When I adjourned this debate on Thursday I did so in order to take the opportunity of making enquires in regard to allegations made by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus). The House will remember that the hon. member for Moorreesburg had quoted from a letter which purported to have been written by Mr. Oosthuizen, the General Secretary of the United Party, to the Adjutant General. And the hon. member seemed to think that some improprieties had taken place because of the terms of the letter. I have had the opportunity of consulting Mr. Oosthuizen personally, but, as I anticipated, there is nothing whatever in the charge which was levelled against Mr. Oosthuizen or against the Adjutant General. The facts are these and they are quite simple: It appears that a party organiser had newly been appointed in the Hopetown constituency. This new and inexperienced organiser wrote to the Adjutant General and asked for a list of names and addresses of soldiers who had been recruited in the Hopetown constituency. The Adjutant General then referred the letter to the General Secretary of the United Party—Mr. Oosthuizen—and wanted to know whether the enquiry was genuine. At the same time he pointed out that the authorities were not prepared to give information except in special circumstances — if for instance a by-election were in progress: in that case he would be prepared to give the information to all parties enquiring for it. This enquiry was not made at the time of a by-election it was made in the interim, and the Adjutant General was not at all sure that this might not be a bogus attempt to get information about troop movements, that this might not be an attempt by some subversive movement to get information of military value.

Otherwise he would have given the information.

He would not in any event have given the information, but to make quite sure that this enquiry had not come from a subversive source he referred the matter to the General Secretary of the Party. The General Secretary, Mr. Oosthuizen, went into the matter and then wrote a letter which the hon. member for Moorreesburg has quoted. In that letter he advised the Adjutant General that the organiser was newly appointed, that his request to the Adjutant General was unreasonable, and that he, Mr. Oosthuizen, would inform the organiser of the position in regard to the enquiry. The facts, therefore, are these; that the Adjutant General received an enquiry for a list of soldiers’ names and their camp addresses, purporting to come from an organiser of the United Party. He makes enquiries from the General Secretary and the General Secretary replies in the terms of the letter known to the House—a perfectly normal and proper procedure. There is nothing whatever in the suggestion of impropriety on the part of the Adjutant General. So far as the facts of the letter alleged to have been written to Capt. McKenzie are concerned, I have not had the opportunity, obviously, of getting into contact with that officer; but it seems that on the facts as set out by the hon. member, there would be nothing improper in one friend writing to another and asking for certain information. It would, however, I admit, be improper if the officer concerned had, while in an official capacity, used that position to secure votes for one particular party or another. There is no evidence that the officer did so, but it may interest the House to know that that particular officer no longer occupies that position in the voting section of the Adjutant General.

Oh, why was he transferred?

The officer was transferred, as far as I understand, in the course of the ordinary exchanges that take place from time to time in the Department of Defence

Was it perhaps that he was not flexible enough?

I have no knowledge of this, but my hon. friend cannot have it both ways. Hon. members over there suggest that this officer was acting in a reprehensible manner. I have no knowledge that he was. The only information is that he is no longer acting in that capacity so even on that ground they need have no fear.

Was not the point that he refused to act irregularly?

I do not think that that is so. The fact remains that the Adjutant General’s office has not been guilty of any improper conduct, and the suggestions made by the hon. member for Moorreesburg are without foundation whatsoever.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment in Clause 11 put,

I should like to say a few words in regard to the amendment which the Minister proposes here, namely, to replace the word “may” by the word “shall”. That suggestion came from this side of the House, and I think it is a good alteration. On this occasion, since the Minister is moving this amendment, I just want to point out the difficulty which lies ahead in connection with the clause. The Chief Electoral officer will now be in a position—that is the object of this clause—to make a distinction when there are two independent candidates, for example, or when more than one candidate stands for a certain party. Then, in order to prevent confusion, he will be able to give a description of the candidates. If there are independents, I want to ask whether it will not be possible for the parties to be consulted in connection with the method of distinguishing between the candidates. Take a constituency like Salt River, for example. When two independent candidates stand, it is left to the discretion of the Chief Electoral Officer to insert something opposite the names of the independents to distinguish between them. In some cases that will be easy. When Mr. Dorfman is the independent, they need only put opposite his name “8 lbs. for 1/-”, and everyone will know it is Dorfman. But there may be two or three other independents in a constituency, and it may be difficult to distinguish between them. I want to ask whether it will not be possible in those cases to consult the parties in connection with such distinctions. You have two people, for example who are generally known as “Thin At” and “Fat At”, but the chief electoral officer may not be aware of the position, and perhaps he does not know how to make the distinction. I want to ask, therefore, whether the Minister will not give the assurance that the parties will be consulted in the matter. Then I should also like the Minister to avail himself of this opportunity to state what possibility there is—since the Prime Minister has intimated that in the two large provinces, at any rate, the election for the Provincial Council and the House of Assembly, will take place on the same day—what possibility there is (a) of a person standing for election in the same constituency for the House of Assembly and the Provincial Council. Let me again use Salt River as an example. After the statement on the part of the Prime Minister, to what extent is the Minister of the Interior justified in standing at Salt River for the Provincial Council and the House of Assembly on the same day, and (b) to what extent the Minister will be justified in standing at Salt River for the House of Assembly, and at Woodstock for the Provincial Council, on the same day? I think the Minister should make a statement in this House. There is considerable confusion in the country since the Prime Minister has made this statement. I shall be glad if the Minister will avail himself of this opportunity to make a clear statement. The third question which I want to put is whether instructions can be given, since the voters’ rolls can now be printed, that as soon as those lists are completed they will be made available to the parties. The paper controller informs me that they are preparing the first dozen. Cannot the Minister issue instructions that as soon as a voters’ roll has been printed, it should be made available?

I am perfectly prepared to give instructions that as soon as any voters lists have been printed they shall be issued to the public and be made available to all political parties. That will be done. So far as the first point raised is concerned, I think we can come to a working arrangement. I agree that the hon. member’s request is a reasonable and fair one, namely, that before the Chief Electoral Officer should specially identify an independent party, he should consult the representatives of the existing parties. They have experience of these matters and I think that is a wise suggestion and that will be done. Now, the hon. member has also put the point, if the elections are held in the Transvaal and the Cape on the same day—that is to say, if the General Elections for Parliament and for the Provincial Council are held in these provinces on the same day—whether candidates will be entitled to stand both for Parliament and the Provincial Council. I am giving a provisional answer now because I have not had the opportunity of consulting the experts, but it seems to me that in the circumstances there is no objection to a candidate standing for both. The hon. member will recollect that a member of the Provincial Council, while a member of the Provincial Council, may stand for Parliament. He may submit himself as a candidate for Parliament, but the contrary does not hold. A member of Parliament, while a member of Parliament, may not submit himself for election to the Provincial Council. He must resign first. But in this particular case the candidate will be neither a member of the Provincial Council nor of Parliament when the election takes place. One may, of course, have certain difficulties. Supposing a candidate stands for Parliament and for the Provincial Council. Difficulties may arise in regard to which result is declared first. If the Parliamentary result is declared first and he is declared a Member of Parliament, and subsequently also declared a member of the Provincial Council—what is the position? In such case I take it he would presumably elect to remain a Member of Parliament.

Can we have a considered statement on that?

Yes, I shall see that a considered statement is made.

Amendment in Clause 11 put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

I second.

I think the Minister must admit that we have assisted him as far as possible in so far as this Bill is concerned. That ought to eliminate the argument of the other side that we are opposing this Bill because we are against the vote of the soldiers. This proves that we want to be reasonable. What we were concerned about was the fact that the vote ought to be recorded secretly, and since the Minister has now inserted an amendment providing for the vote to be recorded secretly, and since he has also promised that this side of the House can see the officials in connection with the framing of the regulations, we shall be able to go a long way in closing all loopholes. I must repeat, however, that we seriously object to legislation by way of regulation, and I hope that the Minister will never again come before this House with a Bill and say that there is no time to incorporate the regulations in the Bill. I just want to draw attention to one or two points. It is not quite clear to me in this Bill to what extent a person who is engaged in war services and who has been sentenced since the commencement of the war—sentenced without the option of a fine—to what extent the chief officer will delete the name of such a person from the list. Our existing legislation is clear on that point. If a person is sentenced by any court without the option of a fine, he forfeits his vote for a certain period, but another question now arises, and it is this: There are a large number of voters on the lists, Europeans and coloured, who were sentenced by the military heads to imprisonment without the option of a fine. It seems to me that no provision is made under the regulations for the deletion from the list of the names of persons so sentenced without the option of a fine. What is the position? Will they be removed from the list when they have been sentenced by a military court to imprisonment, without the option of a fine, and should that not be laid down in the regulations? I want to bring this matter to the notice of the Minister in all seriousness, and I want to give an example. At the moment a large number of coloured voters are being tried by a military court on a charge of a serious crime. As far as one can judge, or rather let me say for the sake of argument, we can take it that a large number of them will be sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine. Incidentally, this is fortuitously a military court. It might have been an ordinary court, and my request to the Minister is to make provision in the regulations to the effect that a voter who has been sentenced by a military court, without the option of a fine, will fall under the same provisions as the person who has been sentenced by an ordinary court. I want to bring this matter to the serious notice of the Minister. It seems to me that the Minister is in a reasonable frame of mind this morning, and that he is inclined to meet us. I do think that this is a matter to which he should give his attention, and this can easily be inserted in this legislation by way of regulation. Then there is another matter in connection with this legislation with which I want to deal for a moment, and that is that the Minister of the Interior seems to me to be stubborn, in refusing to make provision in these regulations which will enable the internees to record their votes. This legislation empowers the Minister to do so. He can make provision for this in the regulations, and I want to make a plea that he must not create the impression in the country that we are hypocrites. He must not create the impression that we are going to get on to a platform in the Kimberley district, for example, and say that we believe in national government and democracy, which will give the appearance of hypocrisy on our part, because although we pay lip service to national government and democracy, we say to people who are entitled to vote, who are citizens of the country, that we are going to make use of our power under the emergency regulations to lock them up and to prevent them from recording their vote. I want to say that it is hypocrisy on our part if we do not try by deed to give effect to our spoken word.

Is it democracy to give the right to vote to those people?

This is the new type of democracy, namely, that we must not carry out by deed what we have undertaken by word of mouth. This is more serious than what happened in Germany or Italy. We have war regulations in our country under which the Minister of the Interior is given power which has never during any war in South Africa, been given to any Minister, namely the power of locking up Union citizens without giving any reasons for doing so; they may be locked up without trial, and for as long as it pleases the Minister of the Interior. That is what the regulations say. What is the Minister doing now; what is he doing under these powers which have been granted to a Government for the first time in our history? In the war of 1914-’18 we gave certain powers to the Government, but the Government did not dare to take such powers upon itself. What is the Minister doing now? In the first place he is hypocritical …

The hon. member must not accuse the Minister of hypocrisy.

I do not mean it in any bad sense, but more in the general sense. In the second place, I accuse the Minister of abusing his powers.

I must ask the hon. member to moderate his language.

Let me put it this way then …

The hon. member may not say that the Minister is abusing his powers.

Then I shall say that he is not making the right use of the powers which he took upon himself. I think it was never the intention, under those powers which the Government took upon itself, to lock up any Union citizen, that anything mean should be done in pursuance of those powers. I think I can describe this action in not making provision in the regulations to enable those Union citizens, who were interned without a trial, to record their vote, as somewhat mean. It is narrow-minded and petty. I want to mention an extreme case. There are people who were found not guilty by the court, and then the Minister’s bloodhounds stood in readiness at the door, and when these men came out, after they had been declared innocent by the court, they were taken and locked up for as long as it pleased the Minister of the Interior. Now he proceeds to do something which seems to me to be petty and mean. He wants to place these people, who were found not guilty and whom he put into the internment camp, in such a position that they cannot vote. He dare not deprive them of their vote because they are Union citizens. The Minister said an ugly thing the other day in connection with these people. He compared them with prisoners awaiting trial. These Union citizens were found not guilty by the court, and nevertheless the Minister describes them as prisoners awaiting trial.

I did not describe them in that way; I made a comparison.

But it was an ugly comparison. These people are not prisoners awaiting trial. They are people who were found not guilty by the court, and the Minister is treating them very badly. He does not want to make provision for them in the regulations. He dare not deprive them of the vote. My next accusation against the Government is that it is making itself guilty of contravening the law. I think we would all be prepared to contribute a few pennies to get one of the internees to obtain a mandamus from the court against the Minister. We are dealing here with people who are entitled to vote, and who, as a result of this action on the part of the Minister, will not be permitted to vote, in other words, to receive their ballot papers. He said that he would take care that the papers are not delivered to them. He does not want us to write to them to complete the application forms in order to obtain a ballot paper. He will not allow them to receive it and return it per post. It sounds petty on the part of the Minister; it sounds mean.

But nevertheless they have to pay taxes.

I accuse the Minister of contravening the law. Section 54 of the Act of 1918 and the subsequent amendments lay down that the voters’ roll is the roll in respect of the vote of everyone who has been placed on the list for a voting district. If your name appears on the list, you are able to vote. The names of those Union citizens appear on the voters’ roll, but the Minister does not want to give them facilities to vote. If the Minister looks at Section 82 of the Act he will find the following laid down therein—

Undue influence! By not making provision for those people to vote, the Minister is making himself guilty of undue influence, because he brings compulsion to bear on those people. I want to put the matter this way. Will the Minister allow those citizens who have been found not guilty to go to East London or other places outside the camp, under escort, of course, in order to vote there? Let us be reasonable with each other, do not let us do something which is mean merely for the sake of a few votes. Do not create the impression that in order to catch votes for one side you are prepared to introduce measures and make regulations, while on the other hand you avail yourself of your extraordinary powers to prevent people from voting. If these people want facilities to vote let us give them those facilities under the Act. The only argument on the other side is that those people will vote against them, and for that reason they do not want to give them an opportunity to vote. I also want to refer the Minister to Section 95—

I think in the second place the Minister is also making himself guilty of interfering with voters, because, as he has intimated here, his action will amount to interference with voters in their attempt to vote. Section 82 effectively substantiates the argument which I have advanced here. I still hope that the Minister will get up this morning and say that he will make provision in these regulations for these people to vote. If he does not do so I hope we shall all assist the internees to ask for a mandamus from the court, compelling the Minister to give them facilities to vote. We were sneeringly told the other day that we want people who committed sabotage to vote. How do we know whether those people committed sabotage? Of those who were tried some were found not guilty, and the rest are simply being detained by the Minister without trial.

Because he cannot prove anything against them.

Such things are not even done in Italy and Germany. I do not think they go as far as that.

Do not tell us that.

Do you maintain that they do go so far? If so, then the Minister is going as far as they do, and then you should not condemn those people. When war broke out in 1939, and also in 1940 and in 1941, the whole country rang with condemnation of Germany and Italy as Facist countries, countries which interned people who wanted to vote against them. It was said that they locked up their opponents in camps so that they could not vote against the Government. Our Minister, although he pays lip service to national government and democracy, proceeds to do the very same things which Italy and Germany did. What must the nation think of a Government which does these things? I make an appeal to the Minister.

There are one or two points with which I wish to deal very briefly. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) has asked what will be the position of members of the forces who have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment without the option of a fine, as a result of disciplinary proceedings. The position of those registered voters who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment, without the option of a fine, is dealt with in Section 3, Sub-Section (1), of Act No. 41 of 1931. That Sub-section reads as follows—

So it would appear, on a reading of this section, that it is not necessary that the term of imprisonment should have been imposed by an ordinary court of law. If a court martial or some other military tribunal has competently imposed a sentence of imprisonment without the option of a fine, it would seem that the provisions of this section should then come into operation.

Cannot we put that into the regulations to make doubly sure?

I will have to have the matter looked into by the law advisers. Either this section is operative or it is not. If it is operative then there is no need to have further regulations. If this section is not operative, then no regulations will help at all, because they will be ultra vires. If the Department is informed by the legal authorities that soldiers, who have been sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine by military courts, should be excluded from voting, then it will be necessary for the Department of the Interior to call upon the Department of Defence to furnish such a list. The names of persons who have to be temporarily removed from the roll will be notified to each returning officer. I do not know whether there is any provision at present for notifying political parties of persons who are dead or who for some reason or other are ineligible to vote, but each returning officer will have to be notified.

Who will do that?

The Chief Electoral Officer.

Will that be your instruction to him?

Certainly; if I am advised that the law demands this, I shall see that it is carried out.

If that can be done, will you introduce it in the regulations?

I have already tried to explain to my hon. friend that, if this Section 3 of Act No. 41 of 1931 applies in the case of a sentence by military tribunals, there is no necessity to have anything in addition provided by way of regulations. That is the law, and this law will have to be carried out. The hon. member has once again asked whether the Government will be prepared to provide facilities for internees to vote. I gave the House the Government’s reply to that question during the debate on the second reading, and the reply is that no facilities will be provided for internees to vote. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) has once again tried to stress the point that internees have not been tried by a competent court of law. In fact, he says that many of them have been acquitted by a court of law and yet they have been interned. He therefore says that they are innocent persons and that a grave injustice is being done to the internees by restraining them from voting.

What right have you under Section 82 to restrain them?

I am not going into the legal aspect of the matter this morning. I just want to deal very briefly with what I might call the ethical argument of the hon. member. He suggests that those people have been acquitted—acquitted of what? Many have been acquitted on charges of high treason, but where such cases of acquittal have taken place—in a recent case, for instance—names were submitted of persons so acquitted, and the competent legal authority, the prosecutor, in submitting the papers stated that while it was not possible to obtain a conviction for high treason, or whatever the charge was that had been laid, it was quite clear that those persons had been part and parcel of an illegal organisation which had planned by way of a coup-d’etat to overthrow the Government, and that there was definite evidence to implicate the persons themselves. One man, for instance, was tried after having attempted to evade the police for many months. He was discovered later, and in his possession were found unauthorised army plans of secret installations on the Witwatersrand, the most secret drawings; he had text books on fighting and various matters of that sort in his possession. If we had martial law in this country, it would have been simple to have had a summary trial of that person. If those persons had been charged under martial law, there would have been only one fate for them; they would have been put up against the wall and shot.

And I suppose those facts were not put before the court?

The hon. member knows the difficulties, under our common law, of securing the conviction for high treason, and we cannot at the present time, in the absence of martial law, summarily charge persons with conduct such as I have alleged. The only remedy the State has, where the necessary facts provable in a high treason case cannot be made out, is to proceed by way of internment. Those persons have acted in an antisocial way; they have acted in a way which, if it had occurred in Germany or in Italy …

Why drag Germany into it?

But my hon. friend has brought Germany into it. He has been telling me that I treat the internees as they are treated in Germany.

But you are not Von Ribbentrop; you are Harry Lawrence.

And very fortunate for the hon. member that I am not, otherwise in his wilder days in the ranks of the Ossewa-Brandwag, when he was a general, he might have got into trouble!

I was never a general.

Germany has interned her citizens, and so have you.

A number of citizens have been interned, and the vast majority of those who have been interned, and who are Union nationals, are those who were connected with the Stormjaer movement, a movement which was designed to undermine the State and to bring about a change of Government with the assistance of help from outside by way of a coup-d’etat.

That does not apply to all the internees.

I said that it applied to the vast bulk of the internees. My hon. friend knows that certain of those internees who have been interned for other reasons, have been released.

Those that have been released on probation, will they be able to vote?

Those who have been released on probation will be confined to farms or other places. But no steps will be taken to prevent them from voting.

You are very generous.

In terms of their conditions of release, they may not take an active part in politics. They may not take any part in political movements.

May they join the United Party?

No.

Tell us this; will those who have been released be allowed to vote, or will that be considered as taking part in politics?

No, those who have been released on probation will not be subject to restriction in regard to voting.

Will they be able to leave the farm to vote at the nearest polling station?

Those are matters that will have to be gone into. They are not allowed to leave the farm without the consent of the local control officer, and it would be very inadvisable if they were allowed to leave the farm.

But how can they vote then?

They can vote by declaration.

No, they cannot vote by declaration; you have to go to a poll to vote by declaration.

And they cannot fill in a postal vote.

The hon. member can discuss that with me.

At any rate, you will do your best to see that they do not vote!

If my hon. friend goes on a little longer I probably shall! If hon. members who are interested will see me, I shall be glad to discuss the matter with them.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

This is the usual Bill to give effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Pensions, recommendations which have already been accepted by the House in Committee, and I move.

At the time when the report of the Select Committee was submitted I, as a member of that committee, a position which I occupied during the last five years, considered it unwise to deal with the matter—in general—when individual cases were dealt with, but there are two or three groups of persons who have come before that committee from time to time, in regard to whom I would like to draw the Minister’s special attention. May I say at once that my suggestion to the Minister is that he should consider the question of appointing a departmental committee, similar to that which is being created under Section 47 of the Pensions Law Amendment Bill, a committee which “shall have power notwithstanding anything in any other law contained to supplement the pension of any such person by the award of a bonus in accordance with such rates as the Minister may from time to time prescribe in respect of any class of such persons.” I delete the remaining words as this section is intended to apply only to the period of the war. I want to mention to the Minister the cases that have been before us from time to time, under two groups in particular, on whose behalf I am making this appeal. I realise that the committee deals only with such cases when no relief can be granted under any other provisions of the law. I also realise that in recent years the position has been improved. But most distressing cases have come before the committee which I think should be dealt with by a committee of this kind, and dealt with very expeditiously, and in fairness to the persons concerned who are suffering, I think the Minister might consider the position. We are in a large measure still suffering from the provisions which were made in days gone by, when money perhaps had a different value to that of today. I realise also that there are many men who, although there may be provision in the statute book, are unable for one reason or another to take advantage of it. But the point is that the people who suffer are the widows of those people. May I just refer to two cases which are in this report, and a case which I have in mind which happened, I think, a Session or two ago, cases which are merely illustrative of groups of cases that have come before us from time to time. In the one case I am dealing with the widow of one of our public servants. There the person concerned was in the Prisons Department and joined the service in 1903. He was due to be pensioned in September, 1938. In May 1938 he died. The widow then was entitled to a refund of certain monies, which amounted to approximately £1,000, but the sum she received by way of pension was £1 6s. 2d. per month, increased in 1941 to £1 7s. 2d. Admittedly after that she got certain assistance from some members of her family. But I ask the House—after 35 years service the widow of that man was entitled to £1 6s. 2d. per month by way of pension. That woman had been obliged before she could get assistance from her family to encroach on her capital to the tune of £5 or £10 per month. The fact of her having this money precluded her from coming forward and asking for relief. The point is that if that woman stands back until that money is exhausted, we are putting a premium on pauperising people. It means that she must become a beggar before she can come and ask: “Please give me relief.” I think the Minister might consider that at any rate £400 or £500 is not too much for any woman to have in the declining years of her life; whether that woman got that money by way of refund or insurance—whatever the origin of that money may be, I do not think that that should preclude her from coming forward and getting additional relief by way of bonus, so as to help her through her remaining years. Supposing she does leave at her death £300, £400 or £500. Is it not all to the good from the point of view of preventing these people from falling into the same position as she had got into? The other case I want to mention is that of a magistrate, a man who had held a responsible position and who was due to retire in February. The October before he was due to retire he started negotiating with the Treasury about commuting part of his pension; in December, two months before he was due to retire he died. Admittedly the widow got a refund of what her husband had paid in, and then she got about £2 or £3 per month—I have forgotten the exact amount—by way of pension—a gentle woman whose husband had devoted his life to the service of the country. The second group I want to mention are women who fall under the heading of “unestablished postmistresses”. I realise that there are some who over a period of a few years have worked in these agency post offices, and the purpose of the Committee would be to deal with every case on its merits. I am dealing with the position of a woman who, after serving in an agency post office, came into the service of the G.P.O. on the unestablished staff in 1918 at the rate of £110 per annum. She was transferred to a suburban post office subsequently, where her salary was increased in 1921 to £200, and in 1940 to £220. At the age of 55 she had to leave the service, and she had an amount of say £160, the accumulation of her life’s savings over all the years that she had been in the service. That is all she had. She had no pension because she had never been able, under the existing system, to contribute to any pension scheme. I know that the numbers of these people are getting smaller and smaller. Those few who are left should receive consideration from the Minister and they could be dealt with by the Committee, without detracting from the rights of their making a claim and having their case heard by the Select Committee.

I only want to say two things. I want to point out that the first group of cases to which the hon. member referred are those of cases of people who are today receiving pensions, and who would therefore be able to be taken into consideration for bonuses, or whatever we choose to call it under the clause of the new Act.

But only for the period of the war.

Yes, only for the period of the war. As far as the second case is concerned, the case of the unestablished officials, I shall go into that.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time: House to go into Committee on the Bill now.

House in Committee:

Clauses, Schedule an Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The position in connection with this clause is that Government agencies are going to be established to buy certain produce or other articles which are scarce or which are not easily obtainable. Some time ago the Department of Defence had its agencies here in connection with wholesale buying of products for the military, and I believe also for convoys which came to South Africa. From the point of view of the producers these agencies did very useful work. It eliminated up to a certain point a very rapid fluctuation in prices through the comings and goings of convoys, and most important of all, it eliminated the large number of sharks amongst the middlemen in the fruit and vegetable businesses. Now I hear—I do not know whether it is correct—that a short while ago this purchasing section for military purposes ceased to exist, and many people who deliver produce and vegetables and such commodities are concerned about it. Because now the so-called brokers come in again, and try to bring down the prices of the farmers, in order to sell these commodities at the highest possible price to the military authorities. I should like to know what the position is. Will the agency which purchased on behalf of the army also fall under this?

I regret that I am not in possession of the necessary Information in so far as this point is concerned. I am dealing here only with the financing of purchases, and I cannot say at the moment what the policy of the Department of Defence is in connection with this aspect. I think, however, that the hon. member will be able to raise this when the vote of the Minister of Commerce and Industries comes up for discussion. He will probably be in a position to supply the information.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 17,

This clause invited considerable discussion at the time of the debate on the second reading of the Bill. There was a considerable amount of suspicion in connection with the clause, and hon. members apparently feared that farmers’ relief might be smothered by this clause, that it might be the thin end of the wedge to abandon that principle of assistance to farmers. I gave the assurance that that was not the case. This clause was not inserted at the initiative of the Treasury, but at the request of the Land Bank Board. I cannot see what harm it can do, but on the other hand I do not again want a lengthy debate on it at this stage, and for that reason I am prepared to withdraw this clause.

Clause put and negatived.

The remaining Clauses and the Title having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with an amendment.

Amendment considered.

Omission of Clause 17 put and agreed to.

In the Title,

I move:

In the Title, to omit “No. 29 of 1933”.

I second.

Agreed to.

Question put: That the Bill, as amended, be adopted.

Agreed to.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I should just like to ask the Minister for certain information. In terms of Section 20 (3) of the Act of 1933, the Land Bank has the right, as soon as a bond falls below 60 per cent. of the valuation, to take over the administration of the bond. Since the Minister is now raising the bonds to 66⅔ per cent. of the valuation. I should like to know whether the Land Bank will also be entitled to take over such loans when they fall below 66⅔ per cent.?

As a result of the fact that, in dealing with another Bill, Clause 23 was not amended, as we originally proposed, the limit, as far as bonds are concerned, will remain at 60 per cent.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I should like to add a further paragraph (d) to fix the rate of interest of the Land Bank at a maximum of 4 per cent.

That cannot be inserted here. It does not fall within the scope of this Bill.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I should like to know whether I can move it here.

This clause deals with reserve funds.

Then I should like to ask what interest the Minister is going to get on the money from the reserve funds invested in State bonds and loaned to municipalities. The Minister ought to know more or less what it will be. In my opinion he will get no more than 3 per cent., and it seems to be so unreasonable that the Minister should use the money which is available, in order to grant loans to municipalities and to the Government, at a maximum of 3 per cent. or even less, while the farmer has to pay 4½ per cent. This money is intended to take over the bonds of farmers. Now the Minister comes along and uses it in a different manner, but when the money is given to the farmers they still have to pay 4½ per cent. Then a second question. The Minister says that the administrative charges amount to 1 per cent., but. I think the Auditor-General, before the Select Committee on Public Accounts, placed the administrative charges at t per cent. approximately ½ per cent. If it is only ½ per cent. how can the Minister ask the farmers to pay 4½ per cent. interest?

I just want to explain that this clause does not contemplate that I should lend money to municipalities. I have nothing to do with that. It is the Land Bank’s money. The Land Bank has a reserve fund, and without any suggestion on my part, they came along and said that they now had a reserve fund of £1,500,000 and that they would like to make it more liquid. That is their request. They would like to lend the money in such a way that when it becomes necessary they would be able to put their hands on it quickly. Now we want to empower them to invest a portion of the reserve fund in this way. This is not designed to assist the State or the municipalities, but the Land Bank deems it necessary to make a portion of the money more liquid. State securities will yield no more than 3 per cent. loans to municipalities perhaps more. But it is for the Board of the Land Bank to decide how they will invest their money. All I am doing is to move that they be given the power. In so far as the administrative charges are concerned, the Land Bank has always told me that their administrative charges amount to 1 per cent. I personally have never gone into it. Of course, they fix the interest at which they want to make advances.

I know that the Minister does not intend to put out this money on loan, but this clause relates to the lending of money to the State and to municipalities. This clause makes that possible; and for that reason I protest against the lending of this money to municipalities at a rate of interest which is lower than the rate at which the farmers can borrow it; while this is money which was intended for assistance to farmers. In any event, will the Minister, during the recess, consider the question of reducing the rate of interest of the Land Bank to 3½ per cent.?

I shall discuss it.

I shall be glad, because I should like to tell the Minister that there is considerable danger in requiring the farmers to pay 4½ per cent. interest. They go to private people, and when there is a setback in the future and this money is called up, it will cause expense and difficulties.

I shall consider the matter and discuss it with the bank.

Clause put and agreed to.

On new Clause, to follow Clause 4,

I want to move the following amendment—

1. 5. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any Act, the rate of interest charged on any loan advanced by the Land and Agricultural Bank after the commencement of this Act against security of a mortgage bond, shall not exceed three and one-half per cent.

I move this new clause because it is very, very important that we should do so. The Minister of Finance has told us that the Land Bank has surplus funds, and he asked for power for the Land Bank to invest those surplus moneys in State securities and municipal securities. We also heard from the Minister that the money which the Land Bank invested with the Government will probably not yield as much as 3 per cent. If the position is that in respect of the surplus money with the Government, the Land Bank will not get more than 3 per cent., and I do not think the Land Bank will get more from municipal securities, it is unreasonable, since this surplus money is to be made available so cheaply in that direction, not to make it available more cheaply to the farmer than is the case today. I make this proposal, because I have here a report from the Central Board of the Land and Agricultural Bank for the year ending 31st December, 1941. I want to refresh the Minister’s memory and point out to him how disturbed the Land Bank is because the farmers are taking bonds elsewhere to pay off their Land Bank bonds. The farmers are going to commercial banks, and these commercial banks are prepared to charge a low rate of interest, and then this money is used by the farmers to redeem Land Bank bonds. I want to quote from the report itself in regard to this position which I have put. The Central Board of the Land and Agricultural Bank says this—

Then the bank goes further, and the Central Boards says that it wants to warn the farmers who allowed themselves to be influenced to take bonds elsewhere in order to pay off Land Bank bonds, especially from institutions which have to keep their funds fairly liquid and of which the interest is subject to fluctuations. The Land Bank Board goes on to say—

I am unable to put this amendment as it deals with a question which is foreign to the subject matter of the Bill as read a second time.

I just want to point out that this whole Bill deals with Land Bank advances. It affects the whole financial policy of the Land Bank.

The hon. member will probably get an opportunity to discuss this matter at the third reading, but he cannot go into it at the Committee stage.

Are you ruling the amendment out of order?

Yes, I rule the amendment out of order. The remarks made by the hon. member have made me come to the conclusion that the amendment is foreign to the principles of the Bill.

I feel that this matter is so urgent that we cannot leave it at that. In this Bill permission is granted to the Land Bank to bring about a radical alteration in connection with the investment of its funds. The bank can invest it with the State and with municipalities, and we feel that the farmers ought to get the advantage from those funds. We cannot simply allow these things to slip through.

May I point out to the hon. member that we have already disposed of Clause 3, and he cannot discuss it.

Then take Clause 5.

That is the Short Title.

If we cannot discuss the matter here, where do we then get the opportunity to protest? We protest against the fact that the Land Bank can invest its funds in other institutions at a lower rate of interest than that at which the farmers obtain money from the Land Bank. The farmers ought to get the benefit of it. That is the whole secret of the matter. I should like the Minister to consider the matter from that point of view.

There is nothing except the Short Title before the Committee, and I am now going to put it.

The remaing Clause and the Title having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

I move—

I object.

Bill to be read a third time on 26th April.

A message was received from the Honourable the Senate transmitting for information a fair copy of the Electricity Amendment Bill, printed on vellum and forwarded to His Excellency the Governor General for his assent thereto.

When the House adjourned some days ago I was busy explaining the policy of the Government in regard to irrigation, in reply to a question put to me from the other side of the House, and I stated that our policy is to dam up the rivers, that settlements have almost reached saturation point and that we intended to make use of the water in the interior in order to give to the established farmers so that they would be able to make use of it on their farms. I explained that one of the first schemes in connection with this large scale damming of rivers would be the one at the Caledon River, which would work in conjunction with the schemes of the Vet River and the Sand River. I explained that, once that scheme has been completed, it will be possible to irrigate approximately 50,000 morgen of land. That means that between 2,500 and 3,000 farmers will be able to get about 20 morgen under irrigation. I now want to proceed dealing with the Orange River of which the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) spoke. The hon. member also requested me to make use of the Irrigation Commission in order to undertake a comprehensive investigation into soil erosion, mountain fires and like matters, because the danger exists that the sources of our rivers in the mountains and elsewhere will be damaged and will run dry. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) will agree with me when I say that especially in the Transvaal the position is that the sources of the rivers in the mountains fall within areas inhabited by natives, with the result that the natives plough the land, chop down trees, mountain fires occur from time to time, and this in its turn leads to the rivers drying up. The farmers who are dependent on the water from those rivers find that the rivers are becoming drier from year to year. That is one of the most serious evils threatening the Union as far as the future is concerned, and I give the undertaking that the Irrigation Commission which is already overloaded with work, will nevertheless also be charged with the task. There has never been a time when the Irrigation Commission functioned in such an advantageous manner as it is functioning now.

But you have another Director of Irrigation.

And also another chairman of the Irrigation Commission. I want to point out that the Irrigation Commission is now functioning in many respects and it does a great deal of work in order to draft reports, and the co-operation between the Irrigation Commission, the Department, of Lands and the Director of Irrigation leaves nothing to be desired. This co-operation is of such a nature that never before in the history of the Department did we have such a splendid spirit of collaboration between those three bodies. I want to stress that that spirit of collaboration is to the benefit of the State. When large undertakings are being discussed it is not an uncommon sight to see the heads of those three bodies together for a discussion of all the aspects of the matter so that the interests of the State from the point of view of lands, irrigation and the technical side of irrigation can best be served. We have that collaboration. I do hope that it will be possible to immediately issue instructions to the Irrigation Commission to institute a nation-wide investigation in regard to soil erosion, mountain fires, the danger of damaging the water sources of our rivers and kindred matters. When that report will be submitted, I shall consider it as a report of national importance to combat a national evil and as a report which will be referred to the Government to enable it to formulate its policy in regard to the protection of our water resources in South Africa. I now want to continue with the Orange River scheme. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn said that he did not think the Irrigation Department was very busy nowadays. I again want to repeat that although 53 per cent. of its technical personnel is on active service, the remaining technical officers are all the time very busy drawing up plans for schemes and working them out in detail so that those plans will be ready when the war is over. I have already indicated that 32 schemes have been worked out in detail and that we shall start on their construction as soon as the war is over.

Will you tell us what you are going to do on the Orange River?

Yes, I can do so for I think the country will be interested in it. Permit me to tell the House that as far as the Orange River is concerned, our information is obviously still of a preliminary nature. We do not have the staff to work out everything to the last detail at the present moment. The Orange River has sufficient water to irrigate 300,000 morgen. The idea is to lead the water for those 300,000 morgen to the interior and to give it to the farmers. That will mean that approximately 10,000 farms will be able to put 30 morgen each under water and when one of those recurring droughts then comes along, those farms will be able to safeguard a large part of the country against the results of such droughts.

Where do you intend constructing the weir?

I shall give you all the information. The idea is to construct the weir near Bethulie. There we have a mountain range. The weir can be constructed at Van der Kloof and the water can then be taken to the Cape Province by means of a syphon. Beginning at Van der Kloof a canal can also be constructed which will link up with the Riet River so that the water can go as far as the Vaal River near Douglas. I want to point out at once that the extension of that scheme will in the first instance benefit the Cape Province.

You said that there is water for irrigating 300,000 morgen, but do you have storage capacity for that water?

Yes, the dam together with the normal flow. It is possible to construct a few more weirs above Bethulie. I pointed to the canal which can link up with the Riet River. When that scheme is commenced with, we shall first expand it on the side of the Cape Province, for there is already a scheme at the Riet River and the Caledon scheme will also make provision for a large part of the Free State. On the Cape side the canal will run past Petrusville, near Kraankuil, Britstown, Vosburg, Williston, Carnarvon and we can take it further as far as the Sak River valley. It will be obvious that all the farms west of the canal will be able to make use of that water and we can give water for 30 morgen to 10,000 farms. I should like to give the House an idea of what this new policy may mean for the north-western part of the Cape. It is a dry area with a low rainfall and from time to time much damage is done by drought. According to the rata given by the Department of Agriculture the drought of 1919 caused direct damage amounting to £16,000,000. The indirect damage most likely amounted to another £16,000,000. In 1933 6,570,000 sheep, 700,000 goats and 750,000 head of cattle died. That was direct damage also amounting to more or less £20,000,000. Just imagine the indirect damage due to the destruction which this drought brought about. The North-west has some of the best grazing in the Union as long as the rainfall is regular. The precipitation lies between 12 and 14 inches annually. That is sufficient if they get it regularly and not everything within a few months and then again nothing for 18 months. The veld is excellent and I venture to prophesy that if these 10,000 farmers each can put 30 morgen under water, water which is at present running to waste into the sea, it not only will be the best means of combating erosion but it will transform those parts into a paradise. This is different from other schemes. When we mapped out and constructed the Vaal-Hartz, we had to expropriate 100,000 morgen of land. That cost the State over one million pounds and thereafter we had to place settlers on that land after we had brought the water there. Under the system we are envisaging today we shall give the water to the established farmers on their own farms. We shall have no need to spend large sums of money for the uprooting of people who are already on the land. We are going to give the water to the people who are already on the farms so that they can take precautions for times of drought, and I can well imagine that part in consequence being transformed into a paradise. I mentioned the Sak River valley. Members who are acquainted with the North-west know what the position in the Sak River valley is. It is one of the richest parts of the country for wheat farming we have. I do not exaggerate when I say that it is equal to the soil of the Nile valley where wheat has been grown for 2,000 years without manure or fertiliser being applied to the soil, and today it is just as fertile as in the past. Probably it will be possible to harvest a few million bags of wheat in the Sak River valley once we have the water there. When the Sak River comes down in flood, the people construct sowing banks and afterwards sow their wheat into those sowing dams. If they get flood water only once, the wheat ripens and they reap a rich harvest. I am expressing my own ideas here for my technical advisers have not yet been able to go into this aspect of the matter. If we can lead the water into the Sak River and possibly store it there in a dam which can fill up in winter, we may be able to bring about the position that these people can have a regular harvest every year. We can harvest much wheat there if we can use the water in this twofold way.

To whom does the land there belong?

Part of it belong to private persons and the rest to a company.

What company is that?

The Sak River Estates. The African Milling Company is largely interested in this company. My hon. friend need not be afraid that when this scheme is put into effect, it will be done to the benefit of that company. We shall take over the land from them on the basis of the present day value and not at the value which it will have once the water is there.

Will you expropriate the land?

We shall obtain it without expropriation. They are prepared to transfer it to us now for much less than they paid for it. I wish to point out that the idea of using the water in this manner is my own idea, for my technical advisers have not yet been asked to go into that aspect of the matter and to point to possible objections. I think that it will be possible to construct a weir there which can fill up during the winter months, and when those people can flood their land once, they can reap rich harvests there. I have pointed out that our difficulty in South Africa is that the granary of the country is this small part here at the south-western coast. I refer to Malmesbury, Moorreesburg, Piquetberg, Caledon, Bredasdorp and Swellendam—that used to be the granary of the Union but it is clear now that those parts of the country have become exhausted and that it is impossible for the farmers here at the west coast to produce wheat at an economic price. They have to fertilise so heavily and that is so expensive, that as soon as they suffer the slightest damage, hundreds of pounds become wasted money and for that reason the State has been compelled from time to time to subsidise the wheat farmers in these regions. I can, however, visualise the time when it will no longer be possible to grow wheat here, and my idea is that the part of the country I have referred to before will become the granary of the Cape, if it is possible to materialise the schemes I have spoken of. That will then help to make up for the loss of the parts here along the coast as wheat growing areas.

Do the levels allow the water to be brought there?

I have described it. I only described the physical possibilities of getting the water there. As far as the future is concerned I have no doubt that the State will have to pay for all irrigation. It is futile to think that you can recover the money from the people on the settlements, that you can establish paying schemes and that you can recover the money from the people under those schemes. But I say that this scheme is the best investment of money, for it develops the country, the population will increase, the carrying capacity of the land will increase and that in turn will mean increased business. As far as the Orange River scheme is concerned, that will mean the bringing under irrigation of 300,000 morgen, and I am convinced that farmers will be only too glad to pay £1 per morgen which will mean a permanent income of £300,000 on that investment. There is no other investment under all the millions of pounds which have already been sunk in irrigation which ensures such a good return as this new policy.

When will the scheme be commenced with?

I have repeatedly explained that these schemes cannot be commenced as long as the war lasts.

But after the war you won’t be the Minister any more.

Even if the hon. members on the other side would then hold the reins of the Government, they will have to proceed with the schemes. Assertions are being made now that I am only telling you about these schemes for political reasons, because an election is in the offing. It has been said that my statement in regard to the Caledon scheme was shocking and nothing short of a political manoeuvre.

What about the Aspoort scheme? What about Dr. Steenkamp?

You see now, they interpret everything as politics. They do not want me to mention these things. They now say that I shall no longer be here after the war. I know that I shall not be the Minister to complete these schemes, but these schemes are being designed and any government of the world would be compelled by the people of South Africa to put them into effect. I explain them and put them on the stocks, as the expression goes, and no Minister after me will risk to oppose those schemes, for the people would not allow it. As long as the war lasts we shall not be able to make a start with them, for we do not have the necessary personnel and we also have not the necessary technical staff to work out all the details and collect all the data, but we are busy making preparations for all the larger schemes and as soon as the war is over we are going to tackle them. We have not only these schemes, but the Government is busy drawing up extensive plans in many other respects for the postwar development of South Africa. The Government is busy drawing up extensive plans for developments in the field of industry and irrigation. The Government is absolutely determined to fulfil the demand which is being made that once the war is over, South Africa will in every respect, industrial and otherwise, experience a development as never before. We have the National Planning Council with the best brains of South Africa in order to assist us to make that large development possible. All those things are now being prepared gradually. I want to emphasise that the future of South Africa will have to depend in the first place on the irrigation policy which this Government or any successive Government will follow in South Africa. That is the only salvation to counteract soil erosion and preserve the water in this country, and not to let it run waste into the sea. The Irrigation Department is engaged on developing large ideas and that is going to be the foundation on which all other development in South Africa, also in the industrial field, will have to be built. Agriculture and stock-breeding in South Africa are of great importance, although we are relatively poor in this respect. Today our farmers are to a large extent dependent on the gold mining industry, but we also know that the gold mines will not be there for ever, and by means of our irrigation projects we want to make provision for our farmers becoming independent as far as agriculture and stock-breeding are concerned. In regard to irrigation it will be a large scale development, but the Government is absolutely determined to put it into effect. There has been a good deal of discussion about the employment of people after the war and the danger of unemployment. If the Government can make available £1,000,000 for loans and salaries in regard to irrigation works, and if we use 67 per cent. of white labour, 13 per cent. of coloured labour and 20 per cent. of natives, we shall be able to employ 8,000 people.

What wages will the Europeans receive?

I discussed that yesterday and do not want to repeat it again. If therefore £3,000,000 are made available we shall be able to employ 24,000 people and they will receive wages in accordance with the policy of the Government that after the war the standard of living of our population, whether white, coloured or black, shall be higher than it has ever been before in history.

Why not now? Must we remain on the low standard now?

What can one reply to such a silly question? The large schemes of the Orange River, the Caledon River, the Vet River and the Sand River are being considered and investigated by the National Planning Council and we are expecting their reports. The new irrigation policy of damming up rivers will mean a large scale policy and it is the biggest undertaking ever tackled in South Africa, and its effects and results will—I say so without hesitation—be of great advantage to South Africa, and will bear fruit for the agricultural community and for the country as a whole. In connection with our irrigation policy there are still a few questions I should like to reply to. The question was asked what our policy is in regard to boring. Some time ago I discussed this point and it is therefore not necessary to repeat it again. Furthermore I was asked the question whether it would not be possible to supply water to the owners of Hoogebomen near Lindleyspoort. The hon. member for Swartruggens (Mr. Verster) asked some questions in this connection. The Lindleyspoort scheme is a scheme which was about one quarter finished when I became Minister. It has been completed since but it is one of the most unfortunate schemes we have in the Transvaal and we are experiencing many difficulties in regard thereto. The weir was built and the canals constructed, but no plans were ever made as to the manner in which the water is to be used or divided. What is the position under the weir we have to cope with? Originally the dam was meant for irrigating 1,800 morgen. Within a few miles, I do not know how far exactly, perhaps 15 miles, there are approximately 1,800 morgen which can be irrigated. Those 1,800 morgen belong to a few owners who have about 200 and 300 morgen. For the remainder, however, there are 104 families, and one sometimes finds three families on one morgen. There are cases where a person has less than 1 morgen which he cultivates. In one of these cases the land is 1,500 yards in length and five yards wide. The over-population there is so serious that we really do not know where to begin or to finish. I sent a commission there to report on the position. Hogebomen lies much further down and I told the owners of Hogebomen that we were trying to find a solution in regard to the 1,800 morgen and that it is quite out of the question to lengthen the canal for one or more farms further down. We have to find a solution for the other problem. The hon. member furthermore said that there were Indians on the land which receives water, whereas the Europeans at Hoogebomen cannot get water, because I refuse to lengthen the canal. He also said that land is now being sold there on speculation at fabulous prices. No decision has yet been arrived at. It is obvious that we cannot go any further until the position has been clarified.

Does the division of the water come under our common law, under the Act of 1912, or where?

The position there has to be clarified entirely. As far as the purchase of land on speculation is concerned, I again have to make a statement. The people who bought the land at fabulous prices because they thought they would get water, will not receive any water at all. The people who bought the land on speculation will not receive water. We shall supply water to the people who were on the land until we have found a solution of the problem, but the people who bought land on speculation at fancy prices will not get any water. They bought the land when there was no water and we have now made it perfectly clear to them what the position is. The people who are there we will have to put under a schedule. Everybody will have 20 morgen and water for 20 morgen only and nothing more. We are going to schedule only 20 morgen for the owners and stick to that until such time as we shall have devised some means to put the matter right. The hon. member spoke of two Indians who are in possession there. That is not correct. The two Indians belong to a company and most probably they are shopkeepers. They also have irrigable land and they will be entitled to get water under this scheme. They will also be scheduled, i.e. they will receive 20 morgen under water. We are not prepared to consider those persons who bought on speculation. They should better apply to the sellers and explain to them that they cannot obtain water. The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) asked what has been done in connection with the Crocodile River. There a critical position has arisen. The Hartebeestpoortdam has caught practically all the water and the water lower down is being used by Iscor for their purposes, with the result that the river was dry the other day and the farmers could not obtain water for thousands of cattle. The hon. member then came and asked whether I could not have the Hartebeestpoortdam opened in order to help the farmers out of their predicament. That was unfortunately impossible, for the dam itself was already low and we were worried lest there would be a water shortage for the settlers. He then asked me whether we could not suggest some other alternative, whether we could not construct a weir to give them water. Investigations were made at Vlieëpoort and that scheme is among the 32 schemes which will be amongst the first schemes to be tackled after the war. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) spoke of the silting up of dams such as Grasrug, Lake Arthur and also Lake Mentz, and he asked for weirs to be built at other places to meet the demands of the farmers. As soon as I became its Minister, my Department received representations from the inhabitants of the Fish River valley which fall under those dams in regard to their irrigation requirements. They are concerned about the silting up of the dams and one can practically count on one’s fingers how much longer it will last until those dams will be completely silted up and all the development in the valley running into millions of pounds may come to a stop. I at once instructed my Department to investigate the matter and to report what might be done to improve the position. The Irrigation Department has a long range policy to first of all heighten the weirs. Lake Mentz can be so heightened by means of steel sheets but unfortunately we cannot obtain the steel at present. As soon as steel is available, that weir will be heightened. We want, however, to follow a long range policy in regard to the Fish River valley. I made it clear to the people in the valley that first of all by the heightening of the weirs and thereafter by building other weirs and finally by using old weirs to gather the silt, we shall be able to make provision for 100 years for the people there. I believe that is long enough. We shall not allow them to be left in the lurch so that they lose all they possess. The hon. member furthermore referred to Vlekpoort. That comes under the control of the Department of Agriculture. They are busy transforming it and making provision for a larger conservation of water. The Department of Agriculture asked my Department about the building of a certain weir there. Money has been provided for it on the Estimates and they are working hard on it. The dam will be constructed. In passing I also want to point out that the Minister of Agriculture is engaged on enlarging the area—I think it is 80,000 morgen—and to take more land and expand the scheme somewhat. This will serve as an example of the possibility of restoring land which has been washed away and destroyed. The hon. members for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler) and Kimberley, City (Mr. Humphreys) thanked me for the canal which is to be constructed from Windsorton in the direction of Barkly West. This is the first scheme on a small scale of the large expansion we wish to undertake in order to bring the water to the farmer. There are approximately 40 farmers there, mostly dairy farmers. They are near the Kimberley market. They cannot get water. Some of them have already gone bankrupt on account of the boring they had undertaken, some of them had to leave their farms and others again have to cart water there from long distances as soon as it becomes slightly dry, whereas still others are in the position that the water they have is so weak that it gives in very soon. The position is untenable. My Department investigated the matter and the canal which will come from the Vaal-Hartz will cover about 40 farms. Once the canal has been constructed the farms will be worth double the previous value. It will make that land valuable and transform it into a paradise. This will be the first demonstration of the new policy we are introducing in regard to our expansion schemes. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) asked me what our policy is in regard to the Seekoei River scheme, whether that is only for the district Hanover or whether the northern Cape will share in it? He furthermore could not resist jeering for he wants to make political capital out of it.

No.

You compared me with “Fortune-teller Charlie”. You want to make political capital out of it and at the same time deride me. I repeat what I have said before. In spite of the hon. member who does not do his duty, that scheme will be constructed in his constituency. We shall find out where the most suitable place is to dam up the water. At the Seekoei River, near Hanover, there is an excellent spot to construct a weir. I am speaking under correction, but I believe that the dam will irrigate 3,000 morgen. If we build the dam on the extended system, it will not be a sound proposition. The distance to where the river flows into the Orange River is too short. The country is very mountainous and there are only small pieces of land on both sides of the banks which could be irrigated under the extended scheme. That would be too expensive. There is however, a small area of land a short distance lower down which belongs to a few farmers and is more than 3,000 morgen in extent. That land can be used excellently for the dam and if we can obtain those 3,000 morgen we intend constructing the weir there. In that case we shall require only a short canal. It is our intention to establish a fodder bank there for the farmers of the Hanover district. Ouridea is that, at least for a number of years, the Department of Lands will itself administer that area and produce the fodder to show the people what can be done with a fodder bank, but the fodder will be available in the first instance for the people in that district and when they need it in times of drought they will get it. If there is anything left, it might be made available for other areas too in times of drought. We shall have to obtain those 3,000 morgen, for at the moment it is in the hands of a few farmers. I met the farmers at Hanover and told them that we want to establish a fodder bank there, provided they do not ask too much for the land. I cannot expropriate the land. The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) will know that I told the people that the establishment of the fodder bank there will depend on our obtaining the land at a reasonable price. I shall send the Land Board there to make the valuations, but if they should demand exorbitant or fabulous prices for the land, that fodder bank will not be established there.

I do not think that will happen, but the people do not know at present where they are.

We shall not be able to proceed with the scheme until after the war. The Land Board will go there to meet the farmers but if they should ask exorbitant prices for the land and if we cannot obtain the land within its economic value, we shall not be able to establish a fodder bank there. It will in any case be an experiment and one of the first experiments with a fodder bank in our country. We shall consider another fodder bank behind Soutpansberg, viz. near Metaba. The hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe) wanted to know from me when I was going to fulfil my promise to pay a visit to Potchefstroom. That will happen in May or June. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) wanted me to account for a speech I made in his constituency 18 months ago.

Not for the speech but for the accusations against me.

If the hon. member wants that, I shall do so. The hon. member asked what the position was at the Magol and Palala Rivers. There are wonderful streams of water and it is fertile country. I fully agree with that. In those parts we find “lamsiekte.” I ascribe that to the people being unable to obtain sufficient bone meal. They themselves ascribe it to the bitter and salt water the animals have to drink. It is a most remarkable part of the country. These wonderful rivers flow through it but the fall of the land is so negligible—it amounts to only two feet per mile. When I went there I met the people on the banks of the Magol River and I gained the impression of the wonderful stream of water flowing there, and I realised what that water might have meant for those parts if it could have been used between those two rivers, for although the water is flowing there the people on the farms further away from the rivers die from thirst. Where boring has taken place the water is brackish in two out of three cases so that no animal can drink it and in some cases it is not only brackish but also bitter. They maintain that their animals fall ill after drinking it. As I said, I was much impressed by the possibilities there and I at once saw that if that water could be turned away and be used on the land between those rivers, that area would be transformed into a paradise, whereas that is very difficult now. These people are pioneers in those parts. They have to make great sacrifices. I undertook to have the possibilities investigated. I did so and the report said that the land was so level that it is impossible to construct canals and turn the water out of the rivers. There is no place where one could construct a weir in the Palala or Magol Rivers. I want to tell my hon. friend this. I informed those people that I promised them to have an investigation made but that it became clear that it is impossible to do what we thought and hoped might be possible. I told them that the land was too level and if my hon. friend knows of any other possible method to get that water out of the rivers and distribute it over those wide plains, I can assure him that we shall investigate such possibilities and if it is a feasible scheme, we shall construct it. I admit that those people are pioneers who farm there with great sacrifices.

That is one side of the matter but what of your accusations against me?

The people came to me and complained about their cattle dying and not being able to obtain bone meal; they also said that the water was running there and that nothing was being done to assist them. My reply thereto was: If your Parliamentary representative would indulge less in chasing shadows and talking of an imaginary republic and would look more after your interests, things in your constituency might have been better. I added to that that their member had never yet come to see me to ask me what I could do for them. He never came to ask me whether that water could be turned away or whether I could be of assistance in obtaining more bone meal. I said nothing else.

I know now what I wanted to know.

The hon. member furthermore asked what the position is in regard to the Nyl River. I believe investigations have already been made in regard to the Nyl River which flows past Nylstroom. The difficulty with that river seems to be more or less the same as with the Magol and the Palala. In connection with Potgietersrust—I think the river there is the Sterkstroom—surveying took place and it is one of the schemes to be commenced after the war. I believe I have now answered all the questions which were put to me. I did my best to give the House the necessary information in regard to the irrigation policy of the present Government.

I am very grateful to the Minister for the frank admission of the accusations which he made against me in my constituency. In connection with these two rivers which he mentioned, I am supposed to have failed to do my duty. I have before me the Hansard Report, and in the first speech which I made in this House in 1930, I brought these two rivers to the notice of the Department of Irrigation. The Minister has now become lyrical about the necessity to build a dam there. I pointed this out at that time. But I want to go further. Perhaps the Minister has never discussed these rivers with his Department. If the Minister consults the Director of Irrigation, who happens to be present, he will be able to get all the information in regard to those rivers. The Director of Irrigation and I spent days and nights in the mountains. We went about on foot, by car and on horseback in order to see whether there was not a suitable place for the construction of a dam.

I said that you had never approached me.

If the Minister had only consulted the Director of Irrigation, the Director would immediately have given him all the information which he wanted to obtain by means of an enquiry. An enquiry into the possibility of constructing a dam at that place took place as many as ten years ago. The Director of Irrigation and I personally investigated the position, and since that time engineers have repeatedly made investigations. Now the Minister makes a statement in this House as though he brought to light all these things.

He deceived the people.

I say frankly that if the Minister did not deliberately deceive the people, he did it in such a manner that it savours very much of deliberate deceit. With regard to the fact that the cattle die of “lamsiekte”; here again, if the Minister goes to his Department he will find that over a period of years I again and again urged that the causes of this disease should be investigated. He referred to the statement that the cattle got this disease from the water which comes from the boreholes. If the Minister goes to his Department, he will find a stack of letters which were exchanged between myself and the Department in regard to this matter, and the fact that a solution was eventually found was due to my efforts and nothing else.

But he knows nothing about matters of that kind; he is only an election agent.

In those areas where splenic fever was at its worst, there was eventually an exchange of farms, so that these people could go to other parts. The fact that the farmers were persuaded to use phosphate and bone meal was simply the result of a campaign which I kept alive for ten years, and then the Minister has the shamelessness to say in my constituency that if I, as a member, had done my duty, the people would have had a dam and this, that and the other. He promised them a dam and his agent, Henry Harris Moll, also made these promises, and eventually the Minister had to let these people know that this dam would not be constructed. Just imagine, a Minister goes into a member’s constituency, and besmirches that member because a certain dam has not been built, and then at a later date he is compelled to let them know that he has made a mistake and that the dam cannot be constructed.

But they do not believe him.

That is the fortunate part of it. If only the Minister could know how the people in that constituency laugh at him. I just want to tell him this. I advise him to keep Henry Harris Moll out of that constituency. He has made so many promises there that if he puts in another appearance his life will not be safe.

Then you should allow him to go there.

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

We have heard a fairly good argument from the Minister in regard to his policy, and of course the policy of the Government, in connection with future irrigation schemes. But I just want to tell the Minister this. He told us that he could not say when this big scheme which he had in mind would commence. But he said that in any event it could only be undertaken after the war. It is all very nice for the Minister to have those great ideas, and I shall be grateful to him if he can give effect to them. But I want to tell him that he has not brought any new policy before the House today. It is an old policy. Just before a General Election we hear of this type of wild scheme which is never carried out, and I hope that in this case the Minister will carry out this scheme if he still occupies that portfolio after the war —I hope he will not be there. In connection with the Orange River, his Department informed us for a number of years that the confluent scheme would be taken in hand, and every time we find that there are certain difficulties in the way. I just want to remind him that years ago there was an amount on the Estimates to make a start with that scheme. That was also before a General Election, if I am not mistaken. After all these years we find that they have not yet made a start with the construction of that scheme. I just want to point out that in my opinion, if there is one scheme which ought to receive preference over any other scheme, then it is this confluent scheme. I am therefore surprised that the Minister should now tell us that there are other schemes to which he wants to give preference. I hope that he will make a clear statement in this House as to when he intends proceeding with that confluent scheme. I have a reason for making this request. There are varying ideas in regard to that scheme. There are now rumours that the Minister is interested in the Van der Kloof scheme, and it is because he has a certain amount of interest in that scheme, that the people are now saying that that is the reason why the confluent scheme is not undertaken. I hope the Minister will undertake this confluent scheme as soon as possible. His engineers and his previous director of irrigation were agreed that that was the only scheme on the Orange River that should be undertaken at once, and for this reason: As the Minister himself knows, unless at the Boegoeberg scheme another dam is built higher up on the river, the people lower down who are dependent on the Boegoeberg scheme in times of drought, will experience great difficulties. It is extremely important that something should be done in the Orange River to assist the people lower down who are dependent on the Boegoeberg dam. There were rumours that the dam wall would be made higher, and that has not yet materialised either. I want to ask the Minister to have this confluent scheme constructed immediately. It will not be desirable to wait until after the war, because otherwise those people may suffer damage in the future. In view of the fact that the Minister stated in this House at one time that he was very sympathetically disposed, and that he regarded it as absolutely essential, that that confluent scheme should be carried out …

I have never said a word in regard to the confluent scheme.

Oh no; the Minister did speak about it. We know that the Minister is now giving preference to the Van der Kloof scheme. The Minister owes a statement to the country with reference to his plans in connection with the confluent scheme. The Minister knows that that confluent scheme was before the House as many as six, eight or ten years ago. There was even an amount on the Estimates to make a start with it, and that amount was later removed from the Estimates.

He was not the Minister then.

And nothing was done in connection with this confluent scheme. The people in that area are all under the impression that the confluent scheme should be given preference over any other scheme. The other scheme to which the Minister referred, namely the construction of a canal, will never be carried out. But if the Government eventually undertakes it, it will certainly be one of the best things which have been done in this country. The Minister’s main subject was the further expansion of the wheat industry. Now I want to ask the Minister whether he has discussed this matter with his colleague, the hon. Minister of Native Affairs. He agitated in this House that wheat should be grown only in certain parts of the country, and that is in the Western Province, and that legislation should be introduced forbidding people to grow wheat in the distant areas which were unsuitable for wheat production.

We have listened today to the beautiful exposition on the part of the Minister of Lands, in regard to his future programme. He mentioned all the rivers he was going to dam up. He wants to dam up everything. I think we are going to dam up the Minister. The Minister made a long-winded speech about what could be done. We know very well what can be done. It should have been done years ago already. In passing I want to pay a compliment to the Irrigation Board. I have known the chairman for years. He took a great deal of interest in the agricultural industry. He put aside politics and did everything in his power to promote the agricultural industry. I can understand that the Minister is today using the talents at his disposal, and that he is now coming forward with a document, drawn up at the eleventh hour, to dam up the sources in South Africa in order to bring under irrigation fertile soil. When I listen to the Minister—well, unfortunately I know him. If anyone were to sit in the gallery, not knowing the Minister and listening to this wonderful document, of which the Minister unfortunately knew nothing, but which he got from his officials to read out, the man in the gallery would say: “But this is surely an outstanding Minister.” But he may also ask how the Minister is going to give effect to such a plan, knowing that the Minister is spending hundreds of millions on the war. I do not want to discuss that now, but that is where the money goes which is required to carry out these plans. The Minister knows, of course, that he cannot give effect to those plans. His time is very short. There is an election at hand. I do not want to be in his position. I hope to be in the position of the Prime Minister; then those plans will not remain plans on paper, but they will be carried out without delay. We know of all the promises which have been made to me and other hon. members that this, that and the other will be done when they get into power; but nothing is being done. South Africa is a poor country, as has been said here over and over again. I agree with the Minister that we should dam up the rivers to conserve water. But it is of no avail, only to talk of it before the election, and then to do nothing. I am one of those people who has been caught often in the past. I believe very little of what is said in this House before an election. I know what happened when the Coalition Government came into power. They were going to convert the earth into a paradise. The Minister spoke of paradise this and paradise that, paradise the Orange River and paradise everything. I threw in my weight with coalition, but what did we get? Nothing but promises. I welcome the document which the Minister has read out, but we shall first have to get into power in order to give effect to it. Let us make a start in Basutoland. There you do not require artificial manure, but only water for the stuff to grow. But this savours too much of propaganda. We are afraid it will not be given effect to.

That speech is really unworthy of the hon. member. The hon. member for Aliwal North (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) intimated here that the hon. the Minister only read out a document and did not know where the Orange River is, as if the Minister does not know anything. He said that the Minister only read out that document in view of the Elections. That insinuation is unworthy of the hon. member.

On a point of order, is the hon. member allowed to say that I stated a falsehood?

I did not hear it.

I thought that the hon. member’s brain was slightly fogged when he spoke, but now I notice that his hearing is also fogged. I said that what he said here was unworthy of him as a farmer. The Minister clearly stated that this is a long term policy running over a period of 12 years and including 33 schemes, and whether he will be the Minister or the hon. member for Aliwal North will be the Minister, that is the project to be put into effect. Seeing that we have such a long range project now the hon. members on all sides of the House ought to applaud it. The hon. member said that he did not believe much of what was being said in this House. In that case he should not blame us if we do not believe anything he says. I should like to thank the Minister for his statement in connection with the dam on the Crocodile River. I am most grateful for the information I obtained. There is still one matter I want to raise in regard to boreholes. Millions and millions of pounds have been written off on irrigation schemes and we are also grateful for the concession to farmers in regard to dry boreholes, but the compensation is only £70. I want to plead with the Minister to change the policy and where a farmer has four or five or six dry boreholes, the Minister should go further and be prepared to write them off.

The hon. the Minister presented us here with a marvellous picture, with a wonderful phantasy of irrigation schemes to be executed. I hope he will give effect to his schemes and not let them remain schemes only. The Minister reminds me of 1938, shortly before the Election. His predecessor then went to Ladismith and Laingsburg and in the course of speeches there gave some splendid undertakings, but always in such a way that he did not commit himself. He said: “Here I see this wonderful soil and I am visualising all the things that could be produced here”. And he then said that he would do everything in his power to establish an irrigation weir there. The Election took place and no effect was given to such a project. The present Minister also comes here with very fine visions. It is nice to listen to it. But where is the money? The money is being spent on the war and we are being taxed to the hilt and are being fleeced. Will the Minister tax the farmers still more in order to get the money? These schemes cannot be built without money, It may be done in a thousand years time, but the Minister knows that he will not put these schemes into effect. He is only making promises. I am just thinking of a few years ago when the Aspoort scheme was promised. That was to be constructed and to be used as a fodder bank. Do you still remember that.

Yes.

That was to serve as a fodder bank for the North-West in time of drought. The Minister’s predecessor went there himself to have a look, the land was surveyed and the weir too. They have a permanent stream there, but it never went further than promises. The people are still saying: “Oom Jan can get nothing for us.” The Minister does not fulfil his undertakings and I get the blame for it. I am not going to stand again for the House of Assembly, but I ask that he at least should redeem his pledge and construct the Aspoort scheme. Then there is the dam along the Touws River. Today the people there are doing fairly well, they had a couple of good years, but as soon as there is a drought again they will once more find themselves in a precarious position. The Minister ought to provide for irrigation all along the Buffels River. We shall then be able to accommodate quite a large population there and they will be able to make a living. I know that the Minister is honest. I know him. He is a good man. He is a farmer himself. But I want to ask him to put into effect the things of which he is holding out the prospect now. Do not make promises shortly before an Election. Do not promise the impossible shortly before an Election and leave the possible undone, for the Minister’s schemes cover practically the whole of the Free State and the Transvaal, and the North-West, all the constituencies, but the one constituency where it is possible to construct schemes is being forgotten.

If there is one thing I did not expect, it is that the Opposition would shrink back from the programme of the Minister. I just want to say that the Opposition should not think that there is any doubt whatever that the Minister of Lands will after the Election again be our Minister of Lands. The whole House and the whole country will follow with interest the excellent review of the Minister in regard to our future projects. Personally, as a farmer and an irrigator I am very much interested in it, and we trust and expect that the Minister will give effect to his projects. I am just slightly disappointed about one aspect and that is that he said nothing in regard to the Beervlei scheme at Willowmore. The scheme that can be built there is a very fine one. It should really top the list.

It is on my list. (Laughter.)

The Opposition is again trying to ridicule as usual, but after the Election they will come back here empty-handed. As far as the Karoo schemes are concerned, this is the scheme which should be constructed first. This is moreover a scheme of which the products will afterwards not compete with those of other schemes, for this will be the fodder bank par excellence for those parts and in times of drought it will remove our difficulties and stimulate sheep farming.

As far as I am concerned it was most interesting to sit here and listen to what the Minister had to say. It would have been much more interesting still if I had not already been interested in irrigation for many years and if I did not know what is possible, and if it were not for the fact that during my first year in Parliament I sat and listened to just such a speech by the previous Minister of Irrigation. In 1939 he told us that he would see to it that every drop of water falling on our soil would be dammed up. He said that the Government would see to it that storage dams would be built with at least 75 per cent. and up to 100 per cent. subsidy. He presented us with the most attractive pictures. What became of it? I now want to ask the present Minister: He intends building a weir in the Orange River near Bethulie and then to bring the water down to Calvinia.

You better tell the House also what you got for your constituency.

The Minister should listen for a while. Does he really think that one can take the water from the Orange River and lead it down to Calvinia? It is a public stream, belonging to the riparian owners along the river. Does the Minister think he can construct a canal and bring the water to Calvinia, a distance of 400 or 500 miles? Does he think that the riparian owners will sit with folded hands and allow their water to be taken away? The Minister should also consider another point and that is that you cannot bring the water down to Calvinia, which would cost you under such a scheme between £12 and £15 per morgen. No Government can do that. I am glad that the Minister has some vision, but that does not help you if you have not at the same time the power to carry out your plans. We welcome the fact that the Minister says that he will do all he can. I am glad we have a Minister with vision. If there is one thing we lacked in the past, it is Ministers of Irrigation who in regard to irrigation were able to see ahead far enough. All the same I want to give the Minister some advice: Rather have the schemes developed to some extent enabling you to calculate the surface of land which can be irrigated, and the amount of water available, so that all the possibilities of a scheme have first of all been duly considered. And I want to tell the Minister that he need not go to the Orange River for an irrigation scheme. He can build a weir in the Breë River, much cheaper too, and bring 10,000 morgen of land under water which is now running to waste into the sea year after year. That will be an excellent opportunity. I do not want to say that other schemes are better, but this scheme definitely is just as good as any other scheme. Let us make a start on one side first. Let us start with the oldest part of the country which was the first to tackle irrigation and pay for it themselves, and then gradually proceed further. Make a start where irrigation will be paying best and then carry out a 12 year plan. Do the work thoroughly rather than putting a patch here and there. First finish one part and then go further from step to step. But first of all the Minister must carefully consider the possibilities of a scheme. The Minister should not take it amiss when I say that he cannot put into effect all the schemes of which he has been talking. The previous Director of Irrigation once said that certain schemes are impossible to carry out.

He said so of the Vaal-Hartz scheme.

No, that is not so.

Some of the members on your side said so.

I wonder whether the hon. member knows how much the Municipality of Johannesburg paid for the water of the dam.

That cuts no ice.

Of course, if you trip him up, it cuts no ice. To take the water from the Orange River and to lead it through a canal for 500 miles until it reaches Calvinia, is impossible according to the information I obtained. The cost would be too great. A small canal of 10 ft. by 4 ft. costs £2 per yard for the concrete only. It is no use bringing water costing £1,000,000 to land which is worth only £10,000. Not even from this Minister can one expect to carry that into effect.

That is exactly what some of your people said about the Vaal-Hartz scheme.

If the hon. Minister would keep silent more often, it would pay him better. I am talking about things I know something about. The hon. member knows nothing about it. We welcome the fact of having a Minister with vision. My heart is in irrigation and I am convinced that the development of agriculture depends on irrigation. There are parts of the country where the number of stock farmers is decreasing because they cannot make a living on the land as the plots are already becoming too small for the number of people there. But once you have irrigation you can, where there may be one stock farmer at present, perhaps put 100 irrigators who can make a living. We realise that and we are glad that the Minister also feels that every drop of water falling on our soil and in our mountains should be gathered for the benefit of our farmers. Nature gave us a dry country, but gold and diamonds. Providence meant us to use that gold and those diamonds to pay for the irrigation of our land. Unfortunately we did not do so, not to the extent it should have been done, but I am afraid that the mines will be worked out before we use the gold for this purpose. I still want to come to another point and a most serious one. I want to warn the Minister. I have not the slightest objection against him appointing people of his own party into posts in his Department. If he selects them well, I don’t mind. In that he is laying down a rule which will be followed by other Governments. I want to ask him, however, in appointing members of irrigation boards, not to follow the same principle. For 30 years I have been working with irrigation boards and I know the sacrifices those people have to make, how they have to travel around day after day in order to do their work and have to come together month after month to distribute the water and to settle administrative matters. Those people have been elected and only receive 10s. per day towards their expenses which often run into much more. They are elected by the ratepayers, that is to say, the registered voters under the scheme. [Time limit.]

We used to have a very able chairman on the Irrigation Board. I should like to know from the Minister why this person was dismissed and why somebody else was appointed in his place. Is the position at present that one must be a Sap and a Jingo as otherwise one is dismissed? Was he incapable or did any irregularities happen when he was chairman? Why was he dismissed? We have been listening to castles in the air today. I believe that the whole country will rejoice about it, but I am afraid that these are again illusions which will never become realities. If I want to make improvements on my farm I first of all have to rectify those things which were wrong in the past; thereafter I can continue to build up and carry out new ideas. In passing, I just want to thank the Minister for the investigation he had made in connection with the difficulties at the Mooi River. After the War of Liberation—some call it the Boer War, but I call it the English war—the position was that only the riparian owners were entitled to the water. After the Anglo-Boer war there were a certain number of farms which were put under irrigation, and a canal was constructed thither. I believe that those riparian owners have been unfairly treated since 1903 or 1905, and I want to ask the Minister and the Government to make good that injustice now. If they do not want to do so, then I want to know why they do not want to do so. In the past those people had an abundance of water, but today they have too little water, and that means that their crops are shrivelling up. Just imagine how much damage they have already suffered during those 40 years. I should like to hear from the Minister whether he is going to comply with my request, and whether he is going to put right that injustice. I understand that he will be in Potchefstroom towards the end of May or June. I should very much like to know whether he is going there to make a political speech or whether he is going there in his capacity of Minister of Lands to find a solution for that problem.

That is my business.

Does he want to solve that problem, yes or no, or is he going to throw a bone of contention amongst the people? I ask him this question—I had it already on the Order Paper—but I want to put it again to him, whether he is going to give effect to the report of the Commission. This report was tabled in the House. In it several recommendations were made. I now want to know what he is going to do about it. The Minister talked all morning—for one hour and a half—about the new schemes he is going to carry out, and in doing so he wanted to make propaganda for the coming Election. Here we have a problem which has been in existence for years, and which calls for a solution, and I should like to know whether he is going to look for a solution in May. I want to ask him very politely whether he will duly compensate those riparian owners who originality were the owners of that water for all the damage they have suffered. Those owners have been deprived of their water for the last 40 years, and I reckon that it is an injustice to take away from them something which belongs to them according to law. I hope and trust that the Minister will make proper investigations at Potchefstroom and that he will not carry on in the same manner as he did in some other places, for a large number of my electors are interested in this matter. I hope that he will not make use of the same method which he used against the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). I should like to bring this to his notice for I feel that the way the Minister of Irrigation behaved at Waterberg was most unreasonable towards the hon. member for Waterberg, my leader in the Transvaal, whom I respect. That was an unworthy behaviour. I hope and trust that when he gets up to reply he will duty apologise for what he said there. I doubt however, whether he will do so. If he is generous enough he will do so.

I do not know whether this matter has already been raised while I was not present in the House, but I want to ask the Minister to give us his reasons for not re-appointing Mr. Rood on the Irrigation Commission. I really feel that we in South Africa ought to make use of the best services we have at our disposal, and I want to know whether the Minister discharged Mr. Rood because he perhaps took part in politics or did something which can be interpreted as politics and which he should not have done in view of his position. Or was he not capable enough to serve on the Commission. I do not want to cast a reflection on the other members of the Commission but the Minister can telegraph today to the Chairman of the United Party at Hanover and ask him who was best able to satisfy the people or to reply to questions or to achieve something in the way of irrigation in those parts. I have no doubt that the reply from the Chairman of the United Party will be that in his opinion Mr. Rood best understands the people and has shown himself to be a capable official. I should like to know from the Minister why he has not re-appointed Mr. Rood. I understand that even members of the National Board for the Kruger National Park who do not belong to his own particular party, have been dismissed. This board was called a “national” board because they were supposed to represent all the interests in the country. I know the Minister well. I believe that his political passions often go too far. I want to ask the Minister whether in the best interests of irrigation he does not think that he should reconsider his decision. That policy of dismissing people because they do not belong to the political party of the Minister has never yet paid in the past. That kind of thing not only creates discord in the country, but the interests of South Africa suffer as a result thereof. I want to ask the Minister to take into reconsideration the case of Mr. Rood. He is a capable official. We surely want all sections of the population to have confidence in such a Commission. The point is not that we have no confidence in the other officials. But when a person is dismissed simply because he holds certain views although he does not belong to a particular political party, it gives the impression as if the intention is to create a political board. I hope the Minister will make a statement here so that we may be able to go further into this matter.

I was busy pointing out to the Minister that some time ago when there was a surplus production of wheat, the Minister of Native Affairs in this House was in favour of the introduction of legislation in order to prohibit the growing of wheat in certain parts of the country, in other words, the production of wheat was to be allowed in certain areas only, namely the older parts such as Caledon, Bredasdorp, Malmesbury etc. He especially pointed out that in those parts where the farmers are successful with sheep farming it is undesireable to allow them to produce wheat on a large scale. The Minister of Lands now comes along and tells us that in those parts which are particularly fertile, wheat should be produced on a large scale by giving the people there the opportunity to grow wheat under irrigation. I should like to know from the Minister whether he knows what his colleague proposed to do. Here we have an instance of two Ministers advocating two contradictory policies in this House. It is no use the Minister getting up in this House and presenting us with a picture of wonderful irrigation schemes when we have to find out that it is impossible to carry out those schemes. I therefore think it essential that this House as well as the country outside should know what the policy of the Government is. If we find that Ministers hold different views, it is only fair and just that we should have a clear statement on the actual position. The Minister again gave the undertaking that he would make more boring-machines available. If there is anything which is absolutely essential, it is that more boring-machines be made available. As far back as 1938 this House agreed to a motion that it is essential to make boring-machines available and that the money invested therein is well invested. I now want to point out to the Minister what the Government of today is doing at present. According to statistics 102 boring-machines were on hand. In spite of the promises of the Minister, in spite of the decision of this House, we find that boring-machines are no longer being made available to the farmers in the North-West. No, the opposite takes place. Whereas there used to be 102 boring-machines there are only 75 at present. We therefore find that the Government and the Minister are ignoring the decision of this House. The price of a boring-machine is approximately £2,000. Another 50 drilling machines would therefore only cost £100,000. Nevertheless we do not get them. All we get is nice talk, promises and sympathy from the Minister. Sympathy however does not mean that boring-machines will be made available. For that reason I want to urge upon the Minister that if there is anything which cannot wait, it is the question of more boring-machines for the North-West. Water is the source of everything. Without water nothing can be done. I therefore hope that the Minister will not neglect this matter. The Government gave the undertaking that in spite of the tremendous expenditure on the war the essential services in the country would not suffer to any extent, and seeing that we had that undertaking and in view of the fact that this House passed a resolution that this is an essential matter, I hope that the Minister will no longer make the country suffer as a result of his omission. There are 2,000 applications of people waiting for boring-machines. A point that struck me is that is 1938 the number of applications was the same. There were 2,000 applications then and in spite of all the promises made and the decision which was taken here we find that the total number is still the same today. The number of applicants on the waiting list is still the same. The Minister will admit that it is not fair and right to treat those people in such a manner. I therefore hope that as far as his promises in regard to the purchase of boring-machines are concerned the Minister will realise that those people cannot wait any longer. He knows the circumstances prevailing there. Recently they had another severe drought which so far has only been partly broken, and now we have to find that an essential service of this nature is not being carried out by the Government. Seeing that this is the case the Minister will realise that we become somewhat suspicious when he gets up in the House and talks about all the grand schemes of the Government, and we consequently feel that the only purpose of it is that the Minister announces those schemes because there is a General Election in the offing. I hope that as far as this is concerned the Minister will do his best, and will not make promises without fulfilling them. I do not want to talk about the other kind of promises the Ministers made. I will leave it at that. I only wanted to say something about boring-machines and I want to ask him to carry into effect the decision arrived at by this House. When the public finds out that no effect is given to the decisions of this House, it is bound to create a lack of confidence in this House. To the farmers in those areas it is a matter of the utmost importance that this decision of the House shall be carried into effect, particularly in view of the Government having given the undertaking that essential services will not suffer as a result of the war expenditure.

I shall not keep the Committee very long. I did not finish my speech before. When interrupted I was explaining the important services rendered to the community by the Irrigation Boards. In order to make a success of any scheme there must be absolute confidence in the Irrigation Board. The members of the Irrigation Board are elected every three years. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of what is happening there. If he does not know it I want to tell him so that he may take steps to prevent a repetition in the future. Usually an election is held every three years. If everybody is satisfied no nominations are made and the Government has the right to appoint somebody in the place of the person who is resigning. What usually happened was that a simple inquiry was made to find out whether that resigning person had the necessary qualifications and in that case he was reappointed again. That is nothing but fair. I now want to bring one case to the notice of the Minister. This concerns a small Irrigation Board of which one member resigned. That person is the chairman of the Divisional Council, and he is very esteemed by everybody, and as no nominations were made, he was reappointed. A few days later, however, the Magistrate made it known that the Minister refused to appoint him because he was supposed to be a member of the O.B. I do not know whether he is a member of the O.B. I do not want to defend the O.B., but I do not think that that man is a member. In any case the Minister appointed somebody else. The community there is now under the impression that this particular person was not reappointed because he defeated the magistrate at the election of a chairman for the Divisional Council. He is the chairman and the magistrate is only an ordinary member. Whatever the reasons may be it is certainly wrong that this person was not reappointed. The community there had confidence in this man and if this is to be the new procedure which will be followed, chaos may result. A few weeks later there was another case of another Board. Everybody expected that the person resigning would be reappointed in the ordinary way, but a week later the magistrate announced that the Department did not wish to reappoint that man. I believe here the reason also was membership of the O.B. The magistrate could not find any Government supporter to appoint. Ultimately he discovered that there was a Jew who had a farm under the scheme, but who was not living there himself. He lives in the village. He is a decent fellow and did not want to become a member. The magistrate approached him and finally appointed him. On that all the other members resigned.

And he was a decent fellow?

The objection against him was that he did not even stay on the farm. He left the farm, and had no interest in the scheme. We persuaded the other five members and they withdrew their resignations. I went to talk nicely to the Jew and explained what the feeling was, and on that he resigned, and now another man has to be appointed. I am of the opinion that members of Irrigation Boards should be elected by the people to whom they are responsible and who pay rates under the scheme. The Government does not pay them anything and if the Government is going to follow this new policy, there will be trouble. But apart from that the principle is wrong. What does it matter whether a man is a Sap or a Nationalist, when he serves on an Irrigation Board.

It apparently does matter when he is a Jew.

We have Irrigation Boards on which English-speaking members are sitting and they are reappointed from time to time. Those people are elected by the ratepayers. I take it that the Minister or Irrigation does not realise what the position actually is. I know that those people make great sacrifices in the performance of their duty. The position is that once a man has been elected he is reappointed if there are no nominations. That shows that everybody is satisfied, for if they were not satisfied there would be many nominations.

But a Jew may not be appointed.

If he is a member of the Board and has been elected by the public, he may be a Jew or an English-speaking or an Afrikaans-speaking person or a member of the O.B., as long as he has been elected by the ratepayers, he is the right man for them. The Minister now wants to appoint people under the circumstances I explained. The Minister after all is also dependent upon the magistrate for his information. A magistrate may have been in that place for only a couple of years, and his recommendation and actions do not always enjoy the confidence of the public. A person from Barrydale told us the other day that he had to get a petrol permit in Swellendam. It was said that they first had to see the chairman of the S.A. Party to find out whether they could get petrol. Those things cause sore feelings unnecessarily. Well, I told the Minister what I wanted to tell him. If the Minister wants to carry on as he has been doing in the past, I can assure him that there will be trouble. And I therefore make an earnest appeal to him not to go on with it. When the ratepayers have chosen their representatives it should be left at that. If there are no nominations when a person has to resign it means that the ratepayers are satisfied as otherwise they would have nominated somebody else. It may be that the magistrate is to blame for the mistake. If the Minister does not know about it, he should at least take care in future that these things do not happen again.

After the speech of the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) I should like to say a few words about the irrigation along the Mooi River. The Irrigation Commission paid a visit there to report upon the position. The hon. member for Ventersdorp is now worried that the Minister might say something there which the hon. member for Ventersdorp might consider as politics. I should like to ask him something. I know what the difficulties at the Mooi River are. For 15 years or so I used to be the chairman of the River Board. The portion of the water in the constituency of the hon. member has been separated from the water coming to my area. Would the hon. member for Ventersdorp prefer the Minister not to visit his area? We did our best to convince the Minister that he should pay a visit there. The Minister replied that it is near a General Election and that it might appear to be a political move on his part. Is the hon. member prepared on behalf of his electors to state here that the Minister should not visit that part of the country? We should like to have a reply to that. I do not want the Minister to visit one area only but if the hon. member for Ventersdorp does not want to see him in his area he should say so. The hon. member thinks that he will represent that area also in future, and we want to know whether it is desirable for the Minister to go there. If the hon. member on behalf of his people can say that the Minister should not go there, then we will know what arrangements to make, and how to organise the visit of the Minister.

I said that he should not interfere with political matters there.

He and I sat behind the previous Minister of Lands and neither of us then objected to the Minister making speeches there.

I make no objections.

I do not want the Minister to be stopped when he goes there, even if it is in June. I can tell the House that apart from the war those people are only concerned about their water and about the winning of their case. Whatever the Minister may tell them, as long as they can get their water supply they will not worry about the hon. member for Ventersdorp being their future representative or not. They want the water, and they want the Minister to come there in order to put the matter right in his capacity as Minister of Irrigation.

Just a few words. I did not object to the Minister going there. I think it is desirable that he should pay a visit there. I did say, however, that I hoped he would not behave in the same way as he did at Waterberg. If he is going to do that, if he is going to do the same thing he did in Waterberg, I do object to it. Otherwise I have not the slightest objection. I reckon it is desirable for any Minister to visit a constituency and to address the public. I am not afraid of them; I am not even afraid of the Prime Minister.

I have been listening to the wonderful schemes of the Minister, the great future projects which he announced in this House. I cannot find any fault with those schemes and I should like to see the day when those schemes will be put into effect. But I did not hear him announce any particular policy in regard to the old established irrigators, particularly the small farmers, in those parts where pioneering took place in the field of irrigation. I am now referring to districts such as Montagu, Barrydale, Ladysmith, Van Wyksdorp, Calitzdorp and Uniondale. I think that the hon. Minister realises the difficult circumstances under which those people have to farm. At the same time I hope that he is aware of the very fertile land which is to be found between those two mountain ranges, and he ought to know that the people farming there are courageous indeed. I want to tell the Minister in all modesty and without casting any reflection of any other section of the population, that in my opinion the most hard working and progressive farmers are to be found there. In the Transvaal on the irrigation schemes the people coming from the parts I mentioned definitely stand out. I now want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister—not because I come from those parts but because I am intimately acquainted with conditions there—to take to heart the position of those farmers in the Little Karoo, those parts I mentioned and in the first instance to have a thorough investigation made of the causes for the decrease in the water supply there. These are parts of the country with a low rainfall and if mountain fires occur—I do not think I am exaggerating—it takes at least 50 years before the normal vegitation has been restored. Combating mountain fires in those areas is absolutely essential. The Minister ought to consider the possibility of the Government protecting the mountains in those areas in order to save that part of the country from complete depopulation. I have not Sufficient time at my disposal now to go into this matter, and I neither have all the figures at my disposal, but I think that the Minister and this Committee would be surprised if I gave them the figures showing to what extent those parts have lately become depopulated. Where in the past at certain places there used to be three teachers, there are hardly sufficient pupils for one teacher today. The people there are becoming impoverished. Today there is an increase in the number of poor whites; these parts are at present strengthening and increasing the ranks of the poor whites. The Minister knows that all along that valley one finds small mountain streams. Sometimes during the winter months when there may be abundant rains there is a surplus of water which runs to waste, but there is not one summer without a serious drought some where. In those parts, ravished by droughts, no water should be allowed to run to waste. The soil is so fertile, that there is definitely not another part of the country—except where the Government has spent tremendous amounts of money to construct irrigation schemes—where on the same surface as many people can make a living out of farming, than in these regions. I should like to see the Minister coming here with a policy which can be put into effect immediately. One does not know how long this war is going to last.

It may be another ten years.

If this war should continue for another ten years there will be many more people who will leave these areas because they become impoverished. I should like to see the Minister consider the possibility of assisting those small irrigators now. I was glad to hear from the Minister that irrigation by the State should be regarded as a national matter. The State ought to undertake the protection of all those mountain streams so that during winter the water may be stored for the summer months, which is the period when water in those parts is worth its weight in gold to those people. The water which is available to farmers in these districts is actually their means of living. To them water is as essential for their living as bread is to the ordinary man. I am making this earnest appeal to the Minister, and I do hope that he will investigate thoroughly the position in this part of the country, for that is most desirable.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 39.—“Justice”, £105,000,

I should like to avail myself of the half hour rule. The leaders in the race for the premiership in South Africa are now beginning to dwindle. The Minister of Finance has committed hara-kiri. The Minister of Lands has cut his own throat this year, and very few are left today. One of those is the hon. Minister of Justice, with whom we are dealing today.

Of course, there is still an outsider.

There is always the danger of the outsider, of course. I must congratulate the Minister of Justice because his opponents are rapidly tripping themselves up. The Department of Justice is first and foremost a Department where everything should be done without favour, fear or prejudice. It is one State Department where there should be fairness and justice, which should be a Department, first and foremost, which is above all suspicion. If you tamper with the foundations of your administration of justice in the country, you tamper with the foundations of the State itself. If the nation suspects that everything in the Department of Justice is not what it should be, if there is a suspicion that the administration of justice is not everything that it should be, you place the country in a position which may become very dangerous, and which may lead to lawlessness and disorderliness. I want to say here today that unfortunately, under the present Minister, in the particular circumstances which exist in this country, a large section of the public has a feeling that injustice, oppression and favouritism do take place and reign supreme. There may be cases where that feeling has been exaggerated, where it has been aggravated, where it may be unfair towards the Department. There may be such cases. But generally speaking, I say that the nation has a right to be perturbed about the administration of justice in this country under the present Minister. On previous occasions, during the budget debate and also under the Vote of the Prime Minister, I made a few speeches in connection with the administration of justice. We regarded the matter so seriously that we availed ourselves of the opportunity, in dealing with the Prime Minister’s Vote, to bring to his notice the administration of justice. I shall not, therefore, traverse all that ground again today, but I want to mention a few specific cases. I say that there is a feeling that everything is not as it should be. There is a feeling in many places on the platteland—whether it is justified or not I cannot say—but there is a feeling that the Minister, in transferring officials, lends himself to all sorts of political tales which reach him from the districts; that he transfers people—magistrates, police officials and others—because one or the other party friend has carried tales to him against that person. We often get these accusations. I do not want to mention any names, because I know that if I do so it will go against the officials concerned. That feeling exists. I am not in a position to say that I accuse the Minister of this, because I do not know whether it is so or not. But I just want to warn him that that feeling does exist in the minds of the public. This feeling of suspicion is caused by quite a number of circumstances. On the one hand it is caused by the power which the Minister has taken upon himself under Section 45 of the Emergency Regulations to decide in which cases a sentence of imprisonment must be served, when imposed by a magistrate’s court, that is when an attack has been made on a person in uniform. The fact that this is in the Minister’s discretion is wrong, and the public feels that the Minister is in a position to show favouritism and that there might easily be a violation of the decision of the court. This feeling also exists because there are numerous cases where people were taken into custody and detained for long periods without trial, without being presented with the charge against, them. I shall deal with that later. Then this feeling is caused by the methods of interrogation to which these people are subjected today. It is caused also by the Minister’s actions. This feeling is caused, for example, by a judgment in the court in Natal in regard to the Immorality Act, where the court simply says that this Act was not intended to apply to foreigners, that foreigners do not fall under it. This feeling is also caused by the fact that the Minister and the Department in many respects do not take action against contraventions of the law. I refer, for example, to the shameless gambling which takes place in connection with war funds, in that the Department allows gambling to take place quite openly. The people then start asking themselves why others should be punished while these people are not punished; why the Minister’s department allows these things? This brings nothing but disrespect for the law. I was in the United States at the time of the prohibition, and there the same complaint was made, that this prohibition had a very adverse effect on the administration of justice, because the law was shamelessly contravened, and the State did not take steps to put a stop to it. This creates an impression in the minds of the disorderly section of the public that they can contravene the law, that it is not wrong. I mention these few points, and I say that these incidents create a suspicion in the minds of the public that there is something wrong with our administration of justice. I now want to deal with a few specific cases. The one case to which I want to refer particularly today is the detention of persons without any charge, without trial, for lengthy periods. I have referred to this matter on a previous occasion. I want to give the Minister a number of details today. But I first want to point out to him that we have a criminal procedure Act in this country which lays down regulations governing detention and trial. I just want to put this section to him briefly in order to show what the provisions of the Act are. Section 33 of our Procedure Act, Act No. 31 of 1917, says that a person must be arrested with a warrant. In certain cases that is not necessary. But if he is arrested without a warrant, he must be given an indictment within 48 hours setting out the reasons for his arrest. No, let me put it this way: If he is arrested without a warrant “the arrested person must immediately le informed of the reasons for the arrest by the person making the arrest.” That is very clear in our Act. The reason must immediately be conveyed to him. Sub-Section (5) of Section 36 reads as follows—

That is what the Act lays down. Then again we find in Section 40—

In every respect our law lays down that the person shall be brought before a judicial officer as soon as possible—at the first opportunity. Then, of course, the case may be remanded, but the accused then ascertains what the charge against him is. He can then prepare himself and take further steps, and the Act also says later that within a fixed period he must be brought before the court, otherwise the whole charge against him falls away. The Minister is not doing this, and I pointed out last time that there were cases where persons were detained ostensibly under the emergency regulations, but later they were tried before the ordinary courts. I mentioned a few general cases to the Minister where people had been detained for lengthy periods, and I asked him to give an account of his reasons as to why these people had been detained for such a long time. He did not tell me in a single case what the reason was. I want to mention a few examples. I want to give a few names. Some of these people were tried this year for the first time. G. de Waal was arrested on the 29th January, 1942; P. van Heerden was also arrested on the 29th January, 1942; P. Grobler and J. Venter were arrested on the 12th February; A. Joubert on the 1st February; P. le Roux in August, 1942. Seven or eight months later no charge had yet been given to them. Some of them were only tried this year. Is it fair to detain these people for so many months before the charge is made known to them? Can the Minister give any reasons to the House as to why they were detained for such a long time? I have already mentioned the case—and I want to refer to it again—of the few Cape Town students who were tried only in February of this year, after they had been imprisoned for eight months, and notwithstanding the fact that all the evidence was obtained immediately after they were taken into custody, and they were not tried for eight months. Here is another case, that of Jakobus van Heerden. On the 13th February, 1942, his house was searched and explosives discovered. For some time he was a fugitive; he was later arrested, and was tried only on the 9th April of this year. Then there is the case of Ulrich Gaum. In this case the theft was committed on the 27th October, 1941. A certain plan was found in his rooms on the 4th February, 1942. He was tried only in April of this year. The same applies in the case of a certain Molenbeek. In these cases I want to point out that in each case the Judge referred to the fact that these people had been detained in gaol for a long time. In some cases they were kept as long as 15 months, and the Judges made reference to that fact. I say that we have a right to know why they were detained in gaol for such a long time. Why were they not brought to trial earlier? Then there is the other case of Weilbach, a young man of 23 years. On the 4th January, 1942, detectives visited his father’s farm, where he is also farming. Certain explosives were found there. They took him into custody. He admitted that the explosives were there, and he pointed out where they were and he was brought to trial only on the 7th April. 1943, after he had been detained in gaol for 15 months. We have the right to know from the Minister why these people were detained in prison for so many months without trial. There are numerous cases of a similar nature. The evidence is there. In some cases we practically have an admission; the explosives are discovered. In the case of Weilbach he was sentenced for being in possession of explosives, but he had to wait for 15 months before he was brought to trial—something which is unheard of. A few days ago we read in the newspaper that seven prisoners in the Johannesburg fort had gone on a hunger strike, because they were not being tried. They were detained there for a long time, and there was not even a charge against them. I have the names of the seven individuals here. I am not concerned with the crimes which these people committed. The only thing I plead for is that these people should be treated fairly. In this case the people had to go on a hunger strike because they did not even know why they were being detained, and why they were not being tried. It is a serious matter that a Minister of Justice should be able to arrest numerous people these days without any notification of a charge against them, without bringing them to trial. It is a violation of one of the first principles of our criminal law; it is a violation of one of the first principles of justice and fairness, and I should like the Minister to inform the House of the reasons for the detention of these people without any charge being made known to them, and without their being brought to trial. Any criminal, whatever the degree of his crime, is entitled to a trial. The most despicable criminal is entitled to a trial within a reasonable period, and if he is not tried he must be discharged. But the Minister does not do that. I should also like to know from the Minister what his attitude is in connection with the judgment in Natal concerning the contravention of the colour bar. We must now learn that this Immorality Act is not applicable to people from other countries. In this case it is so remarkable; the foreigner who committed this crime with a coloured girl received a suspended sentence, but the girl’s sentence was confirmed. She had to serve it. If the courts are going to adopt the attitude that this Act is not applicable to foreigners, I can picture the consequences which will follow. The people who come here learn very quickly that they cannot do these things in our country without being punished. They must learn that they cannot get away with a suspended sentence under our law, especially since the Act lays down that it is a crime which is punishable only by imprisonment. I now proceed to deal with a matter which we have already dealt with before, but which I want to go into at greater length, and that is the case of Oosthuizen of Rouxville. The Minister said here that the brother who was imprisoned with the deceased Oosthuizen refuses to make a statement. I still think that the State should compensate the parents of this person, and I therefore want to quote certain impartial evidence to the Minister in regard to the matter. I know, of course, that the Minister is not personally responsible for this, but I want to put the case to him as a matter of fairness towards these people. I want to read to him a statement by Mr. Everhardus Georg van Pletzen, a farmer of Excelsior in the Rouxville District. The Minister will remember that the two Oosthuizens arrived on the farm and were suddenly arrested and thrown in gaol. They did not know what the charge against them was. Mr. van Pletzen states, inter alia—

I do not want to mention the name of the sergeant—

This occurrence was on Friday—

That is Mr. van Pletzen’s statement. He warned the police that this man was critically ill. Now I want to read another statement which has been made by the district surgeon of Rouxville—

That is the statement of the doctor after he had examined him. He said that his condition was critical, and that he must immediately undergo an operation. And thereafter the sick man was still taken by the police and he had to walk to the magistrate’s office, about 300 yds. away. Then I want to read the statement of the elder brother Oosthuizen—

That is Oosthuizen’s statement, and shortly thereafter he was discharged. They arrested the wrong people. This young boy had to undergo this suffering and pain, notwithstanding the serious warnings that he was ill. If these statements are true—and I do not see why the doctor and Mr. van Pletzen should make false statements—then it is very serious. The parents are poor people and were dependent on the two boys for support, and one of them is gone now. If it had not been for the fact that I wrote to the Department asking them to compensate these people, and that this was refused, I would not have raised this matter here, but I now want to argue that something should be done in connection with this case. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, a matter has been brought up in this House, the effects of which on public opinion may be unfortunate unless the facts are stated, because there has undoubtedly been misapprehension. A society calling itself the South African League for combating Anti-Semitism has been writing to members of Parliament. So far only one hon. member has mentioned the matter, the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen). He read two letters that he had received, and he said emphatically that they had come from a Jewish organisation. I have seen the hon. member, and I believe that he was bona fide in thinking that this was a Jewish organisation, but I have convincing proof that not only is it not a Jewish organisation, but that these letters, while they purport to be against Anti-Semitism are actually calculated and intended to fan Anti-Semitic feeling and racial feeling in this country. I will tell the House why I have said that. The Jewish Board of Deputies has received letters from the founder of this society, and he signs himself Herman Malan, though his name is Bosman. I am going to hand copies of these letters to the Minister, because I think it is only his Department that can make the necessary enquiries. He writes from P.O. Box 861, Johannesburg. The writer says on 9th February that the Board is probably aware of the work of the league in counteracting the effects of the virulent whispering campaign directed against the Jews. He offers to publish a booklet entitled “Commonsense about the Jews” and he says at the end: “I hope you will lay this letter before the Board, and that they will see their way towards contributing £100 towards the expense of publication.” Needless to say the Board of Deputies has not acted upon or accepted the suggestion. Then a few days later, i.e. on February 19th, he wrote to the secretary of the Board saying that he had founded the society for the purpose of circulating pamphlets, and at the end he says: “You can have the manuscripts as a job lot for £10.” He has now come down from £100 to £10. Again the letter was not taken notice of. After that he wrote to a member of the Jewish community, and this letter was handed over to the Board. I am not going to read it because the writer marked it “secret and personal” but I hope I have said enough to show that this organisation has nothing to do with the Jewish community. The statements which the hon. member read out are likely to do serious harm to the Jewish community as the hon. member stated that they had been sent out by a Jewish organisation. I think I satisfied the hon. member that they were not sent out by anybody connected with our community. On the contrary they are calculated to damage our community seriously. I believe the hon. member was perfectly bona fide in stating that the letters emanated from a Jewish body, because that is the conclusion that anyone without full knowledge, reading them, would come to. I can assure the House that the Jewish community know nothing about the organisation in any shape or form, and whenever Malan or Bosman has asked for financial assistance towards his publications, we have taken no notice of his request. There is one other question I want to ask the Minister about, and that is in regard to the meetings that have taken place about the delays in making appointments to vacancies on the magisterial bench and other vacancies in the Department of Justice. When I read the telegram in the “Cape Times” on the 9th of this month referring to a meeting in Johannesburg. I felt a bit disturbed, but when I read of a meeting in Cape Town at a later date which lasted about 90 minutes, and at which the Chief magistrate was in the chair and Mr. Hoal and Mr. Durham were also present, I was glad to notice that those present declared that after they had heard the explanations they were satisfied that there was no ground for complaint.

I should like to draw the hon. members attention to the fact that there is a vote “Magistrate’s and District-Administration”,

Yes, sir, but I wanted to get a statement Of policy from the Minister. With all respect I think that question of policy should be brought up when the Minister’s salary is under discussion. But I have said all I wanted to say.

When one speaks about the Justice Vote, one involuntarily thinks of right and justice; one thinks of the protection of the public and the maintenance of law and order, and automatically one assumes that that will be administered impartially, irrespective of persons or race or anything else. It is a pity, therefore, that I have to tell the Minister that when members of the public outside talk about justice, the people usually smile and the question is asked whether there is still such a thing as justice in the country. The present Minister has contributed largely to the fact that that is the position today, and the Minister cannot blame us when even members in this House begin to doubt whether the Minister administers right and justice. Just let me give an example. I said that right and justice must be administered irrespective of colour or race or nationality, but today the position is that if a man in uniform is assaulted, irrespective of whether he himself has provoked the attack, one is punished, and the other person in uniform who is the cause of the assult, gets off scot free. Recently I travelled by train to Bellville, and a sailor under the influence of alcohol got on the train. There were two ladies in the compartment and two young men. The sailors came in with an open bottle and immediately started talking to the ladies who did not give them any reply. At Bellville Station the two young men got up, and as they left the sailors said something to them, and one of them then replied: “You are a coward; you know that you are in uniform and that I cannot do anything to you.” The sailor then kicked one of these young men who, however, remained calm. But on the platform the sailor pestered him and hit him, and I am glad to say that this young man then returned the blows of the sailor and knocked him down. But I want to show how unfair it is that the law is applied in one way to certain people and in a different way to other people. Legislation should apply equally to everyone. Then I want to deal with something else. On the 16th February I put the following question—

The Minister’s reply was—

I then asked.—

The Minister’s reply was—

I agree that if the Minister interferes, it would be an abuse of his position. I hope that the Minister will not soon change his opinion. In this case a light sentence was imposed, and the Minister says that it was done because the man who stole the motor car “had prior to his arrest decided to return the car”, according to the decision to which the magistrate came. Can you believe that a Minister of Justice can give such a reply? He gives this reply notwithstanding the fact that the motor car had been repainted and altered so that it would not be recognised again. The number plate was taken down and another number plate was put on, but the Minister says that this light sentence was imposed because the accused intended returning the car. One can hardly believe it. I say that this light sentence was imposed because the thief belonged to a certain group which is protected, while other people are not protected. But I go further. I put another question to the Minister—we must remember the Minister says that he does not want to interfere in the exercise of judicial power on the part of the magistrate. I asked him—

I purposely took only these four cities so as to make it easy for the Minister to reply—

Then I also asked him in how many cases of this nature he had altered the sentence imposed on civilians. The Minister said in reply that no special record was kept, and that he could not therefore give the necessary information. A record is kept of the number of times soldiers are assaulted, but no record is kept of assaults committed by soldiers. But the Minister says that he does not interfere in the work of the courts. Is it to be wondered at that the public in the country is shocked at the manner in which justice is administered? And may I mention a further point in regard to which the public feels uneasy and shocked—in connection with the administration of rights and justice? I asked how many people who were Union citizens were still detained in gaol without trial—note carefully that I did not talk of the camps. The reply was—

Sixty five were to be tried, and the rest are detained in prison without trial. The Minister says that he does not interfere in the functions of the magistrates’ courts. Let me again come back to the motor car theft case, and then ask the Committee whether this is fair punishment. I quote from the report—

[Time limit.]

I should like to raise a matter with the Minister of Justice, and that is in connection with the translation of our Acts. I have already raised this matter with the Minister of the Interior and urged that Afrikaans should be given its rightful place. Now I also want to urge the Minister of Justice to see that justice in done to our own language. One can go through the Bills from A to Z and in every case one finds that the English text appears first and then the Afrikaans. Or, where there is Netherlands, one finds the English text and then the Netherlands. Has it never occurred to the Minister that there is such a thing as equal rights? Must Afrikaans always be pushed into the background. Will he, as an Afrikaner son, as a son of an ex-president of the Free State Republic, not see to it that his mother-tongue takes its rightful place? On the other hand, there is always the feeling perhaps that we do not want to hurt the English-speaking people; we do not want te encroach on their rights; we want every man to obtain his rights. But will the Minister get up and assure us that for the next 25 or 50 years the Afrikaans text will appear first and then the English text. I think it is reasonable to demand that. But if we cannot make up the leeway then at least promises us that as from next year English and Afrikaans will be placed first alternately. That is only fair. One does not like raising these matters, because if one continually scratches a sore place it never heals, and one does not like raising these matters on the floor of the House, but the Minister makes it necessary for me to do so. Once and for all we want to get away from the feeling of inferiority. It is bad enough that throughout the country notices are published first in English and then in Afrikaans, and that in businesses the English text always appears on top and the Afrikaans below, or the English text only. Well, the large business firms are not in our hands, but the Minister, as an Afrikaner son, should ensure that the principle of equality is maintained in our legislation.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity to express my thanks to the Minister of Justice for his action against gambling on pintables, with the object of totally abolishing this type of gambling. The Minister has also used his influence in connection with the appointment of a commission of investigation in regard to dogracing on the Witwatersrand. The fact that this evil in our social life is enjoying the careful attention of the Minister is appreciated by our people. I want to add the hope that the law against pin tables will be applied very vigorously.

I want to take the point with which I was dealing last time, a little further. I want to tell the Minister that if ever there has been a case where the public of South Africa has been shocked, and which has sent a shiver through our bodies, then it was the cruel abduction and murder of Louis Nel of Bloemfontein. It took place a considerable time ago, and I think the Minister should tell the House whether the police are altogether powerless in connection with this case; do they know nothing about the case, which will give a clue leading to the solution of the murder? Louis Nel was kidnapped on the pretext that the police wanted to see him. He was in his pyjamas, and later his body was found half burnt near Nylstroom. He could still be recognised. The public has waited for months to see whether the police could not discover who the murderers were, but as yet the public has been told nothing. Those of us who know the family of the late Louis Nel know what pain they are suffering, and I want to ask the Minister, if possible, to assure the country that the police did everything in their power to get to the bottom of this crime. I do not know whether this is true, but I have been informed that the police are in possession of all the facts in connection with this episode. I cannot say whether that is so or not, and I mention this only with a view to asking for information from the Minister. I now want to come back to another point, a case in connection with which the Minister apparently doubted my word, and that is that I wrote letters to his Department, and did not receive any reply to those letters. In connection with one letter he said that he had never received it. I wrote a letter to the Minister—I have already dealt with this matter on a previous occasion—and I received no reply to it. I have other letters with me to which I received no reply. I showed these letters to the Minister and I want to refer to them again in order to show that I did not complain without reason. On the 9th May, 1942, I wrote a letter to the Secretary for Justice in connection with the prison regulations. On the 15th June I had not yet received a reply, and I again wrote a letter to the Department to ascertain why they had not replied to my letter. It was more than a month later that I wrote the second letter. On the 26th July I received a reply. It took from the 9th May to the 26th July to reply, and in the meantime I had to write a further letter asking why I was not getting a reply. I want to mention another case in order to show that I did not lightly attack the Minister. On the 29th May, 1942, I wrote a letter to the Minister in connection with the two young men who were in gaol in Bloemfontein. I received no reply to this letter, and the Minister’s explanation is that this letter was not received. I think he will find this letter if he looks for it in his Department. In the other case which I am now going to mention, the Minister cannot say that the letter was not received. On the 15th September, 1941, I wrote a letter to the Minister in regard to certain police officials. On the 19th September the receipt of that letter was acknowledged, and therein was stated that the matter would receive the personal attention of Dr. Steyn. Up to this day I have not yet received a reply. Here is another letter which I wrote to the Minister on the 29th April, 1941, in regard to a case in Brandfort, in my constituency. On the 11th December of that year, approximately nine months later, I again wrote a letter in which I referred to my previous letter, asking whether attention had been given to the matter. To that letter I have not yet received a reply up to this day. I mention these cases in order to show that I did not lightly charge the Minister’s Department with neglect in not having replied to my letters. I think, therefore, that my charge against the Minister was quite fair, and that I was entitled to bring this matter to the notice of the Prime Minister. I just want to say, too, that the Minister has personally examined these letters, to which I have now referred in the House.

I think it is perhaps desirable that I should reply at this stage to a few points that have been raised. The first letter of which the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) spoke was not received by the Department; there is no trace of it. There may have been a mistake somewhere. The other question was investigated, and nothing could be done about it. Perhaps the mistake was that the Department thought that they would write direct to these people.

No, but that was not done.

I accept what the hon. member says. But the mistake might have arisen in that way. There are a few cases in connection with which I said I would speak to the hon. member personally. I spoke to him in regard to certain matters, but I cannot definitely say that I also discussed with him the contents of those letters.

No, we did not.

It is a considerable time ago, and it is possible that that is the explanation.

I remember very clearly what we discussed.

I mention this only because that is perhaps where the mistake occurred. Thousands and thousands of letters are received by the Department, and we receive very few complaints in regard to mistakes which are made with letters. I think in this case the mistake occurred because I said I would personally discuss the matter with the hon. member. I admit that great care must be taken in replying to letters.

Do you admit that my complaint, was not unreasonable?

I said that we did not receive the one letter, and I am not suggesting that the hon. member was unreasonable in raising the matters here. Then the hon. member raised the case of Louis Nel. I agree with the hon. member that that was a cruel murder. He rightly asked what information we possessed. I can only tell him this, that the police have done excellent work in this case. The detection work has been particularly good, and in my opinion there is little doubt that we have the people who committed that murder.

Are they in custody?

Yes, they have been arrested. I do not want to give their names; it will not be right for me to do so. But there are people who can help us a great deal with evidence, and it appears to me that those people do not want to give evidence. But, of course, I can only say that that is my opinion, and it is therefore not fair to mention the names. But if we get their evidence, it will be easy to convict these people. I regret that we cannot get that evidence. I can hardly believe that, they cannot identify these people. I am prepared to show this information confidentially to my hon. friend.

Will the case ever be tried?

If we can get that information then there is no doubt about the case.

Can it not be done on the strength of the information which you already have ?

The information we have is excellent, but we cannot continue without the other evidence. I shall give the hon. member the details. As far as the Oosthuizen case is concerned, I do not want to go into the details. This is a matter which has been thoroughly investigated. The difficulty is that we have to make an ex gratia payment, and he does not want to give the information. But I agree with the hon. member that, if there is anything in it, we should again go into the matter. With the assistance of my hon. friend I am prepared to go into the matter again. I do not say that what he submitted here is correct.

I only read out the sworn affidavits.

Our difficulty is to go to my colleague for the ex gratia payment, since the brother in this case is not giving information. The hon. member rightly referred to certain cases, and I just want to give the reasons. The preparatory examination in connection with the case in the Transvaal occupied a considerable time—something like six months. This was also a serious case of sabotage. I want to point out to him that in the case of Weilbach, unless I am mistaken, he was convicted and sentenced by the court. The police have every reason to believe that there was a great conspiracy afoot. Weilbach had dynamite in his possession, and he was convicted. What we discovered in Lydenburg gave rise to discovery of what was happening in Johannesburg. It was a serious matter when we discovered that the police were concerned in the matter.

But Weilbach admitted his guilt.

Yes, and he was sentenced under the special regulations. There is no doubt that he was involved in the dynamite case. That was admitted. The police had every reason to believe that there was a conspiracy afoot. That meant that they had to examine hundreds of sworn affidavits, and the preparatory examination alone took six months. It was a very important case, and the State could not under-estimate its importance. It was in time of war; we were dealing with a serious threat to the State and it was of the utmost importance to the safety of the State that this case should be throughly investigated. The position is that that investigation was justified and that Weilbach was not unjustly detained.

But he was detained for fifteen months.

That was necessary in the circumstances, and the judges took that fact into account. The investigation was justified. Hon. members on the other side know as well as I do that the position was very serious for a long time, not only with regard to sabotage but also in so far as other subversive activities were concerned. What I said in the Other Place I want to repeat here. When I say that hon. members knew of it, I do not want to say that they encouraged it. I know that they condemned it. The State is grateful because as far as sabotage is concerned, they did their best to discourage it, and not to promote the sabotage spirit in the country. But that does not detract from the fact the State had to do its very best in this time of war, to suppress the sabotage movement. It was not a normal thing; it was something which we had never known in our country before, and special measures had to be taken to discover these activities. We had to avail ourselves of the method of detention and interrogation. I have already explained on a previous occasion that of these people who were detained, a number gave information to the State voluntarily. In addition, we were faced with this fact, that although we had conclusive evidence which placed the guilt of these people beyond doubt, it was difficult to bring those people before the court on the strength of that evidence, because the evidence would not have been admissible in court. It sometimes happens that we have conclusive proof, but that that evidence is not admissible in court, and in the circumstances we could not release those people. In those circumstances they were detained until such time as we could get admissible evidence. They knew very well what the case against them was. I just want to say that it is a pity it was necessary to take those measures in defence of the State, but once we had taken those measures it was necessary to oppose and to oppress this sabotage. As I have already said, it appears te me that injustice has been committed in any one of these cases. The majority of these people were eventually sentenced, except those who gave information. We protected those people, who for some reason or another, were released. They were detained for a longtime, very often for the sake of their own protection. As far as assaults are concerned—a matter which was raised here by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop)— I want to tell him that his complaint is unreasonable. What he suggested is not what happened. It is one thing to tell a magistrate that he should impose this, that or the other sentence. It is another thing, after the sentence has been imposed, to take into account mitigating circumstances. That is where my hon. friend misunderstood the position, as far as my action is concerned. Neither I nor my Department will try to influence a magistrate to impose a lighter or a heavier sentence knowing the circumstances with which he has to deal. We cannot tell the magistrates what sentences they should impose, except where it is laid down in the Act and in the regulations. In this case the regulations lay down that when a soldier is attacked without any provocation, merely because he is in uniform, then the punishment must be one of imprisonment without the option of a fine. In such cases where a soldier was assaulted, we ascertained whether the soldier had given any provocation, and the mitigating circumstances were taken into account in that manner. If the soldier gave any provocation, that is a mitigating factor which must be taken into account, and the accused is not imprisoned … .

Mention one case where that was done.

I can give the hon. member a whole list of cases.

Except where the person who made the assault was also in uniform.

I shall give you information in regard to that too, because there have been such cases. In the majority of the cases that is done on the recommendation of the magistrate himself. He informs us that he has to impose a sentence of imprisonment, but that if the regulations had not existed he would have done this, that or the other, and then we take the mitigating circumstances into consideration. It is only where it has been proved clearly that the soldier was attacked for no other reason than that he was in uniform, that we enforce the sentence of imprisonment. In no case was imprisonment enforced where it was only an ordinary quarrel. Where these people were sent to gaol it was done because they had attacked soldiers merely because those soldiers were in uniform.

Why do you not give the magistrates a discretionary power?

The regulations do not give a discretionary power. No discretion is given, because there have been cases where soldiers were attacked in a reckless manner, and they had to be protected. The only way in which that could be done was to take away this discretion. Strict measures had to be taken, and the regulations laid down that the magistrate had to impose imprisonment. But as I have said, the sentence of imprisonment is not enforced where there are mitigating circumstances.

Do you think it is fair that a soldier should be fined 10s. where he has stolen a motor car, for example?

I am not going to interfere with the judgment of the magistrates. Such a case is dealt with by the magistrate. He has a discretion in regard to the application of the law, and it is not for me to interfere. I just want to say to the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) that I agree with the principle of fifty-fifty in the matter of the two languages, and I shall ensure that that is strictly carried out. We on this side feel very strongly in regard to that principle, and in fact we apply it.

And one half of the Cabinet cannot speak Afrikaans!

That is the new type of fifty-fifty.

We are now talking about what is done by the State.

But they are there on behalf of the State.

Let me now deal with this specific case. The printing of Acts does not fall under the Department of Justice, but under the Government Printer. It does not fall under the Department of Justice in a single case.

But who frames the Acts?

The law advisers draft the Acts.

And they frame the Acts first in English and then in Afrikaans.

That has not happened under this Government only.

But surely that is no excuse.

Yes, but the hon. member cannot say that this Government is doing it, while the old Nationalist Party Government did the same thing. During the last session of Parliament we asked the law advisers to apply the principle of fifty-fifty in this respect as well, and I think that will be done in the future. I asked Dr. Schoch, the Chief Law Adviser, to take steps in that direction. The majority of the Bills have already been drafted. I want to say this. As far as that is concerned, our policy has been the same as that of all past governments, but I agree with hon. members that that is no justification for continuing with the old method, and we shall try to rectify this. As far as the principle of fifty-fifty is concerned in connection with languages, we favour that as strongly as anyone else.

The hon. Minister has just given an explanation in regard to the manner in which he alters certain punishments in certain circumstances. Some twelve months ago a certain punishment was altered by the Minister in my constituency. Seventy-five per cent. of the punishment, was taken away. I leave it at that. But a few weeks ago an assault took place in my constituency. According to my information two coloured soldiers arrived on the farm of Mr. Roux and demanded grapes from the foreman who was working with the coloured labourers. The foreman said that he had not the right to give them any, and that they must first obtain the permission of Mr. Roux. When the foreman delayed a little, one of the coloured soldiers said to the labourers “Bring your spades and dig a hole, so that we can kill him and bury him 6 ft. deep.” The foreman then climbed through the fence, apparently with the object of going to the house for assistance, and whilst he was in the act of climbing through the fence one of the coloured soldiers got hold of him, and the other one stabbed him with a knife in his back and neck. The information which I got on the farm itself was to the effect that it was only due to the fact that the knife was comparatively short that the foreman, Mr. van der Merwe, was not killed. Now I should like to ask the Minister whether, in view of the fact that a few years ago he reduced a sentence which was imposed in this constituency by a judge of the circuit court., he is quite convinced—and if he is not, will he cause investigations to be made—that this punishment which was inflicted on the two coloured soldiers was adequate? In the one case the punishment was partially suspended, and in regard to the other I do not want to express an opinion. I should like to know from the Minister whether he has taken the trouble to convince himself that the punishment which was imposed on those coloured soldiers is adequate to prevent the danger of similar assaults and murder being committed; is it sufficient to deter coloured soldiers, other coloured persons or any other person, from committing acts such as the act which was committed there? I shall be very glad if the Minister will make investigations and convince himself as to the adquacy, as a deterrent, of the punishment which was inflicted in this case. I put certain questions to the Minister in this House, to which I got a reply, and I again want to ask him whether he is not of opinion that particularly stringent measures should be applied to prevent things of this nature, especially since we have these lonely farms where the people are without firearms. I must say that the general public is disturbed about this incident. According to my information it was only due to the fact that the knife was not long enough that Foreman van der Merwe was not killed that evening. I would therefore like the Minister to make very sure that the punishment which was imposed was such that it will have a deterrent effect.

There is one question I want to bring to the notice of the Minister of Justice and the legal profession. We have heard a great deal in recent years about State medical services. As a layman may I suggest that the Minister should consider a State legal service. Lawyers have characterised equality before the law as the rule of law—it is the very spirit and essence of justice. Have we got it in South Africa? Theoretically perhaps we have. There is nothing to prevent any normal citizen from taking his case to court, but I fear it is very much of a myth—a legal fiction, if you like. What actually are the facts? In every field of the administration of justice we find that the poor are at a disadvantage against the rich, that the uneducated are at a disadvantage as against the more educated, that the individual is at disadvantage as compared with the Corporation. Even in the field of income tax we differentiate. The Corporation can write off for income tax purposes its litigation charges and its legal charges. Show me the salaried man who can take his legal charges off for income tax purposes. Take the field of civil law. In very rare cases dare an individual attack a Corporation. His funds are usually limited. Those of the Corporation are not. If the case is at all doubtful the individual has to face the risk not only of having to fight his case in the local or provincial court, but also in the Appellate Division. He may get a bill running into thousands. How many individuals dare take that risk? To the Corporation of course it is a mere slice of the profits, and even if the individual wins, it may be a very hollow victory. He may establish his case, it may cost him hundreds of pounds in legal charges which were not admitted by the court as normal court charges. He may be a winner in law but an actual loser in fact. There is another and more serious aspect. A rich Corporation may have a rank bad case and yet by taking exception after exception, by making a law suit last out year after year, by putting all sorts of obstructions in the way, that corporation may eventually freeze out this individual who has a just and undoubted case against it, merely because he cannot continue to face the mounting burden of costs. Admittedly there are “in forma pauperis” proceedings but these, after all, only help the very poor. Show me a court that will allow in forma pauperis proceedings to a family man, earning £25 per month, and show me a family man earning £25 or less who can afford to face legal costs. In fact the State contributes nothing worth mentioning as far as in forma pauperis proceedings costs are concerned. These are simply a sort of enforced charity, a system by which our attorneys and advocates do a tremendous lot of good word for the very poor for nothing. That is enough about civil actions. What of criminal cases? Theoretically everyone is equal before the law, but I ask is there any equality between the man who can afford to brief an attorney or an advocate and the man who cannot, between the man who has experts, to spot every lapse, between the man who has an expert to cross examine witnesses against him, between the men who have experts to see that every detail of procedure is carried out, and the poor devil in the dock who hardly knows what is happening to him? I do not say a word here against magistrates or court officials. They do their best. But a magistrate having to face a roll of forty or fifty cases in a morning is incapable of doing substantive justice to all of them in a morning. He can only be expected to spot the most glaring mistakes. He has not the time. He has another forty or fifty cases tomorrow. The Crown Prosecutors, too, are honest men, they do their best. But their task is not a judicial one, they are there to work on the evidence and they have to get convictions unless a conviction would be glaringly wrong. Very often the Crown Prosecutor is a policeman and has been trained as a policeman and therefore he prosecutes through a policeman’s eyes. One cannot quote individual cases, but everyone who has seen something of the courts will realise that in summary trials things often go wrong. Sometimes the accused does not understand what is being said about him; sometimes inadmissible evidence is taken. Often the poor devil at the dock is so scared and so bewildered that he does not quite know what is happening, he is so scared that he often does not know and does not tell the magistrate that he does not understand Afrikaans or English properly. There is an impression among many of our uneducated people that once they are taken to court, everything is over, that the court is merely a sort of instrument there to determine their punishment. In the criminal courts there is another aspect which affects everyone in our country. A man charged may be innocent and yet he may be broken financially by proving that innocence. The State makes no restitution. I repeat, the State makes no restitution. The problem goes to the very root of our society, affects its psychological health as malnutrition affects its physical health. The man who is put into gaol unjustly becomes as great a liability to the State as the man with tuberculosis. In that there is a close analogy between State legal services and State medical services. It is quite distinct from the fact that a man put into gaol wrongly, or saddled with the expense of a criminal defence or loaded with costs in a civil action, or robbed of economic rights because he cannot afford to fight a corporation, is dragged down with his dependents into that vicious circle of poverty which is at the root of most of our health problems. It is not for me as layman to suggest how this problem should be tackled, but it is a problem which must be tackled if we are to have a wider justice. [Time limit.]

I just want to carry on where I left off last time, and I want to say this to the Minister: The point which I tried to make was this, that the Minister sometimes interferes and at other times he does not do so. He usually interferes when a soldier is involved. He has never reduced the sentence in the case of a person who was not in uniform.

If the hon. member comes to my department we shall show him the lists; it is not only one or two cases, but the sentences have been reduced in the case of hundreds of civilians.

The Minister’s main argument is always that he does not want to interfere with the judgment of the magistrate. I have already referred to the case of the soldier who stole a motor car. In his defence he said that on the 22nd January he obtained week-end leave, and that he intended going to Malmesbury, but that he did not have money to buy a railway ticket. He admitted that he had taken the car. If the Minister is of opinion that it is not such a terrible sin to take another man’s car, where is this going to lead to—

The Minister said that this man did not want to keep the car. Just listen to this—

The Minister is not prepared to interfere in this case. Here is another case. On the 20th January, 1943, we find this press report—

I do not want to be long, because I have little time at my disposal. In this case the Minister gave instructions that this man should be released, and his reason was this: He did not think that the case could be proved against the kaffir. Why did he interfere in that case? Why did he not leave it to the magistrate to judge whether or not this person was guilty? The Minister further says that he was taken into custody because he was alleged to have contravened the emergency regulations.

I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but he cannot quote extracts from newspapers relating to debates in this House during the same Session.

That was the Minister’s reply in this House. I shall not quote then, but I shall tell the House what happened. The Minister said that this native was released in response to a request. The Communists approached him and asked him to release this native, and the Minister said he released him because he felt that a prosecution would not succeed. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) mentioned certain cases where persons had been detained in gaol for months. In one case we find that the Minister thinks that the person concerned is guilty, and he detains him; here we find that he releases a man because he thinks that the prosecution will not succeed. He says that he thought that this man’s guilt could not be proved. In Natal a soldier appeared before the court. The judge found him guilty of raping a native girl, and this person was acquitted, because the judge said that he was of opinion that people outside this country did not know the laws of this country, and that for that reason he did not want to punish the accused in a case such as this. When the Minister was asked to interfere he said that he could not interfere in such a case; he leaves it at that. On the 13th February a coloured person was found guilty of assaulting a European constable, and he was sentenced to ten days imprisonment without the option of a fine. What does the Minister do? Again he interferes. He abuses his position, because he told us that if he were to interfere he would be abusing his position; and he alters the punishment in that case to a fine of £1, which the coloured person could afford to pay. In this case the Minister is prepared to interfere. On Tuesday the 2nd March, I put the following question to the Minister—

To that the Minister replied “No.” On the same day I also put this question to him—

The Minister replied to that that he had altered the sentence in November last because he was of opinion that the circumstances warranted an alteration of the punishment. Why is the magistrate always wrong when it comes to a soldier? There has never been a Minister of Justice who has so frequently altered sentences imposed by magistrates, as this Minister has done. Have the magistrates and judges become so weak since the present Minister of Justice is occupying that portfolio? I have now given examples of interferences in the courts. Now I want to bring another point to the notice of the Minister, and I hope that he will accept it in the spirit in which I raise it, and that is the question of the abuse of alcohol on the part of soldiers, travelling soldiers or members of convoys. As I have already indicated, I put a question to the Minister in this connection. I asked whether he could introduce a coupon system. The Minister then made a personal attack upon me and said that I was casting a reflection on the soldiers. What happened then? The House had scarcely adjourned when the Mayor of Cape Town did precisely what we had asked for in this House. I asked for this in order to get decency in the streets; I did not put this question with any political objects. The Minister cannot get away from the fact that there is drunkenness in the streets when convoys pass through. The Minister need only go to the station at 7.15 in the evening, and he will see how much drunkenness there is, drunkenness which is not a credit to the soldiers. I want to ask him whether he cannot introduce a coupon system to prevent this drunkenness amongst the people. What are the results of this drunkenness? Some time ago a steward was thrown off the train, and he lost his life as a result of the fact that soldiers were under the influence of liquor. The Minister will also remember that shots were fired on the train by soldiers who were under the influence of alcohol. A commission has now been appointed to investigate the incidents on the train at Laingsburg. I do not want to go into that matter because it is being investigated, but the fact is that these people were under the influence of alcohol. Here again we have the case of ten sailors who came from Durban to Cape Town. These people carried on like lunatics, because they were under the influence of liquor. I want to ask the Minister whether he agrees with me that this position must be altered. Your travelling public must be protected against drunkards. [Time limit.]

I again want to draw the Minister’s attention to the question of interference on his part in the ordinary administration of justice in this country, with reference to the Heilbron case. When this matter was discussed in the House last time, the Minister’s plea was one of “confession and avoidance.” He said “I did it, but I am entitled to do it; I issued the instructions but I was entitled to do so.” The Prime Minister then also replied to my remarks, and he said that to him the deciding factor was this, namely, that the Act laid down that 31 days must elapse after the reopening of a preparatory examination, and before the trial can take place. That was the defence of the Minister. On the strength of that the Prime Minister said that if that was the case it was sufficient for him. I then said that even if that was the case, it was still a question of interference, because it concerned the transference of the place of the trial, a function which belongs to the court and not to the Minister. We now have the advantage of having all the papers in connection with this case. In the first place I want to tell you what the facts are, and what the law is, and I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not in the House, because he felt particularly strongly on the legal question, and I am also sorry that it is necessary for me to give the Minister of Justice a lecture on law. The position is this: The section to which the Minister refers is Section 140 of the Act, and it says that at least 31 days must elapse between the committal for trial and the trial itself, between the holding of the preparatory examination and the trial, and then the section says that the 31 days will only begin, if there has been a reopening of the preparatory examination to obtain evidence, after that evidence has been obtained. That is what Section 140 says, and I particularly want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that it is laid down in sub-section (2) “only if there has been a reopening in terms of Section 90.” That is provided in Section 140 (2). I put a question on the Order Paper as to whether there had been a reopening in terms of Section 90, and the reply was “No, it is not clear.” In terms of Section 90 there can only be a reopening for the purpose of obtaining evidence. Section 90 (1) (g) lays down—

There may, however, also be a reopening in terms of Section 76; that is a reopening for the purpose of putting previous convictions to the accused; not to prove them, but merely to put them. If he does not admit them, the Attorney-General knows that he must bring the necessary evidence at the trial. The law is therefore very plain. If there has been a reopening for the purpose of obtaining further evidence, then evidence must also be obtained, and the 31 days commence after the evidence has been obtained. This section does not therefore apply where no evidence has been led. Then the ordinary rule applies, namely, 31 days after the original commitment. We have now seen all the papers in this case. What are the facts? The trial took place on the 18th September. On the 16th August the accused was committed for trial to the Heilbron Circuit Court. An order was then issued for the reopening of the preparatory examination on the 28th August. It was not stated for what purpose. It was merely an order for reopening, but on the 20th August no reopening took place. The preparatory examination was not reopened. An order was again issued for the reopening of the preparatory examination on the 6th September. What happened on the 6th September? Not a single word of evidence was led on the 6th September. What did happen was just this, that certain previous convictions were put to the accused. He was asked to admit or to deny them; in other words, it was a reopening in terms of Section 76, and that is not protected by Section 140 under the 31 days rule. What happened further? On the occasion of that reopening on the 6th September — it was not done through the court — but because the accused was present, certain sworn affidavits were given to him in regard to evidence which the Crown proposed to lead at his trial. This was not evidence which was led at the preparatory examination, but other evidence of which the Crown gave him notice in fairness. It was not led, but it was proposed to lead this evidence at the trial. It is clear that we did not have a reopening here in terms of Section 90. That is the law and these are the facts, and now the Minister comes here and his only defence is this. He says: “I did it because this man was entitled to 31 days.” If the facts are as now found by us, after the papers have come down from Bloemfontein, then it is absolutely clear that that defence on the part of the Minister now falls away, because the only reopening which took place after the 31 days before the trial was the reopening for the purpose of putting previous convictions to the accused. I would like the House to appreciate that, because that is the defence which the Minister put up, and on the strength of that defence the Minister said that this man was entitled to 31 days. What remains of that defence? Here the Minister, as head of the Department of Justice, interfered in a case which had nothing to do with the administrative portion, but with something in regard to which the court itself had to decide. Now I come to the second point: If there has to be a transference of the place of the trial, it is not for the Minister to say that it shall be transferred; this is something which is laid down in the Act. The Minister of Justice is as much subject to the Act as any other person. He has no right to say that it must be transferred. The Minister said here that he had that right. But it is quite clear that he has not got the right, and I now want to adduce the authorities for that proposition. It is the prorogative of the court itself. In the first place, which is the right court? The Act lays down that it is the court in whose jurisdiction the preparatory examination or the commitment took place. This case took place within the jurisdiction of the circuit court at Heilbron.

I rise immediately. As I said, as far as the Department of Justice is concerned, I shall always reply—I hope politely and effectively—to any criticism, because I regard it as correct that any member should criticise when he thinks that there is something wrong with the Department of Justice—whether there is ground for it or not. I want to reply in all civility, because I am of opinion that the administration of justice should, as far as possible, be kept outside politics, and I am doing my best to bring that about. But I want to advise the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges), as a young member, to be a little moderate. He said in a somewhat presumptuous manner that he wanted to give me a lecture on law. Let me just say that it is dangerous for anyone to presume in this Parliament to lecture anyone else. Let him state his views, and criticise sharply or mildly, but as an old friend I want to advise him not to presume too much, and to submit his case in all humility. To deal first with the notice. There the hon. member was completely wrong. He says that that is the only point on which I defend myself. No, there are other points of defence in connection with my actions.

That was the only point you advanced.

I said on this point that it is not my intention to treat the court with any disrespect. I mentioned it in this connection, not in connection with the question as to whether or not I had the right to postpone the case. The fact is that notice was given to the accused that the preparatory examination would be reopened. Under the notice any evidence can be led. It was brought before me on the 3rd with the request that the case should not be heard on the 18th. Before that time the Attorney-General spoke to me and said that in view of the fact that he was related to the accused, it might create the wrong impression if he were to grant a postponement. The matter then came before me, and it was suggested that the preparatory examination should be reopend, and it was not said that it was the object to prove previous convictions. Under such a notice the Attorney-General can lead any evidence.

He did not do so.

I am coming to that. That was submitted to me. I could not know on the 3rd what would happen on the 6th, but the right existed to do this and to postpone the case. In these circumstances the case could not be heard on the 18th. But I go further: The Attorney-General immediately informed me that the re-opening was for the purpose of leading other evidence. He could do it. On the 3rd I did not know what would happen on the 6th, but I did know that the re-opening was not only for the purpose of proving previous convictions. On the 6th seven statements, new statements, were made, of which he did not have notice, and that made the postponement unavoidable.

Were these statements handed in in court?

I do not care where they were handed in. That alone justifies the granting of a postponement.

You know very well that that is not so. If you examine the Act …

That is a rude reply—I know that that is not so! These were given to him on the day of the preparatory examination; whether it was in the court or outside has nothing to do with it.

Very much.

I hope the hon. member will treat me with the same politeness with which I treated him. It is a matter of fairness. It is rude …

On a point of order, is the hon. Minister entitled to call an hon. member rude?

I think the hon. Minister should rather not use the word.

I am sorry, but I just want to point out that the hon. member said that what I said was not true. The position is that on that day seven statements were handed in. There was no court. No one can expect that an individual should appear before the court fourteen days after the statements were handed in. The correct thing was not to lead evidence on that day, and therefore it was quite correct to postpone the case. There must be 30 days after the submission of such statements at the reopening of a preparatory examination. If the reopening had been for the sole purpose of putting previous convictions, then a postponement would not have been necessary, because that has nothing to do with the case, but the Attorney-General told me that further statements would be handed in. I really cannot see why this unfortunate man is being persecuted. He has had his punishment. In the meantime, between the submission of the statements and the 18th, he was ill for ten days. Does the hon. member, with his technical knowledge, desire that a man should appear less than 30 days if he has to defend himself on a charge of forgery and uttering? Thirty days would hardly be enough. The accused has to get an advocate to defend him. I have had to defend many cases, and I know that 30 days are not sufficient. If he had come to me without a preparatory examination and had said: “Look here, I have only 30 days and I cannot prepare my case properly,” I would have granted him the postponement. It is for the Crown to see to it that every man is given a proper chance to prove his innocence.

Hear hear.

They must be given the fullest opportunity to prove their innocence. A fair opportunity must be given to them. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) himself said that it was better to acquit ten guilty people than to convict one innocent person. I think the correct saying is “twenty”.

In South Africa we have departed very much from the “twenty”.

As far as I am concerned, as long as I have this portfolio, I shall do my best to see that every man is given a proper chance to prepare his case. Yeld did not have a proper chance. He could not prepare his case in such a short time. Later, when his case was heard, I was even approached by his advocate for a further postponement. The advocate concerned is a member of this House with a great deal of experience, and he told me that if this case had to be heard, they would require more time. He added that he had approached the Attorney-General with the object of pleading guilty on certain points, if other charges were withdrawn. But the fact is that the advocate who defended him was still asking for a postponement a month later. Why cannot this man be given a chance to prove his innocence? The hon. member relies on a technical point.

No, it is a matter of principle.

This poor man is persecuted and his whole family must suffer in consequence. Does the hon. member want to say that 30 days were sufficient?

Then it is for the court to grant a postponement.

It is not for the court. We cannot bring a case before the court unless we know that the accused has had a proper chance to prepare his case.

What about the transfer?

That is frequently done. All that should have been done was for the indictment to be withdrawn.

Was that done?

Later. I was quite justified in granting a postponement. It is the general policy that every man must have a fair chance. I am fully prepared to defend the department. There may have been a misunderstanding, but it is not my intention to accuse the department in any way. I acted on the preparatory examination. It was reopened in order to lead further evidence. When the request reached me, I did not know that, but in fact seven statements were submitted. I had not intended dragging the Attorney-General into this, but I have been forced to it. What was done was quite right.

At 5.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Orders adopted on the 28th January and 26th March, 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 26th April.