to fall under that. There is another point. I saw a young man who was brought in at 4 o’clock in the afternoon into the office in which natives were being examined. He was arrested and placed there, and from 4 o’clock in the afternoon until 8.15 in the evening, he was kept there without getting anything to eat or drink. He is a sickly young man, and I think it is improper to interview Europeans in the same office while natives are being disrobed to be examined. I think it is humiliating. This boy who is sickly had to sit there, and frequently they have to sit about there the whole day with bare feet. We must remember that they are let out for one hour per day only, and during the rest of the time they must sit in that cell barefooted, unless they are fortunate enough to obtain a pair of slippers from their relations. Then I was told by a reliable person that he was called upon to disrobe together with natives. The natives looked down upon him with contempt, because he had to undress for examination just as they did. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether it is not possible to treat his fellow-Afrikaners in a different way; I want to ask him to bring about a change so that those people may feel that they are not humiliated. If the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister does that, it will be greatly appreciated. Since most of them are detained innocently, I feel that I can make an appeal to the Prime Minister to bring about a change.

The Prime Minister has put a question here in connection with wool that I cannot simply let pass. I cannot explain our plan in the few minutes I have at my disposal, but I just want to tell him in broad lines that we are in favour of having a good, orderly post-war marketing scheme. That scheme has already been drafted. The plan is that there should be a legally-recognised body consisting of fifteen members, on which the farmers shall have eight representatives, the brokers four, the sellers two, and the Government one. That body will get the necessary statutory powers. The two great functions which that body will carry out will.be: They will have the power to negotiate with other wool-producing countries, and those negotiations will be acknowledged by the Government of the country. In the second place, they will be given the necessary power to place levies on wool. You know that the big object of the farmers is to establish a wool factory, and the farmers can do this only when they have a body with statutory powers to collect the money for the erection of such a factory. I want to say to the Prime Minister that the farmers will work out their own salvation. We only want the assurance from the Prime Minister that the Government will back the farmers’ decision, and will give the farmers the necessary assistance to carry out such a scheme. There are always political or other forces that want to upset the schemes which farmers feel to be in their best interests. Then there is another point which I would like to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister. You will remember that in 1939, just before the outbreak of this war, Gen. Hertzog promised to introduce a law in 1940 to pin down the Asiatics so that there shall be no further penetration. With the outbreak of the war that legislation never reached the Statutes. The Prime Minister knows that telegrams have arrived, particularly from members of Parliament and from organisations in Natal, and I think there was even a deputation to see the Prime Minister about this matter. He knows that it is a very urgent matter. There is here before me a petition signed by 400 persons. I want to assure the Prime Minister that no politics lurk behind this petition. It is even drafted in English. It reads as follows—

If we go through this list of names, then we see that practically the half are English and the other half are Afrikaans names appearing here. Here are 400 inhabitants who protest in the strongest terms against a certain house in the middle of the town being let to Asiatics. This house belongs to a Jew. The inhabitants are heftily opposed to it, and I would very much like the Prime Minister to go into the matter. This is not a local matter. In Natal the Asiatics are creeping in and buying as much land as they can get, precisely because they fear that there will be legislation in the future to pin them down, and now it appears to me they want to abuse the position. If the Minister will get up and say to us that he is willing to introduce such a law with retrospective effect from 1940, as the late Gen. Hertzog promised us, then he will create a large measure of satisfaction. Those people will then be shifted back. The country will owe a debt of gratitude to the Prime Minister if he will make a reassuring statement in this connection. A large measure of unrest and dissatisfaction exists in the country, and this penetration of Asiatics among the Europeans will no longer be tolerated. Then there is another matter that I want to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister. I put a question to him the other day in connection with the appointment of the Minister of Commerce and Industries. There is something radically wrong in connection with the issue of permits for tyres. Six weeks ago I got an application from a farmer who resides in an area where the drought is terrible. The farmers cannot go and look for veld on foot, and still less can they travel by train. I ascertained that after three or four weeks tyres were allotted to the person concerned to go and look for veld. We ultimately got the Minister’s approval for this. I receive telegrams almost every day in connection with this matter. The magistrates refuse to issue permits for tyres. They say they have not the power to do this. One telegraphs in vain to Pretoria. Does the Prime Minister think that the farmers can be satisfied when they have to sit and wait six weeks for permits to purchase tyres? In this case, the tyres were ultimately granted. As the Prime Minister will realise, this is not a matter in respect of which one can delay. If you have to wait for six weeks, then your stock die in the meantime, and therefore I would like the Rubber Controller to decide immediately if permits are to be granted or not. In the interests of the farmers of South Africa, I hope that these things will not continue in the future.

We see in today’s newspapers that the Prime Minister intends paying a visit to America and the United States as soon as possible. We all wish the Prime Minister a pleasant voyage, and a successful visit, but I think before he goes he should enlighten us regarding the objects of the journey. It is quite clear that the object is connected with the ultimate decision of the war. Let me say this, that the Right Hon. the Prime Minister has not treated us fairly hitherto. Hitherto we had to drag information out of him with difficulty. I see that in Saturday’s “Star” there appears a quotation from one of the Ministers in England, namely, Mr. Amery. He said of the Right Hon. the Prime Minister that he was “elusive”. Well, I fear that the Prime Minister is very elusive. I hope he will put that elusiveness aside, and give us a little information. The first we want to know is this: Are we committed to the Atlantic Charter? On 14th August, 1941, the Atlantic Charter was signed by the President of America, as well as by the Prime Minister of England. Hitherto we have not received the slightest indication in this Parliament as to what our commitments are under that Charter. We can read in books and newspapers what it is, but we do not know if we are bound; that we want to know in the first place. Has the Prime Minister compelled us to submit to that Charter, and, if so, what are the commitments we have under it? I put this question because we have to go for information about the Prime Minister’s opinions not to this Parliament, but we have to go to American newspapers to find out what his opinion is. Here the Prime Minister says certain things about the Atlantic Charter in an American newspaper—

In other words, the Prime Minister reckons that this Atlantic Charter will be of the greatest importance to our Continent—naturally also to the Union of South Africa. And there are more reports about it, again also to an American newspaper, according to the news reports we receive here. The Prime Minister has suggested a plan as to how this should be worked out. The Prime Minister said that after the war colonies should be divided into groups, and that Councils of Control—Territorial Councils—must be formed for those groups, and in those Councils America must have a big say, but also the Dominion or Dominions interested in those territories must exercise their influence. This is of the greatest importance so far as we are concerned. So far as Southern Africa is concerned, for instance, it means that we shall have a say with America in the government and development of, for instance, the Congo or Rhodesia. It is a clear statement from our Prime Minister to the American Press. But now one gets the other side of the case. We know that, although the Prime Minister of England has signed this Atlantic Charter—he still has the good custom of taking the British House of Commons into his confidence now and again—he later stated in the House of Commons: “Yes, the Atlantic Charter is a very good thing for the other countries of the world, but the British Empire does not need it; the Empire can look after itself.” It seems to me that this does not conform to what our Prime Minister has said. Some time ago an intimation appeared here from the Minister of Colonies in England about this same question. Mr. Oliver Stanley said this—

It seems to me that all these things are clashing. Our Prime Minister, the Prime Minister of England and the English Minister of Colonies make conflicting declarations. I want to ask the Prime Minister not to keep us in the dark; do not let us have to go to America to find out what your conceptions are. We do expect from him, even though he is an international figure and we are proud of it, that he will give us that information. That Atlantic Charter should come to us in the first place. In the first place it should be laid here on the Table of the House. We do not know as yet in how far we are committed under that Charter. The facts I am mentioning here are public facts. I am simply drawing conclusions from them. It is painful to me, as a member of the House of Assembly, that we must go to America to discover the opinions of the Prime Minister, what his object regarding the future of our own Union is. That is not right. I want to repeat my standpoint, so that the Prime Minister may know precisely what my question is. In the first place, are we committed by the Atlantic Charter, and if so, to what extent does the Atlantic Charter bind our activities, particularly as regards Southern Africa, and in how far will that Atlantic Charter handicap our chances in respect of developments in the North? And then I would still very much like to know from the Prime Minister, now while we are together, while he intends going to America, what his policy is regarding the future of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I have heard any amount of abuse, either direct or indirect, of the Prime Minister, and I must say as a South African I feel really ashamed of my countrymen who cannot see the great virtues of the Prime Minister. I still stick to my point that our Prime Minister is one of the most eminent men in the world today, a man with a tremendous reputation all over the world. I was surprised some years ago when I was travelling in the Eastern Province and spent the evening at George. There was a wireless going, and there was a reference to America by the Prime Minister before America came into the war. When I heard this reference I said that it sounded like a brick being dropped, and I rather wondered what America would think about it. A day or two afterwards I was in Port Elizabeth and I called upon an American gentleman representing a big firm, and during the course of the conversation he said: “You know that what your Prime Minister said the other night was simply excellent advice to my country, and I can assure you that there is no other man in the world today from whom America would take that advice”. The Prime Minister is held in higher esteem by the Americans than any other living man out of America, and yet we constantly hear abuse of him in this House from members on the opposite side. Do they not remember what happened in North Africa, when our troops fell back from Tobruk and the Germans were pursuing us to El Alamein, and everything seemed to be almost lost. The Germans seemed to be within a day’s march of Suez. Our Prime Minister went to the North, he evidently had interviews with various people there, in less than no time several Generals were sent about their business, other Generals were chosen, and before long the whole position of affairs in North Africa had changed. I believe that was largely due to the influence and advice given to the British Government at that time by the Prime Minister, and no one else. Again we found that suddenly a tremendous expedition was sent to North Africa. It was done with great secrecy and it had tremendous results. It was the biggest expedition of that kind that has ever taken place in the world’s history. I cannot help thinking that we see the finger of our Prime Minister in that expedition, because he had spoken again and again upon that particular point without telling us what was going to happen. There is no doubt about it he has brought about very great things, and yet here in this House we hear a great deal of abuse of him. I suppose it is the case of a prophet having no honour in his own country. Let us hope all that sort of thing is going to end when the next Election comes. When that Election does come we are going to see the Prime Minister returned with a much bigger majority than he has today. The people are not going to be led astray again by any talk about Communism and so forth. I hope the country will remember what happened years ago when a similar sort of bogey was started about the natives, and people on this side of the House were called “swartboeties.” All the yarns that were started at that time were quite without foundation, and I don’t believe that people will be misled this time by any cry of Communism. They will remember that “swartboetie” cry, and when the polling day comes, we shall find that our Prime Minister will be returned with a bigger majority than he has now.

One can almost say that the hon. member for Pretoria, District (Mr. Oost), to use an English expression, “raised a hare”; but I want to say to the hon. member who has just spoken (Capt. Hare) that we are not going to take much notice of what he said. The little speech which he has just delivered will perhaps be appropriate in Mowbray on an election platform, but I do not think it deserves much attention in the House. I think we can sympathise a little with the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister today. He has a tremendous task in vindicating the action of his Cabinet Ministers. He jumped about to defend their actions, and so far he has acquitted himself rather reasonably of the task. Whether he will be able to do this further, the debate will show. But it is fitting that when policy must be indicated, on behalf of the Government, that we should knock at the door of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. We know that all matters of policy are decided by the Prime Minister, because the Prime Minister is actually the Government of the country, he has a Cabinet of 12 members, of course, but we know that that Cabinet of 12 members is there mainly to undertake the administrative matters, but not to govern the country; and thus we have to turn to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister when we desire an announcement of policy. What I would like to have from the Prime Minister this afternoon is a very clear reply to the House and to the country as to what his policy is in connection with the recognition of native trade unions. The reason why I ask this of the Prime Minister is: The hon. Minister of Labour generally mounts the platform outside and then he announces his own particular policy in connection with the matter, but when the Prime Minister is approached about it, then his policy is not always in conformity with the policy announced by the Minister of Labour. In order to furnish greater enlightenment, I want to take the House back to Tuesday, 19th January, 1943, when a question was put to the Minister of Labour in this connection. The question was whether at any time since April, 1942, the National Executive of the South African Trades and Labour Council was informed by him that the Government had agreed to recognise native trade unions; and the Minister of Labour’s reply to this was: “Yes.” That was on 19th January, 1943. The hon. Minister of Labour has thus declared that the Government intends, and that he has already announced it, to recognise native trade unions officially. This reply was not qualified in any way. The Minister of Labour did not say here that he would recognise native trade unions under certain conditions. He said simply and unambiguously that the Government was going to recognise native trade unions. Now a little later, on 26th January—only seven days thereafter—a question was put in the House to the Prime Minister. The question was also in connection with the official recognition of native trade unions. The question was as follows—

To this the Prime Minister replied—

In other words, the Prime Minister has not made an unambiguous statement without any reservation in this connection. The Prime Minister said that recognition would be subject to certain safeguards. He neglected to inform this House, however, what his safeguards are. We thus accept that the Prime Minister has given a qualified reply in connection with the recognition of native trade unions. I think it was last week, when the Prime Minister’s Vote was under discussion—I speak under correction—that he said, inter alia, that danger exists in connection with the recognition of native trade unions, that they may get out of hand, and fall into the hands of Communists, or at any rate of people who are out more to preach foreign ideologies than to represent the interests of the workers. Further, the Minister of Railways said in this connection, in reply to the Budget debate, that he is of the intention to encourage native organisations on the railways, and that these would receive full recognition, so that he can negotiate with them about labour conditions on a basis of mutual negotiation. We thus have statements from three Ministers—from two Ministers and from the Prime Minister—in connection with this point. The Prime Minister himself has given a qualified reply. Now it is important that the committee this afternoon should receive a very clear and unambiguous statement from the Prime Minister as to what the policy of the Government is in connection with the official recognition of native trade unions. It is said that the native trade unions have fallen into the hands of wrong persons. Before the Prime Minister answers us, I would like to give the committee a few facts in connection with the persons who today stand at the head of native trade unions which have already been organised—who they are, and what they are. I have before me here a list which I obtained incidentally from certain issues of the Communist newspaper, “The Guardian”. These are names of prominent organisers of trade unions. They are all recognised members of the Communist Party. Indeed, some of them are either secretaries of the Communist Party, or members of the highest council of the party. The first name of a person described as a prominent “trade unionist” among the non-Europeans, is the woman secretary of the Communist Party in Cape Town. She is Miss Rose Behr. She is a European. Then we have another prominent member of the Communist Party, who is the organiser of the Shoe and Leather Workers’ Union. He is Bertie Louw. Then we have another prominent member of the Communist Party, Lucas Philips, who is an organiser of a native trade union. [Time limit.]

The Minister of Railways may find it strange that we should haul him over the coals here on the Prime Minister’s Vote. The reason is that he did not reply to our complaints in a previous debate. The Minister is in the position that he cannot understand Afrikaans fully. Our speeches must be interpreted to him, and for that reason he cannot grasp immediately what we mean. He said that he wants to regularise the policy of bilingualism. We accuse him of wanting to overthrow the policy of bilingualism. I asked him whether he holds himself responsible for the secret letters sent out by the General Manager. The reply he gave is this: I cannot remember so well whether I saw those letters, but I now attach my approval to them and I take full responsibility for them. We asked why the Minister should have come with these circular letters which he sent out. His reply was that the circular letters were sent out in order to gain information. I asked him to tell us what information he wanted to gain in that manner. The Minister could not tell us. I want to direct another question to him. He wants to allege that the circular letters were sent out to gain information. What did he want to do with that information? Let me say this to the Minister: If he wants us to accept that he is out to conform to the policy of bilingualism, then there is no other way out for him but to repudiate the General Manager and the Administration. I have those letters before me, and I can give them to the Minister after the discussion, and he will be able to see clearly from these letters that in them instructions are virtually given to the heads of Departments that they must promote unilingual persons. These are instructions given by him, and therefore I want to read out to the Minister for the umpteenth time these letters sent out by the General Manager. Perhaps the Minister will now understand what I read out, because I shall read it out in English. The preamble to the letters is: “Promotion: Unilingual staff”—

What does this mean? Is it merely information? The Railway Service Commission which has to make recommendations draws attention to the fact that unilingual officials are being passed over, and no reasons are given why they are passed over. If the Minister wants to conduct a unilingual policy then he should ask why bilingual officials are passed over, and he should not ask information why unilingual officials are passed over. In the circumstances he must forgive us if we on this side cannot accept his word that he wants to carry out the bilingual policy. If he wants to do that then he must repudiate this action of the General Manager. Now the General Manager goes further and he gives this instruction—

He is now going to tell them how they must set to work to make nominations. He says in the first place—

He thus says that unilingual persons must be nominted.

Read on.

I shall read on—

That is the paragraph which I have just read out—

The Minister said just now that he wanted to do away with the illegalities of Mr. Pirow. But here he says that where the persons attempt to become bilingual these attempts must be indicated. I will read out to the Minister still further—

And then it is prescribed how the certificate must be—

That is what the instruction is. When the list of nominations comes, then the head of the Department must certify that there are no more unilingual seniors who can come into consideration, and then the Minister comes here and tells us that he wants to protect the policy of bilingualism. If the Minister wants us to believe that he wants to conform to the policy of bilingualism, and he has these letters before him, then I say that he must repudiate the General Manger in respect of these letters. There is no other way out for him. He must withdraw his letters. I want to end here. I want to put this pertinent question to the Minister. In view of the fact that the Minister cannot give an answer as to why these secret letters are sent out to gain information, we want to know if he will withdraw those letters, and if he does not want to do this, then we want to know why not, because they are no longer of any value if he only wants information. I just want to say that the Minister raised objections about us attacking officials here. Let me just say this: If a person such as the General Manager pursues such a policy, a policy which the Minister purports not to want, and the Minister subsequently comes and says that he gives his approval to it, then we must do one of two things! We must attack either the Minister himself, or the official. But then it is the duty of the Minister to repudiate the deeds of his official, where he acted against the policy of the Minister. This instruction he gave comes down to an overthrow of the whole bilingual policy. I shall tell you why. When the head of a department makes nominations, then he submits the good points of the applicant. But here the heads of departments are asked to say when a man is unilingual, why he cannot be approved. [Time limit.]

I shall do my best to answer the hon. member as fully and completely as I can. I accept, of course, full responsibility for anything done on the railways, and if I find anything wrong it is a matter between myself and my officials, but I have complete confidence in my officials in regard to any question.

The fact that you accept responsibility does not mean that you must approve of everything.

No, I do not approve of everything. No Minister in an Administration of this kind could approve of everything. But I can say this, that I have never disapproved of anything but that immediately my wishes were met. When the hon. member asked what information did I want generally—my reply was that I required information to carry out the provisions of the law as indicated. Clause 8 (3) places a definite onus on the Minister for any decisions he takes or for any appointment he makes, or on the General Manager if he is making the appointment. And it is necessary that that onus should be properly discharged, and it can only be discharged if we have the fullest information in regard to a particular individual involved. Now, in regard to this circular letter, I have found the particular one to which the hon. member refers. It is very difficult for me to just find out what the particular circular letter is when we have large numbers of these letters. But this one is quite clear. This is not sent by the Minister—it has nothing to do with the Minister. It is sent by the Railway Service Commission—signed by the General Manager, it is true. And it is the wish of the Railway Commission that the name of any unilingual officer shall be notified to the Commission. Quite proper. The Commission has to satisfy itself under Clause 8 (3) that if a man is alleged to be unilingual, he is in fact unilingual.

The best thing for you to do is to abolish the Commission.

That would put more power into my hands, and I don’t think the hon. member would quite like that. Now, the Acting Chairman of the Commission is Mr. Rocher—there is nothing wrong about the name—there is nothing wrong about the outlook or about the language of Mr. Rocher. But he asked for this information and it is perfectly proper information for him to have. If there is one thing we should know it is that if anyone is turned down on the language question he is turned down fairly and squarely, and I see nothing improper in their asking for that. Now, let me tell the House what I sent out. Hon. members over there do not quote all the circular letters—they only quote some circular letters which suit them, and then they quote them out of their context in order to convey the meaning which they want to convey—but which these circular letters never intended to convey. Now, let me quote the last circular letter which I sent.

I quoted that twice, but you took no notice.

The last one, of the 15th December?

Yes, of the 15th December, 1942; I quoted it twice.

I am sorry, but even if the hon. member did quote it twice I am going to quote it again, and it rather surprises me that if the hon. member did quote it that he did not accept it as a fair indication of the Minister’s policy. This is the circular letter, which is signed by the General Manager—

I actually issued a circular letter to put the position of the Minister perfectly clearly, and in that I say that anyone who is fully bilingual in the widest meaning of that expression shall have preference over someone who is only qualified for the execution of his duties … .

Was that your method of repudiating the other circular?

I should like to make it perfectly clear that the last circular was sent out because the situation regarding language was getting a little involved, and I began to form an impression that there might be a tendency to get a little lax on the bilingual policy.

So that our complaint is substantiated.

And I strengthened up the attitude of the Railways in that regard for that reason.

A formal plea of guilty.

That may be, but the whole point is that you are a little belated because the Minister tackled things long before you even thought of complaining. And that is the position, that this letter was sent out in order to make clear without question to our officials what the Administration’s attitude was. Of course, we know that different interpretations are put on to all instructions and you have to clear up misunderstandings. There is the circular which I sent out, and I ask the House to accept that as an indication of the Government’s policy.

Will you withdraw the other circulars.

I would like to depart a bit from the Railways and speak about the condition of our wine trade in England. In the first place I would like to hear from the Prime Minister what the Government’s policy is in connection with the treaty with France. The wine farmers allege that their intertests have been sacrificed in a treaty with France so as to enable us to sell crayfish in France. In that treaty our wine farmers have been deprived of the right to give certain names to their wines, and therefore I would very much like to know from the Prime Minister what the policy of the Government is in connection with that treaty. I understand that there is now an opportunity of terminating that treaty, so that we can get back our former privileges. I would like the Prime Minister to understand the position. There are certain wines which got names in France, such as for instance Champagne, which today is not merely the name of one wine but of a whole class of wines. Here in South Africa we also made wines of that class and sold it under the name of that class. Now we are prohibited from using those names, and we have to find all sorts of other names for the wines. We feel that this is an injustice towards the farmers, and that the wine trade has been deprived of an important privilege. I would like that treaty with France to be terminated, if an opportunity now presents itself, so that we may again use the names. We in South Africa do not want to sell Champagne as French Champagne, but as South African Champagne. It is a kind of wine, and at the moment we have to find a variety of other names for our sparkling wines. I want to know what the Prime Minister intends doing in connection with this. I also feel that the time has arrived for the Government to get into touch with Rhodesia. Fomerly we had an agreement with Rhodesia, but Rhodesia was angered in connection with the meat trade and the result is that they imposed a specially high taxation on our brandy. The result today is that French brandy is cheaper in Rhodesia than South African brandy. We feel that the time has come to rectify that matter. We do not want to harm the cattle farmers. If they can be assisted, good and well, but we do not want any discrimination against our products. Better relationships prevail between us and Rhodesia today, and I think now is the time for the Government to approach Rhodesia with the object of eliminating that taxation on brandy. Then we saw in the newspapers recently that a shipload of wine from French North Africa went to England. For many years the wine farmers have tried to get into the wine trade in England. As you know this trade is very conservative, and to make the English public understand that we are making just as fine wines as the Continent has been a very difficult task. They drink French brandy there, and even if other brandies are better they still insist that French brandies are the best. We have succeeded in selling our fine wines in England in certain measure, and we would very much like to get into the market. In order to get in we had to sell our wines cheaper. Of course we were helped to some extent by the preferential tariff. We came on the market together with Australia. Our wines are much better than those of Australia, and it is also considered better there. Our Sherry for instance is considered a very fine wine that can compete with the best from Spain. As a result of war conditions and the difficulties on the Continent of Europe, we succeeded in getting into England with our wine and brandy. Our fine wines are brought into the best circles in England. K.W.V. brandy and wine are today found in the best clubs, even in the big political clubs in England. It is used in influential circles, even also in the British House of Commons. You can understand what our idea was. We had every confidence in our wine and brandy. We knew that we could make as good wine and brandy as the other countries, but on the other hand we also realised that this trade was very conservative, and not only that, but the liquor trade in England has very great interests in the wine industry of Spain and the rest of the Continent. I know that the idea prevails that once the war is over competition on the English market will be much stronger, and in view of that I want to suggest something to the Prime Minister. I would like our Government to have authority in the matter. All sorts of questions arise in connection with the wine trade, and the English Government asks the advice of the Wine and Spirit Association. They say they also speak for Dominion wines. The man whose advice is accepted is Mr. Bourgogne. He is in the Australian wine trade. He formerly bought wine from us. Now he does not buy, or buys only a very small quantity, and we can realise what it means if he has to give advice to the British Government. The Prime Minister must understand that the Wine Association has tremendous political influence in England, and I therefore think that it is of importance that our Government should try to obtain a measure of authority in the advice that is being given to the British Government. We would like to keep our fine wines on the best market, and I can give the Prime Minister the assurance that we had a long battle to get on to that market. Now we feel that where advice is given, the Government should do its share. Our wine farmers co-operative have their own people and manager there, and because we have to push into the market under the conditions that exist there, and where the wine trade has its vested interests in the Continent of Europe, it is very difficult to conquer a market. There will always be attempts to keep us out. Together with the rest of the Dominions, we shall make requests to the Government in England, but I would like the Government to understand that joint action by Australia and ourselves may not be in our interest. Australia’s interests are not the same as our interests, and Australian wine is classified under the name “Dominion Wines”, which is of low quality and which must be sold at a low price. We do not seek that. We seek a market for best wines and fine wines. We say that we can make those wines, and that it is consequently necessary that our representative in London be notified that if South African wines must be discussed, then we want our own representative there, and do not want to be served by the representative of Australia, Mr. Bourgogne. I can tell you that we are very pleased at the fact that we have been able to come into the market for fine wine, and we would like to retain it. After the war there will, of course, be a big struggle and attempts to exclude us. Even today we feel that certain attempts are being made. The Wine Association has already approached us to find out what the position is. They are becoming anxious, because they notice that our wine is conquering a place in England, and that even connoisseurs are beginning to appreciate our wine. This elicits jealousy.

The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) asked a question in regard to the export trade in wine. I am bound to say I think that it might better have fallen under my Vote, because the Government’s policy on the question of wine export must surely be clear even to the hon. member for Swellendam, and that is that we are anxious to see the export of wine and brandy, especially fine wines and brandy, encouraged to the greatest possible extent, especially at a time like this when an opportunity has occurred for South African wines and brandies to be appreciated and demanded in various parts of the world. When I was in Egypt last year I found that South African sherry and South African brandy were in very great demand indeed, and it was not a question of whether you could sell what you had but rather a question of whether you could get enough out there to begin to satisfy the demand. So that from the point of view of policy, Sir, there can be no question that we are anxious to see every opportunity taken for getting our quality wines and brandies better known in the markets of the world which are open to us. As far as the British market is concerned, when I was in London I had various opportunities of discussing this question with the authorities there, and I can assure the Committee that the authorities in Britain are by no means unsympathetic to our natural desire to get our wines before the public of Britain. There are, of course, certain circumscribing factors, and one is that it has been from the beginning of this war the policy of the British Government to discourage any spending on what can be regarded as luxury articles in Great Britain, and the finer your wines and brandies, the less can you really claim that they are absolute essentials of life, and judging by the price, Sir, which one pays in Britain today for South African wines and brandies, they must be regarded as very fine articles indeed. That, of course, has the indirect effect of making it rather difficult to say that these products are necessities of life for everybody. Secondly, there is the fact that there are other interests to be considered. It has been difficult for the British Government to give South Africa the privilege or right of importing wines to the exclusion of or disadvantage of other countries which have shared the British market in times gone by. That, I think, has been got over, and I do not think that we can regard that as a hindrance today. The great difficulty is the question of shipping. We have had from time to time ships leaving here with vacant space which might be filled by our wine. But I am assured that in practice there is not much in that. I am ready to go into the question to see whether anything can be done to make better use of any shipping which may be available in the event of the British Government being prepared to allow wines to be imported. We have had a number of import permits from Great Britain, not for very large quantities at a time, but with the limited shipping facilities available, that does not matter so much so long as a fresh permit is issued as soon as we have Used up the quantity allowed to us. Generally speaking, there is no doubt that we have at the present moment a good opportunity, not of selling large quantities of wine or brandy in Great Britain, because these conditions to which I have referred to militate against the development of a much bigger trade; but we have a very good opportunity of getting a goodwill created for our products in Britain, and that is being done. Wherever you go you find people drinking South African wine, and particularly South African sherry, which is getting a very good name indeed, and also the light wine, and that offers in time to come when the market is freer again and shipping facilities are available, a good opportunity for building up a very much larger trade in South African wine than we have had in the past. The hon. member finally referred to the question of a possible Dominions Conference on the marketing of wine. I can only tell him that the British wine trade is a very old established institution, and, like all old institutions, is very conservative, and has a highly complicated organisation. Our Trade Commissioners’ Organisation in London is au fait with the ramifications of that trade; it is on terms of good relationship with it, and I think we can be quite sure that the Trade Commissioners’ Organisation in London will be thoroughly well qualified and competent to see that South African interests at a later stage are not overlooked, or misunderstood, as the hon. member suggested they might be. The hon. member also questioned the French Trade Treaty. Well, sir, that is a treaty which we made with the French Government, and as far as I know, there was no term set to it; it was a treaty made indefinitely. I do not think the hon. member can seriously suggest that this is the time to repudiate unilaterally a trade treaty with the French Government which we know they thought a good deal of, and attached some value to. At a later stage when there is a stable French Government to discuss the matter, then if we wish to re-open the matter it will be for us to take it up through the usual channels. Until that time comes, it is up to us to observe the terms of that treaty, as we have done up to now.

There is a matter which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister in connection with the General Election—it is a question in regard to essential matters which will be required for the election. The various parties have been approached, and they have been asked what they will need in connection with the election—they have been asked what they will need in regard to such things as motor tyres, petrol, paper, and so on. Now, I want to make a suggestion to the Prime Minister, and that is that we should as soon as possible, at any rate, before the end of the Session, have a discussion between the various parties, together with the Controllers of Petrol, Paper and Motor Tyres. What is happening now is that the different parties are being approached and are being asked what they will need in connection with the election. This very day this side of the House was approached and asked what we would need in the way of paper for propaganda purposes, for pamphlets, etc. But the trouble we find ourselves in is this, that we on this side may perhaps say that we need so much, and then representatives of the other side will come along and ask for a totally different quantity, which they may contend they need. This applies to paper, motor tyres and petrol. Is it not possible to get the Controllers of those goods here while the Session is on, so that there may be a joint discussion between all the parties concerned, with a view to some sort of an arrangement being arrived at? It will do away with a lot of dissatisfaction, because otherwise there is a possibility of there being a suspicion, for instance, on the part of the Government that we on this side are getting more paper, more motor tyres, and petrol than they. It would, of course, be perfectly just if we were to get more, seeing that they were getting lots at a time when there was no election. But I want to recommend very strongly that the Prime Minister should do this, and that he should get the Controllers here with a view to the forthcoming elections, so that there can be a thorough discussion with the representatives of all parties. I fail to see how the matter can be solved otherwise. There will always be suspicion and that is what we want to avoid. There is another matter I wish to raise, and I wish to do so because two ministers are concerned. It is a matter in connection with the administration of justice. This sort of thing is happening too often nowadays—so much so that the attention of the public is being directed to it—it happens too often that an ordinary court first tries an accused person and finds him not guilty, but that immediately that person puts his foot outside the court, the Minister of the Interior is waiting to catch and intern him. The whole thing is nothing but a scandal. I do not know what kind of justice it is. We have been following many fresh courses since the start of the war, especially in regard to our administration of justice. In the past we never knew of things of this kind in South Africa. So far as I know we never had internment camps for Union citizens in the last war. We even had a rebellion on that occasion, but the rebels were tried in court and if they were found not guilty, the Minister of the Interior did not stand waiting to intern them for some indeterminate period? What sort of Ogpu methods are these which we are getting today? This is the first time in the history of South Africa that we have had internment camps for Union citizens. In the previous war we had camps for Aliens but so far as I know not for Union citizens, and now we have this new administration of justice in South Africa. The Government has powers which no Government in South Africa has ever had, and those powers can so easily be abused, because if the ordinary courts do not do what the Government considers to be necessary, the Minister of the Interior comes along with his bloodhounds and drags people to the internment camps for an indeterminate period. If a person is brought before a court he is found guilty or not guilty, but today if he is found not guilty he is put into a camp for one, two or three years. In the last war if a man was guilty he was sentenced and he had to serve his year or two years, but today his soul is destroyed in the internment camps even if he had been found not guilty by the courts. He does not know when he is going to get out of the camps. That is a new system of the administration of justice. If a man is found not guilty by a court he is told: “The ordinary court has found you not guilty, but we are now going to put you in the internment camp.” That is the new system of justice. And he can only appeal to an official appointed by the Minister. And beyond that? He cannot appeal to court. No, things are taken out of the hands of the courts and the only person he can appeal to is the Minister. The Minister is the highest court of appeal. Talk of democracy! Can one compare what is happening here with the Ogpu methods and the methods practised by Germany, of which we hear such a lot? For Union citizens a new system of justice has been created, and if the ordinary court finds a man not guilty he can still be put in an internment camp. It is soul destroying. In the last war when there was a rebellion large numbers of rebels were brought before the courts. In those days probably there was a little bit of democracy left. Á man was found guilty and sentenced to a few years imprisonment, but his soul was not destroyed. But under today’s system, where we are talking such a lot about democracy, a new system of justice is introduced. The Prime Minister is supposed to be a great believer in democracy. What does he think of this system? Has he ever seen people who have been released from the internment camps? Has he ever seen the way their souls have been destroyed? They are Union citizens. We have created a system in South Africa which is crying aloud for vengeance. What do people expect the next Government to do when this Government is no longer in power? Don’t hon. members expect the next Government to hit back. This Government has introduced a new system of administration of justice. The Government has usurped a tremendous weapon but it is a very dangerous weapon because it is a political weapon. It is very much like the Ogpu or the German system. If there is a political enemy one does not like, and the Court refuses to punish him, one interns him, and destroys his soul by putting him in the internment camp for an indefinite period. There are people in the internment camp today, men who have been put there on the whim of the Minister of the Interior, and in many cases for political reasons, and they are kept there as long as it pleases the Minister of the Interior to keep them there. Have we ever had such a system in South Africa before? Even in the last war under the Botha Government there was no such thing. They would not have dared to do it. But this Government institutes a new system, it cuts out the Courts. As I have said, it cries out for vengeance. Union citizens, together with their families, are being ruined, but how will they feel when they leave these camps? They are being doomed and sent to these camps by this young Minister; they are sent there for an indefinite period. Do hon. members think that the public are going to be satisfied with that? I want to appeal to the Prime Minister to get rid of this pernicious internment system as soon as possible. He tells us that he believes in democracy! [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) has indulged in a good deal of forensic indignation about this matter, and I would ask him and the House to remember the facts. He has charged me with interning persons who have been acquitted by the Courts of law, and he has inferred from this that I have been interning persons innocent of all subversive action in this country. I deny that charge, sir; I deny that charge entirely.

Why don’t you allow them to go to the Court?

Do you remember the two Arndts?

The hon. member knows that I had nothing to do with the internment of those people, although I am perfectly prepared to justify that as well.

You would justify anything.

I say it is incorrect to say that I or anyone in my administration have interned persons who have been acquitted of all subversive action. The hon. member for Moorreesburg knows that a Court of Law frequently has, because of the measure of proof required, to bring in an acquittal. An acquittal may be purely on a technical point, and yet the Court of Law is bound, in the circumstances, to acquit. The hon. member may remember the case of Mrs. Hennig, a woman of German parentage. She was charged before the Courts of this land with treason, and there was evidence that she was conspiring with the enemies of our country to pass information out to Lourenco Marques.

I was referring to Union subjects.

I was referring to the principle involved. If the hon. member who was so active just now will allow me to make my case, I am sure he will be grateful for what I have to say. [Interruptions.]

Do let the Minister reply.

The case of Louw, whatever benefit my hon. friend may get out of it, was long before I was in charge of this Department. Mrs. Hennig conspired with the enemies of our country to enable information of a vital nature to get out of the country, and she was in league with subversive elements. She was guilty, on the facts, of the grossest treachery, found guilty by a Court of Law, and sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment with hard labour. The case went to appeal at Bloemfontein, and because of the terms of some obscure provision in the law, because of the want of corroboration, the Appeal Court acquitted Mrs. Hennig on a technicality. It was perfectly clear on the facts, on the merits, that she was guilty; a Judge in the Court below had found her guilty, a Judge and assessors. The Appellate Division held that the niceties of the law, as prescribed by statute, had not been observed, and therefore they had, perforce, to acquit her. Does my hon. friend think that the Government, in such circumstances, should allow a woman like that, or a man in similar circumstances, Union national or not, to be set free and allowed to pursue his or her nefarious practices simply because of release on a technicality? Let me tell my hon. friend of the case of Stadler, a young student of Pretoria University, who was interned because he went over the border without permission; he was in touch with the enemy, and had arms without permission. That young man was interned. An appeal ad misericordiam was made to me that he should be given a chance, and I released him. The next thing that happened was that he was found assisting Robey Leibbrandt in beating up people in the Northern Transvaal. He was charged the other day.

And acquitted.

It is true he has been acquitted, although the court said it was tolerably clear that he had been involved in that affray. Am I to release that young man, who was given his chance, at this stage, until he has shown better evidence that he is fit to be released.

That is an exception?

“That is an exception”, says my hon. friend. There have been other cases. There was the case at Cape Town of two young men who were recently charged and acquitted. These two young men have not now been interned, they have been set under parental control to a farm, and very grateful are those who are in charge of those young men.

The courts find them not guilty and you find them guilty.

The hon. member knows that in these matters in court the old rule of law prevails; the accused must get the benefit of any doubt. Rather than one innocent man should be hanged, nine guilty men must go free. That doctrine does not apply to subversive activities in time of war. In time of war the State gets the benefit of the doubt. There is no doubt whatever that when a man is interned, as the result of the careful procedure which has been laid down, there is no doubt whatever that such a person has been guilty of subversive activities. That is the policy I shall continue to carry out in the interests of the Sate and in the interests of the country as a whole.

I am surprised that the hon. the Minister who is an advocate and a K.C. belittles the decisions of the Appeal Court as though the Appeal Court has found this woman not guilty because of a minor technical point. It does not behove the Minister to make such contentions. Does he not know that this Parliament has laid it down in our system of justice that before an individual can be found guilty of high treason certain essentials have to be complied with? Has not Parliament laid down the statutory provisions for definite reasons and very good reasons that a person cannot be found guilty of high treason on the uncorroborated evidence of one single person? If that were not so the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) could come along and declare that the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) had done certain things and he could then be found guilty on the word of one man. And the offence is one for which the death penalty can be applied! Parliament has laid it down as a definite rule that there shall be at least two witnesses, but the Minister comes here and talks sneeringly as if the Appellate Division had discharged a person who was guilty on a small technical point. The Appellate Division stated that Parliament had laid it down that there must be two witnesses before a man could be found guilty. That was a condition which the Appellate Division had to comply with. The possibility of a man’s life being taken away on the evidence of one person has to be avoided. And now the Minister wants to belittle the finding of the Appellate Division. I don’t want to go into the merits of the case, but I deeply resent the Minister coming here and trying to belittle the decision of the Appeal Court which was based on the law of the land—he talks sneeringly of the find ing of the court as a finding based on niceties of law.

And “obscure” points.

Yes, and it is an insult also to Parliament which is the Legislative Body. It is an insult to the Court. I hope the Minister will withdraw it. I only wanted to speak a word of disapproval about the Minister of the Interior making such remarks about a decision of the Appeal Court.

I have a letter here which was sent to me by a lady in my constituency, and I think I should quote a few sentences from that letter, so that the Prime Minister may see what is going on in the platteland, and what the feelings are among a large section of our people. This lady writes as follows, inter alia—

She goes on—

I am quoting these few sentences from a letter by a lady who signs herself a “Mother of Our People”. And the way she writes interprets the feelings which we find everywhere on the platteland, among those who still possess the Afrikaner sentiments. During the past few years we have had experience of the way people are treated by this Government. When people were found not guilty by a Court of Law they were arrested and interned the moment they left the Court. We have been accustomed to a person being free if he was found not guilty by a Court of Law. But this Government is following the policy of arresting people, in spite of the findings of a Court of Law—the Minister of the Interior simply has people arrested and interned. We know the old Afrikaans saying that one can go on kicking a man until he breaks. Let me say this to the Minister of the Interior—he is trampling on the Boer nation, and he is oppressing them until they reach the breaking point. If he carries on in this way, if he continues to do what he has been doing during the past three or four years, well, I feel he will rue his actions in the near future. The whole matter now rests with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister can step in and see to it that the request contained in this letter which I have read is complied with, and not only that request, but the request which has been put to him by thousands of mothers and women in this country. The position today is that if we talk to our friends we are reported, and before we know where we are, we find ourselves in the internment camp. Let me tell the Prime Minister that if he intervenes and shows mercy to the people who have been interned the effect will be a salutory one. The people who have been in the camps will tell others who may intend committing wrongful acts not to carry out their intentions. The experience I have had is that if we approach the officials concerned in regard to a man who has been interned, the officials study their documents and say: “Yes, but that man was a Stormjaer.” Whether that is so or not, I want to know whether that fact in itself is sufficient for a person to be arrested and interned? Wires have been cut in a few places. That, of course, is wrong, and such people should be punished, but is that a reason why they should be kept in a camp until after the war? Cannot mercy be shown, and cannot these people be released? If mercy is shown to those people it will have a very good effect. I have the impression that if the Government learns that a person is a Stormjaer it immediately becomes dead scared. I want to ask the Prime Minister to go into this matter, and I say that if he shows mercy it will have good effects.

I now want to deal with another point and I want to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry.

Wait until my vote comes up.

The Minister of Agriculture is the food controller of this country. He has to see to it that right and justice are done to the producer and the consumer. He is quite incompetent to do his work in the interests of both. To what extent has he done his work and in whose interest has he done it? I think that if we study what has happened in this country we shall find that whatever he has done has been in the interest of the middleman and not in the interest of the producer or the consumer. On the 16th February, 1943, I put this question to the Minister of Agriculture—

The Minister’s reply was as follows—he gave us the prices on the Johannesburg market. During the periods I mentioned there was a drop of 1.57 pence per lb. in the case of mutton. In the next class there was a reduction of 1.57 pence and in the next class a reduction of 1.38 pence and then of .81 pence. After I had put this question the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry apparently woke up with a shock and he reduced the price of meat for the consumer by 1.5 pence in spite of the fact that the price which the farmer got had gone down by 1.57 pence. In two instances the farmer’s price had gone down by that amount, but the middleman was allowed to make the additional penny because the price to the consumer was reduced by only .5d. When we come to beef we find that the difference was 4s. 3d., 5s. 6d. and so on for 100 lbs. I notice that some of the Ministers are laughing about this. This is an important subject so far as the farmers of the country are concerned. The matter is one affecting the consumer and it also affects the farmer. The public today want to know why it is that while the price of meat has gone down by 1.57d. to the farmer, the consumer only has a reduction of .5d. This side of the House wants to know why the Minister of Agriculture did not take action in view of the prices I have mentioned, to bring about a reduction for the consumer. Then we have the position of sultanas and raisins. The average price fixed by the Dried Fruit Board on the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture is 3d. per lb.

At 6.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 28th January, 1943, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 16th March.