I want to appeal to the Minister to drop the amendment which was accepted by the House yesterday. The matter was discussed extensively, but I just wish to bring to the notice of the Minister the fact that this is a very important matter to us. The great majority of hon. members on the Minister’s side also do not feel very happy about this Bill. As someone said this morning, the back of the Fishing Bill has been broken. Through this small amendment of only a few words, the Minister has brought about a tremendous change. The Bill now excludes 75 per cent. of the fish. The cheap fish is excluded, and that is precisely the fish which should come within the scope of the Bill. It is precisely the powerful companies which were the cause of most of the difficulties, which are protected here. I cannot understand why the Minister has changed so. In the Select Committee, with one or two exceptions, both sides of the House insisted that these people should be included. Members no longer doubted that they would be included, and now the Minister comes and proposes, without the knowledge of a single member of the Select Committee, to exclude them under this amendment. It is peculiar that while none of the members of the Select Committee knew about it, the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) admits that he knew that the Minister would accept the amendment. That is unfair. Why did a man who is not a member of the Select Committee know about it while the members of the Select Committee, who tried to assist the Minister, knew nothing about it? Either the Minister has changed his opinion, or one must ascribe motives to the Minister, which I do not want to do, namely, that he tried to bring the House under a wrong impression. I want the Minister to tell us how it came about that he proposed the amendment. Why did the Minister give in to a few bitter opponents of the Bill? There is another point on which the Minister never replied. Why will he not allow each member of this House to vote according to his convictions? The Minister continually evades the request that members should vote on the merits of the case. In the Select Committee we did not deal with the matter from a political viewpoint. Sometimes the voting was mixed, and perhaps with the exception of one or two occasions, I am not aware that it was necessary for us to vote against the Minister. The United Party and the Labour Party and we voted together, with one or two exceptions. If you look around in this House, one thing is significant, and that is the absence of the Labour Party. As soon as the Fisheries Bill is introduced, they all disappear from the House, or else only one or two remain for a little while. The Minister knows their views on the matter. I hope that the Minister, even at this stage, will explain what happened between the publication of the report of the Select Committee and the introduction of the Bill in this House. What took place to change the Minister and to exclude firms who catch by trawlers? For that reason I hope that the Minister will accept our amendment that these amendments, which were drawn up in the Committee stage, will be omitted.

The hon. member has raised this point again—it has been raised at every stage. He has not advanced any new arguments, he has merely repeated the old arguments with which I have dealt at length. His argument is based on the assumption that this amendment is designed to exclude the trawling interests from any control of the Bill. That is where we differ—I do not agree that we have done it. As far as all other sections of the fishing industry are concerned, the original powers to deal with them all remain in the Bill, subject to the issue of “B” shares. That is the real difference. As far as the controlled price, the maximum and minimum price of fish is concerned, that remains and is applicable by the Minister to any section of the fishing industry. Therefore to keep on saying that by this amendment in this clause the other sections of the fishing industry are entirely excluded from the potential operations of the Bill is not correct.

What do these words means “other than fish caught by means of trawling”?

That only refers to the proclamation under this particular section which can compel everyone to sell his fish to the corporation. My argument is that if it is found necessary to provide for all fish to be sold through one channel, it would not be done by a simple proclamation under this clause, it would be done by issuing “B” shares, by setting up either another body to take over the distribution of fish or to create some kind of combination of existing interests and the corporation to establish sales through one channel. Therefore the hon. member, quite sincerely I have no doubt, is chasing a hare and is giving a wrong impression by saying that this particular amendment has excluded the possibility of the corporation in future exercising all the powers given to it under clause 4.

Which amendment are you referring to?

I am referring to the amendment under Clause 28. And that is why I have been prepared to put the amendment in. I regard this amendment as only making clear what the original intention was.

Who asked the Minister to put it in?

It is not a question of who asked us to put it in. My policy is under this Act to co-operate with the existing interests to develop the inshore fishing industry and the whole fishing industry in the future, and for that reason I am prepared, and I said in the Select Committee I was prepared to make clear that this Bill was not meant as an attack on the existing fishing interests. I said that in originally introducing the Bill and in Select Committee. It was pointed out to me in discussion, by various people, that this particular point was one which caused very grave apprehensions in the minds of the existing fishing interests because they said it might conceivably be used as a means, quite simply by a proclamation, to bring them all under one roof. That clause was never intended for that purpose, and for that reason I was willing to make it clear in the amendment, because as I say I am aiming at co-operating with these people. If they do not co-operate then another state of affairs arises, and I have no doubt this House will know what steps to take; but the fears advanced by the hon. member are quite groundless.

Amendments in Clause 28 put and agreed to.

New Clause 29 put and agreed to.

In Clause 30,

I move, as an unopposed motion—

Provided that no officer shall so enter upon and search any dwelling house and that no policeman shall, except in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, 1917, so enter upon and search any dwelling house.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 30, 31, 33 and 38, put and agreed to, and the Bill, ás amended, adopted.

I move as an unopposed motion— motion—

I second.

I want to give the House the assurance that I intend to take up as little time as possible. But I would not be true to myself if I did not, on this occasion, express disappointment in view of the fact that fundamental amendments have been passed in the Committee stage in regard to this Bill. When it was first introduced, I welcomed this Bill wholeheartedly, because it was a clear proof of a new development, which fitted in with the development of our times. The old conception that capital invested by private enterprise must have free play in the life of the nation, is a thing of the past. The new conception is that private capital will still have a place in the economic life of the people, but private capital can only function when properly controlled by the State. This Bill is the first measure which adopts this fundamental principle as passed at the second reading, and therefore it was a measure which was in harmony with the modem conception of capital in the economic structure. Unfortunately the old conception is still alive in certain circles in this country. Certain big financial powers have rightly or wrongly, I things wrongly, become scared they have become afraid and have started an agitation; they have become panicky and in their panic also made the Minister of Economic Development nervous. In the circumstances I can only express my serious objection to the deviation from the sound principle which the House adopted at the second reading. At the second reading the Bill contained the principle that the State would have the power to properly control private capital and to co-ordinate with the services and objects of the State. I am convinced that the Minister has capitulated against his convictions. I am convinced of that. With the full co-operation there was in the Select Committee and during the discussion of the second reading, I am entitled to that assumption and therefore to express the opinion that the Minister entirely endorses the new principle, and that the somersault has resulted from the fact that these capitalistic interests have exerted pressure. I feel sorry for him, but in my sympathy I want to tell the Minister that he has let an opportunity slip which he will never get again. He will not get a second opportunity to introduce this healthy principle which was embodied in the Bill as read a second time. I am now referring to the principle that the Minister, as the representative of the State, shall have the right to direct the functions of big capital in the life of the nation. It did not take them long to frighten the Minister. A section of our womenfolk have also been frightened by the propaganda which has swamped the country. It has been observed in Johannesburg. Whilst the Minister had the hearty cooperation of both sides of the House, with the exception of a small minority on his side, it is regrettable that he should have taken to flight as a result of the progaganda by the federated industries, because there is no hope now that he will ever get another chance to re-introduce the provisions which now have been omitted. I want to give some further advice to the Minister. In view of the fact that he and I are at one in our new conception of the function of capital in the State, I want to advise him to cut adrift from his friends. They will wreck his political future. As an individual who for a long time has had the privilege of coming into close contact with the economic life of South Africa, I want to avail myself of this opportunity once more to express the conviction that it is not the intention of any side of this House, it is not the intention of our side in any case, altogether to tie down private enterprise. That was not the purport of the Bill. I accept that proposition of the Minister. That is not the intention of this side of the House either when we object to the amendments. We do not want unduly to curtail private enterprise. We believe, like the Minister, that private initiative should still have the opportunity to render services to the people and to supply the driving force which springs from that source. We believe that ample opportunity should be afforded to private initiative and capital. But there are certain limits to the free play and scope which can be allowed to private capital. In the first place the State has to see to it that the State should direct the development of our economic life, and within that framework of the idealism of the State, every activity should be fitted in, and where they do not want to fit in, they should be forced to come in. Nobody here is prepared to state that private initiative should be destroyed. We do not want unreasonably to curb capital. But private initiative which is not willing to keep tread with the development, which does not want to recognise the revolution which has taken place, the new industrial revolution, if there are big private enterprises which do not want to recognise that revolution, then I say that if they do not fit in gradually, they will be forced to fall into line. The future will not allow that private capital dictates the economic life of the country, and for that reason I am surprised that even a portion of the consumers have become panicky as a result of the propaganda of private interests. The Minister has definitely weakened his posititon by accepting the amendment to Clause 12. The two fundamental amendments are those in Clause 12 and Clause 38. As far as Clause 12 is concerned, I want to say at the outset that it was laid down originally that the Minister would be empowered to make exceptions in regard to the use of one channel for distribution. That provisision was contained in sub-clause (2). I am pointing out that where necessary, the Minister could make exceptions. At the time I did not take it to mean that he would be in a position particularly to exclude organised interests, but I am prepared to agree that possibly he had that power under sub-clause (2), and therefore I do not want to brand this as a fundamental change, but it is an extension of a right which he had before. That is not a fundamental alteration, but an extension of a right which he reserves to himself. The fundamental alteration is in the amendment to Clause 12. It was the purpose of the Bill, as Clause 3 of the Bill was drafted, to effect an improvement in the position of inshore fishermen. In addition there are other aims and objects of interfering with the fishing industry, as far as deemed necessary by the State. Now the Minister comes along with an amendment and destroys his powers to carry out some of the objects of Clause 3. He destroys those powers until such time as Parliament will be strong enough to face those powers. He eliminates these powers under (b) and (c). Not only does he curtail his powers to less than half, but he still goes further. In the memorandum it is stated that 60,000 people are interested in the catching and distribution of fish. The power taken by the State here is a very important innovation. I accept that the intentions are still laudable, but the Minister does not go far enough. He leaves the industry entirely at the mercy of private enterprise. He has no longer the power to direct any undertaking, except the inshore fishing industry. Paragraphs (a) and (d) are all that remain of his powers. Paragraphs (b) and (c) drop. An important subsidiary aim of the amendment of the Bill as approved of by the Select Committee, was to give the inshore fishermen a share or interest in the fishing industry. For that reason special provision was made that a certain block of shares could be issued to people engaged in inshore fishing, that is to say, the fishermen as a whole. By means of this amendment he destroys the right of the fishermen to become shareholders. Clause 13 provides that this block of shares may be allotted to fishermen, not only for the purposes referred to in paragraphs (a) and (d) of Section 3. Therefore he takes away all interests of these people, until such time when he hopes—and it will be an idle hope—to get Parliament to rectify the mistake he makes today. It is a very serious matter to me that these rights which were taken by the State, these rights which the Select Committee deem fit to hand to the Minister and to place before Parliament, these rights which aim at co-ordination, that these rights were frittered away by the Minister’s consent in favour of big organised powers. I did not intend to take up the time of the House this morning in regard to this matter, but the Bill now takes a course which I think necessitates the drawing of the attention of the House to a reply which was given in Select Committee to question 1528. The question was put by one of the members of the Select Committee, I think to the Acting Chairman of Irvin and Johnson—

The reply was—and I want to read that with the permission of the House—

I think these are eighteen companies. I do not know the amount of capital involved. According to the evidence, the capital is well over £1,000,000, but this is a company which now will have a free hand, and which is excluded from control. I want to express as my considered opinion that by this step the Minister has delivered the consumers to the mercy of this organised concern. He still retains the power under paragraph 28 to fix the price, but where he runs away from this elementary principle, I am not satisfied that he is not going to run away from the other principles as well. I regret to say so, but the Minister has not taken sufficient time or trouble to consider what powers he was letting loose, and in the circumstances I regret very much that the Minister has inserted this provision. I have no opportunity now to propose other amendments in the Bill, so as to give private enterprise the assurance that there will be nothing to prevent them from co-operating, whilst maintaining their private initiative—co-operation with the State by means of this corporation. All I can hope is that the people who had the power to induce the Minister and his supporters to agree to this amendment, will be forced by public opinion, to co-operate, and without wishing to don the mantle of a prophet, I want to say that unless these people are forced to co-operate in the new spirit in the interests of the consumer, the time will come when they will lose all say. To my mind there is no doubt about that. I am grateful that other organised capital did not adopt this attitude, people who accepted the Bill in all its implications. This deviation from the original Bill is a great disappointment to me, and I am convinced it is a disappointment for Government supporters as well. It proves that the Minister and his Government do not have the courage to resist organised capital. An assurance of the Minister that he does not intend to interfere with their interests, should have been sufficient.

One fact emerges clearly; that the Government’s retreat, or the Government’s rout, on the matter of this particular Bill, has been brought about by big finance. There is no doubt whatsoever on that point; and it has been noted by this nation, and not with approval. Members who sit on these Labour Party benches, and the people of South Africa as a whole, have every respect for individual and normal business enterprise, but looks with very angry eyes on anything like a private monopoly concerning the food supplies of the community. Further, this retreat has been arranged privately by the Government’s own party, without the Government’s allies in the coalition being taken into consideration at all. Yet the Minister does not leave this very important matter to the free judgment of the House. All allied parties, though not consulted, are expected to vote for the drastically altered Bill. There is another matter—this volte face—this turn-about does not reflect very kindly on the Select Committee itself. I do not think any Select Committee ever attended more carefully or more regularly or at great length to the business placed before it, and at the end of their deliberations its members were not divided. They had had the full evidence before them, as no private party had had. We members of the Select Committee were men of strong, and varying, opinions, but we arrived at unanimous recommendations. Those the Government has set aside. The position is largely this; after great talk on the part of the Minister of playing Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, and of acting in heroic vein, what the Minister has done is to take the part of Cinderella and agree to do the work without the wages—the difference between this bit of present-day history and the children’s classic being mainly that there is not going to be any intervention on the Minister’s behalf by a fairy godmother. What the Minister has done is to take over the derelict, non-profitable portion of the fishing industry. The part for which the corporation will be responsible—the big business experts have testified to that—does not pay and cannot be made to pay. That is the exploit upon which the corporation and the Government are embarking. They are going to handle, relatively, a handful of fish, but they are going to employ the vast majority of the fishermen. At the same time they are going to leave the huge bulk of the fish caught—those which, it is testified by the most interested parties, as the cheapest caught—those they are going to leave in the hands of private enterprise. We are taking on a project which, the experts have said, must fail; we are going to do more than that; we are, further, in this Bill undertaking to uplift the fishermen—and rightly so; but I do not know whether the Government will be able to do this without defeating the third object of the Bill, without actually putting up the cost of fish to the consumer. I think if we go in for this philanthropic work, which we not only should, but must do on behalf of the fishermen, the money has to be found by us, and quite likely the price of inshore fish will go up, and thereupon the price of the other fish will rise also. These big concerns will participate in any increase in price. And they will say to us that it is our fault, that we interfered; and they will say to the people: “We told you that they could not do it.” I fear very much that nobody could do it. The Minister said yesterday that he still had control over the price of fish. The price of fish, firstly, has been said to be dependent on the existence of overhead expenses in obtaining that fish. We are taking over the most expensive part of the fishing industry, and we are tacking on to it great costs for social regeneration. How can we guarantee that the price of fish will not go up? What is the good of having a theoretical control of the price of fish, when in practice your expenses vastly exceed any possible income and the people must make good the loss? The Minister further says that he has not given up anything of value. It still remains in the Bill that we have the power to run our own deep-sea fishing enterprise, or to take over existing privately-owned fishing concerns. It is still in the Bill. It is in the Bill, but dependent on a Parliament of the future as to whether it will ever become operative or not. Nothing is in fact done by this Bill in that respect. The Government apparently are looking to some future more liberal, more courageous Parliament to do what they would like to do but have not the courage to perform. They will be able to say also, if a liberal-minded Government does come in and at a later date makes these clauses effective—the present Government will then be able to say: “We put it into the Bill.” It looks to me like running with the hare and hunting with the hounds—something I have never liked. I know that time presses, and I shall stop in another three of four minutes.

Hear, hear.

I thank the hon. and witty member for his encouragement, and tell him that it was not necessary but is none the less appreciated. I have a word or two to say with regard to the dumping of fish. When I last stood up in this place I mentioned some recent dumping of edible table fish. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) took me to task for that and he suggested to this House that he had corrected me in regard to what I had said. Well, I have great respect for that young and hon. member. I think most of his investigations are thorough. But apparently this particular one was not. There are two main statements made by him. First of all he said that the boat I had referred to was not a fishing boat, and secondly that what was dumped was not fish but sharks. I was not talking about sharks, though as a matter of accuracy I would say that sharks are fish.

You were talking about Irvin and Johnson.

The “Sarie” is a fishing boat, but not the property of the firm the hon. member has just mentioned. She is a fishing boat, as the hon. member for Orange Grove or anyone else who knows what a fishing boat is could see if he went to No. 5 Quay and cocked an eye on her. I gave her name and address, so that any member could personally enquire into the position. The “Sarie” brought into Cape Town a full load of edible fish, kabeljauw and others, and if further evidence were required a hundred witnesses from Robben Island could testify that the catch was dumped. I think most members will accept this statement that quite recently, for some reason or another, for some stupid reason, this did happen. I don’t care who says it didn’t happen. Everything went over the side—there may have been a sandshark or two among the fish, but it certainly wasn’t a cargo of sharks. And they were big fish, some of them a yard long.

Can you tell us the time this happened?

It was within a few days of Easter, two or three weeks before I mentioned it, and it definitely happened.

We believe you.

But I shall give you a little more.

I made enquiries, and I cannot find out anything about it. I should like you to help me, as it is a crime under the law and the police should take it up.

Well, I am quite prepared to say that it did happen.

Be careful or you may find yourself in a court of law.

Yes, if you said it outside.

The old gag.

I would gladly risk that. But here is other evidence which I do not think anyone would attempt to contravert. It is that of Dr. Von Bonde, given before the Select Committee. I asked him a question, which is printed on page 470. The question was—

And now let me give you what he said—

Now there is some further evidence which I do not think can possibly be refuted. I am extremely sorry that the Bill has been diluted. There was never intention on the part of the Government in bringing the Bill before the House, nor was there any wish on the part of any member of the Select Committee, as far as is known to me, to do harm to anyone. All that was wanted was to get power, and to get immediate power, to regulate this industry and put it on such a basis that all fishermen would in future have a decent livelihood, that there would be more fish available for the public, and that that fish would be available at a cheaper rate. Those were the objects of the Bill, and to have reduced the power to do that, when nothing but goodwill was behind it, is a thing which I frankly cannot understand. I hope good will still come out of this Bill. As I said in the first instance, it is better than nothing. Something will be done, but I hope fishermen. It should be done, but I hope the Government will take its courage in both hands and not rest until its second and third objects are achieved, that is until cheaper fish and plenty of fish are available as food for all the people of South Africa.

I shall not keep the Minister very long. I just want the Minister to recall the day when he introduced this Bill for the first time at the second reading. At that time all sides of the House showed signs of expectation; we all were looking forward to the passing of this Bill. There was enthusiasm. When we listen today to the speeches; when we notice the silence of members on the other side, we see no signs of that enthusiasm, but a spirit of disappointment. The Minister has obliterated all expectations and all enthusiasm by a few sentences. Instead of enthusiasm there is bitter disappointment. There are only three members on the other side who feel happy today. At the time they opposed the Bill. Today they give their support with enthusiasm; today they are stronger supporters of the Bill than even the Minister himself. I just want to tell the Minister something about what happened between the passing of this Bill through the Committee stage and today. The practical result of the Minister’s Bill, as it is now, will be that instead of encouraging companies to provide cheaper fish for the public and of improving the fishing industry, we shall find that this Bill will discourage the establishment of those companies. The practical result will be that those companies which wanted to make a start will not be established any more. That is the actual outcome of this Bill. The Minister may try to explain as much as he likes to. He may say that our fears are unwarranted. I maintain that the Minister is wrong. But even if he were right, we are still faced with the practical difficulty that the people outside who wanted to establish companies will now refuse to do so because they point out that this large company which in the past with their enormous capital resources, always absorbed small companies or drove them into bankruptcy, is today to be excluded from the operation of this Bill. Even if the Minister intended a different result, that will be the practical outcome of his Bill, and as this is the case, he should still try to do something to change this position. I want to mention the names of the members on the other side who are now so pleased with the Bill.

All of us.

I said members and not yes-men. With a few exceptions there is no enthusiasm for this Bill on the other side. When we consider the practical results of the Bill as I indicated here, the Bill loses its effect entirely as well as the little bit of good—to my mind very questionable—which the hon. member over there saw in it. Members of the Labour Party here told us that their Minister expected them to vote in favour of the Bill. If it still remains such a good Bill, why could the Minister not leave it to the free vote of the House? We put that question to the Minister but he did not reply to it and now we have to hear from the Labour Party that they are not allowed to vote against the Bill. The Minister has used his powers to tell them that they must support the Bill. I want to address the Minister in his capacity as Minister of Commerce and Industries. Some people have been influencing him. The Minister does not deny that. It was through those people influencing him that he changed his mind. In the Select Committee there was no thought of these changes. The Minister in his capacity as Minister of Economic Development must look after the interests of commerce and industries and must treat matters on their merit. He should not be a Minister of a political party and simply surrender to a small but very influential section which is moreover able to bring great pressure to bear on his party. If the Minister stands firm against such interests, he may be sure that we on this side will fully support him. During the present Session Bills have been passed by this House which the Nationalist Party will have to amend as soon as they come into power after the war. We shall undoubtedly amend some of those Bills, and this Bill will now be one of them. If the Minister should then be returned here as an ordinary member of Parliament, it will be his duty to support the Bill which will be the same as the one originally introduced by himself. We are very sorry that the Minister has surrendered to the influence of a small number of members on the other side who represent big business in this House and who openly admit that they represent big business.

When did they admit that?

Ask the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) whose representative he is. There are others too.

You over there are also one,

On a point of order, has the hon. member the right to say that I represent big capital outside?

The hon. member never referred to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow).

He did refer to me.

You flatter yourself.

The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) said that I represented big capital.

And don’t you.

That is not a point of order.

Let us assume that the hon. member does not represent capitalist interests. I said here that a small number of members on the other side opposed the Bill as it first was and are now particularly pleased with the Bill and openly admit that they represent big business.

Where are those members.

If that is the case, then that is a further reason why we should oppose the changes which the Minister is now making. On the Select Committee we had the representatives of the poor section of the population, of the fishermen and of the public in general, ordinary members of the House, who were 100 per cent. in favour of the Bill. On the Select Committtee we differed in regard to minor issues, but we overcame those difficulties in a nice manner, and it was a pleasure to serve on that Select Committee. The Minister himself admitted that this was one of the most pleasant Select Committees on which one could serve, and in that Select Committee not the slightest mention was made of these changes. They were put in after that time. What is the reason for that being done? Because big business has made its influence felt with the Minister and I want to ask the Minister, not only in his own interests but for the sake of this Bill and for the sake of the poor people, to revert to the Bill in its original form.

Before you put the question, Mr. Speaker—the hon. member over there (Dr. Van Nierop) has made this statement that certain members sitting on our side of the House have only taken the line they have done because they have been influenced by big capital.

What is wrong with it?

It is a lie—it is an absolute lie.

Order, the hon. member must withdraw that and apologise to the House.

What for? What must I apologise for?

The hon. member said it was an absolute lie.

And what have I got to withdraw?

The hon. member used the term “absolute lie.” I asked him to withdrawn that and to apologise to the House.

I withdraw the words “absolute lie.”

And you must apologise to the House.

The statement made by the hon. member on the other side is untrue and he knows it.

Order, order. Withdraw.

That is also out of order.

Oh, well we shall get it in time. The hon. member has made a statement which he himself knows is not correct. Is that passable?

Is the hon. member entitled to say that a member makes a statement knowing it to be incorrect?

No. The hon. member is now trying to circumvent my ruling.

No, Sir, I am standing here to submit to your ruling, filled with absolute indignation, but I want also to be protected because a member of this House has said—the hon. member for Gordonia has said—that I have taken up this line because I am influenced by big capital.

Again, what is wrong with that?

There may not be anything wrong with it from the hon. member’s moral point of view, but there would be from mine.

Go on; you haven’t got one.

Of course, I dare not put myself on the same line—on the same level—as the hon. member. Now let me say this. I-don’t know Mr. Irvin and I don’t know Mr. Johnson. I never heard of them until I heard of them in this House, and the line I have taken up in this House is absolutely in favour of State fishing as the Minister will tell you, and I want to know where we can get protection if hon. members opposite can fling across the House a taunt, and say that we are influenced by big capital.

Why don’t you get up Houghton (Mr. Bell), and say that you represent big capital?

The hon. member said “other members of the House”. The hon. member for Gordonia said “and the hon. member for Hospital is one” and I asked for your ruling and you said it was not a point of order. Where does my protection come in?

The hon. member has a full opportunity now of rebutting that statement.

Of course; I rebut it then. I challenge hon. members to come outside this House, and make that statement that they have made about me. I promise if they do I shall take them before the courts for damages. Let the members of the Opposition make it. They dare not make that statement outside. There is not one of these little briefless barristers sitting on the other side who dare make it. I can count—one, two, three, four, five briefless barristers.

Count your baboons.

They dare not make that statement. They are too afraid to make it. I will guarantee to take them to the High Court if they make it. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, they dare not make it because they are yellow.

The hon. member must ignore that statement.

On a point of order, Sir, is any hon. member justified in calling other hon. members yellow? Might I ask whether if a member says to other hon. members that they are yellow, he should not only withdraw but apologise?

Yes, I wish the hon. member to withdraw that. It is a personal reflection on hon. members, and I must ask the hon. member to withdraw and to apologise as well.

I keep on apologising, and I withdraw. I said, Mr. Speaker, you never gave me the opportunity …

Order, order.

Hon. members opposite wear their colours. They have had their colours pressed to their breasts for a long time. They had their colours up at the time of Wakkerstroom. Well, that is their colour, that is the colour they wear over their hearts.

What is the colour?

It happens to be yellow.

The hon. member is trying to evade my ruling, and I must ask him to withdraw ….

No, Mr. Speaker, I am not …

Order, order.

I shall not warn the hon. member again.

I am very sorry, Sir, but I am standing here to protect the rights of members …

Oh!

And when the hon. member on the other side makes a statement like that, I must take it up; if I have to go out of the House, I go; it will not be the first time. I protest against an hon. member saying any hon. member on this side of the House is base and infamous, and that he is paid by …

That statement has not been made.

I also would like to ask what really was said. [Interruptions]. The hon. member said that; these are the words reported by Hansard. I asked: Will you state which hon. members on this side of the House were influenced by big capital? And the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) said I was influenced by capital.

What is wrong with that?

I said you represented capital; and we represented the farmers.

You represent Keerom Street.

You said nothing of the sort.

Yes, Keerom Street.

Now we have the White Cliffs of Dover.

I have tried to say what I wanted to say, in a very humble way …

And you haven’t managed to say it.

And you haven’t made much of a success of it.

Oh yes, I have. The country outside will know all about the briefless barristers. They are using the money of the Reddingsdaadbond collected from the poor and needy people of the country. They had this scheme and they collected £50,000 and have lost £6,000 of that, and now they are creeping under the wing of the Corporation and of the Government, and trying to save their dirty money, taken from the poor and needy of the country. We know it, and it is just as well that the country should know it. I have said it publicly and it has not been denied yet.

Will the hon. member come back to the Bill.

I am on the Bill. This is the Fishing Bill, and it was given in evidence in the Select Committee that Laaiplek lost £6,000. That is where S.A.N.T.A.M. and Volksbelegging came in. Hon. members have got up there and proclaimed they are looking after the interests—of whom—the poor fishermen! They are not. These gentlemen here are looking after their own pockets. They are capitalists who take money out of the poor bushveld farmer, they take the money from the poor transport driver, they take the money from the poor railwaymen who have 50 per cent. of the money there. They make two of them sign for the money, and then—[Interruptions]. Take your medicine. I am very annoyed.

Not really.

I challenge the hon. member for Gordonia, he with the permanent smile and the red face, to make that statement outside this House.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I should like to make use of the half hour rule and before I go on, I want at once to move the following amendment—

I do so in order to demonstrate our dissatisfaction with the policy and the actions of the present Minister of Justice, which in various fields and various parts of our society have caused the greatest discontent and dissatisfaction. The first reason why I move this amendment is to demonstrate our dissatisfaction with regard to his latest actions in connection with internments and the detention of citizens of our country. At the beginning of the session we already had a long debate on the question of internments and I do not want to go into the same matter again. I just want to look at the position as it is today. On the 9th February the Minister stated in this House that it is his policy to release as many of the internees as possible, always considering the public interest and the safety of the State. He used the following words—

Since then a number of persons have been released; that is true. I should like to say that we expected after this statement that the Minister and his Department would take steps to investigate cases and to release internees on a large scale. It appears, however, that this process is an extremely slow one. Hon. members on this side continually have to approach and implore and beg the Minister to release people. That is not what we expected. We expected that he would release all persons who do not fall within the groups he mentioned, viz., the people who have not been guilty of subversive activities. We had to continue to ask for the release of these people and were continually met with refusals. I want to say again today that there is still dissatisfaction because people are sitting in the internment camps who according to our opinion should not be sitting there. There are still people there who have not taken part in subversive activities. There are still people there against whom futile charges have been levelled, and the Minister did not, as far as we know, tackle the problem on a large scale and he did not release all those who did not commit acts of sabotage or who were not guilty of subversive activities. I should like the Minister to tell us today—he ought to know it—how many people have been released since the date when he gave us that undertaking. We should like to know that. We should like to have full particulars.

He gave the reply this morning.

We feel that the Minister has not yet implemented his promise and furthermore we want to say that we hope that he will not take up the attitude that everybody who was previously in the police service is to be kept in internment. There are members of the police force who are sitting in the internment camps although they are innocent. A further matter that causes dissatisfaction is that there are a number of people who are still being restricted after they have been released. The hon. the Minister at the time gave us the impression that he would do everything in his power to repeal those restrictions. Today there are people outside who are being restricted to such an extent that they can hardly make a living. I know of one case of a young man who has to stay with his parents on the farm. They do not even allow him to visit the neighbouring farm. We feel that these matters cause dissatisfaction and the Minister ought to go into it. Furthermore the question has been raised here in respect of the people who are still in the camps. The Minister refuses some of the churches to send a minister of religion to the internment camp. I am referring to the Reformed Church—the Dopper Church as some people call it. 27 members of that church were still in the internment camp and the Minister refused to allow a parson of that church to minister to the spiritual needs of these people. A local minister of the Dutch Reformed Church at Koffiefontein is allowed to go there. What is the objection of the Minister against the Reformed Church sending one of their ministers of religion there now and again to preach the Gospel to members of this church? It seems unfair and unreasonable and an unnecessary discrimination against the Reformed Church. The present Minister has put a number of warders of the Pretoria gaol behind the bars, people who allegedly were in communication with Leibbrandt and plotted with him to release him or let him free, or who were too kind towards him, or something else. We find it difficult to criticise that because we do not know the Minister’s reasons for detaining them and because we do not get the opportunity to establish contact with those people. I have been informed, however, that men who are actually entirely innocent are being detained there. Furthermore I also want to protest against the methods which are being used to bring those people into difficulties. The well-known criminal Goosen who at one time escaped from the custody of the police, has, we are told, been used to report people who in some way or the other have had something to do with Leibbrandt. I want to protest most strongly against the Minister making use of a man of the type of Goosen in order to bring other people into trouble. I have been given the assurance that many of these persons are entirely innocent, that they merely acted as warders for Leibbrandt and that some of them for a long time were not in contact with Leibbrandt, that they last saw him just before his appeal. They have been detained and have been arrested on the evidence of a man like Goosen. It is a most objectionable manner to use a gaol bird of that type in order to bring other people into trouble. He may perhaps in order to save his own skin and to come in the good books of the Government bring innocent people into trouble. In connection with this matter I want to contrast the attitude of the Minister towards our own European citizens with the attitude he adopted towards the Indian agitator, Dr. Joseph Dadoo. It appears from a Sapa message that Dr. Joseph Dadoo must have been holding inciting speeches and that he was warned that if he did not cease to do so he would be interned. Just imagine, that Indian is first threatened and warned. The Sapa message says—

That news item appeared on Saturday. Has ever before any other internee been given warnings and been given time to consider whether they will abandon their political activities? No, most of them have been arrested suddenly and been put behind the bars, but an Indian is given a warning and is given the opportunity to appeal to Mr. Wanless, M.P., and Adv. Molteno, M.P. He can get in touch with them, protests can be sent in by Indians, resolutions are sent to the Minister to protest against the warning given to Dr. Dadoo. Thereupon the Minister gives in. I have here a copy of a resolution adopted by the National Group of the Pretoria Indian Congress, which reads—

And then they thank certain members of Parliament for their assistance. Here the Indians are given an opportunity to hold protest meetings and to exert pressure on the Minister through members of Parliament. We know that the Minister in reply to our question said that certain restrictions had been placed on Dadoo. Just imagine, Dadoo was given a certificate of exemption from internment. He has never been interned. But before he is ever interned they give him a certificate of exemption, and certain conditions were laid down therein, as the Minister stated. This was a long list of conditions, but some time later the Minister informed us—

The conditions were withdrawn. Thereafter he again received a warning that the conditions would again be imposed, because reports had been received that he had been using immoderate language at the time of the agitation against the pass laws. In this case conditions were laid down but these were repealed on instructions of the Minister of the Interior. Surely this is a matter which should be dealt with by “Justice”.

At that time internments came under the Minister of the Interior.

Was that warning given last year?

Yes.

It is rather peculiar that this happened last year and that he is given another warning this year. European citizens are interned without a warning but this Indian receives a warning and is given the opportunity to get into touch with members of Parliament. Why should there be this unfair discrimination? On the 12th April of this year he was warned again. This is an unfair attitude of the Minister. The next point on which I want to criticise the Minister is his unintelligible, incomprehensible and foolish banning of the book “The Roman Catholic System”. I want to make it clear that I do not intend to attack the Roman Catholic church on religious grounds.

I was responsible for that and not the Minister of Justice.

The questions I asked in connection with this matter were all replied to by the Minister of Justice and it was in any case the police, who do come under the Minister, who were sent out to confiscate the books. Whoever may have been responsible, the police at any rate received instructions and as a result thereof they visited Dutch ministers of religion and certain other persons and demanded the handing over of this book. This is a book which has been written more than 50 years ago and which has been available all those years and has been used by our ministers. Now it had to be confiscated and an attack was first of all made on the parsonages of the ministers of the Dutch churches. I want to ask the Minister why this discrimination took place. I have a long list here of names of ministers and a number of private persons who were visited by the police in connection with the confiscation of this book. With one single exception, viz. the parson of the Methodist church of Kroonstad, these are all ministers of the Dutch churches. The homes of the Rev. Cloete of Port Elizabeth and others were invaded and the surrender of the book demanded. The Minister said that they intended afterwards also to proceed against the English parsonages, but the Rev. Cloete made a statement to the press that the police came to see him four times in order to get hold of the book, whilst in the meantime the English parsons of the English churches remained unmolested. What was the idea of the police to first of all attack the Dutch ministers of religion and to leave the English parsons in peace? Why was this humiliation imposed on the Ministers of our Dutch churches? A number of books of the Protestant Union were also confiscated. I do not want to read out the circular letter from the Protestant Union because certain religious matters are discussed therein and I do not want to drag those in. This was not a circular letter from the parsons of the Dutch churches. Here it reads, however—

Very much dissatisfaction was caused by this matter and I want to know why such an extremely foolish step was taken. Afterwards the Government repealed the ban and returned the books. Why was such a stupid and foolish act committed, which aroused the passions of the people? It has caused a bad feeling between the churches and dissatisfaction among the parsons. I should like to have a complete statement from the Minister why such a blunder was made which was subsequently admitted to be a mistake. Did they never consider what the results might be? Is it sufficient if some religious society approaches the Minister to have a book banned, after which it is done without any proper investigation? Did the Minister and the Government ever approach other churches and did they ever tell them: “ Objection is made against the book, please give us some information about it”? No, but at the request of a Roman Catholic section the book is banned and the Dutch ministers of religion are persecuted and the book is confiscated. A wave of protest swept through the country and thereupon they returned the book. Why this stupidity and foolishness? A Minister who takes such steps does not inspire confidence, for one does not know when he will commit the next foolish act, if he is capable of doing things of this nature. Why did this happen? Another matter about which I should like to say something is the inexplicable deed of the reprieve of the murderer, Sidney Bernard Smith, which has caused a wave of indignation throughout the country. One does not know in this case what should cause more surprise, the reprieve itself or the reasons advanced for it by the Minister. This matter has been discussed throughout the country and it went so far that even English ministers of religion and their Dutch colleagues spoke about it from their pulpits. The father of the murdered child had to publish a vigorous protest in the newspapers. Associations, bodies and individuals on all sides strongly protested against it. I am pleased to know that it is a generally known fact that the head of the State of South Africa was opposed to this reprieve. The responsibility rests with the Minister. In the Senate he stated that he accepts the responsibility for it. We are told—we do not know whether that is correct—that only three representatives of the Cabinet were present at the meeting when the reprieve was agreed to, in spite of the fact that this is such an important matter which has caused so much dissatisfaction. The Minister has admitted that this was a most serious case. All know that this was one of the most horrible murders ever committed in our country. It was a matter of two crimes, each of which is punishable by death, viz. rape and murder of an innocent eleven year old girl. The Minister admitted that this was a most serious matter. He said in the Senate—

But he said furthermore—

If it, had been a South African national, he would not have been reprieved. Is the Minister unaware of the fact that this person was a deserter from the British army? Senator Richards said that the reason given by the Minister was tantamount to an insult of the British army. He was a deserter from the British army but in spite of that the Minister said that he had reprieved that man for the sake of the British army. The murderer said that one of the reasons why he did not say that the girl had been there was that he was afraid of the authorities finding out that he had deserted the British army. How is it possible that the Minister now declares that he reprieved the man for the sake of the British army? No, this is one of the most heinous crimes ever committed in our country; the Minister admits it, but, he says, because the criminal belongs to the British army, he reprieved him. We want to know what is behind this matter. Is the reason that the Minister has such an admiration for the British army that he reprieves a deserter from the British army although he has committed the most cruel murder? The British army itself would not have hesitated to let such a murderer go to the gallows. If this had happened in the British army in England, the man would have been hung, but the Minister comes along here and reprieves the man because he was supposed to have come to South Africa to protect us here. Instead of protecting the Minister, this man deserted from the army in order to commit a cruel murder and rape on an eleven year old child. A more amazing reason for a reprieve I have never yet heard. The Minister furthermore came with the excuse that Leibbrandt and the saboteurs of Benoni had been reprieved. We cannot compare these cases at all. Leibbrandt was not found guilty of murder, but of high treason, and there have been scores of cases of people being reprieved in cases of that nature. I do not approve of the other cases, but I only point to the difference. In the case of Benoni the persons have also not been guilty of murder. It has been shown that one of the persons is dead as the result of their actions and this is a terrible and ugly thing. But none of the elements of cold-blooded cruelty were present in these cases, which were, however, present in the case where an eleven year old girl was raped and thereafter was kicked and trampled to death. This is the deed of a mad animal but the Minister comes along here to compare it with these other cases. There is no comparison whatsoever possible. The judge and the jury could find no extenuating circumstances or any element of extenuating circumstances in this case. I say again that I do not know what possessed the Minister of Justice to do a thing like this. We do not know what should astonish one more, the reprieve itself or the reasons put forward by the Minister for it. Members on the other side may now be making sneering remarks, but the public without exception right through the country—all civilised persons in the country have expressed their disapproval of this reprieve. I have watched the papers, but I do not know of a single person who has approved of it. Letters of indignation have come in from all sides. The public loathed this step by the Minister. I cannot find words strong enough to express my disapproval of it. English-speaking and Afrikaansspeaking people without exception and without reservation condemned it and still condemn the attitude of the Minister. It was our duty to draw attention to this matter so that a repetition thereof may be prevented in future. It is happening far too frequently that people come here as members of the British navy or army and are then pardoned after they have been convicted of crimes. We know about the case in Durban when a soldier had contravened the Indecency Act but was not punished in accordance with the law. We know about the case of British sailors who atacked a Railway constable and were sentenced to imprisonment. They were released on £5 bail and the Minister then decided that they only had to pay the £5 and they did not even have to appear in court again. This kind of pardon for people who come from other countries and commit crimes here, must come to an end. The next matter about which we are dissatisfied with the Minister is this injudicious release of prisoners at the beginning of the year. These matters are becoming dangerous. In December, 1942, the Minister released 3,734 prisoners. I do not know how many he released this year. The figures supplied refer only to Cape Town, Pretoria, the Witwatersrand, Bloemfontein and Durban, and the figure is 3,817 for those five towns. The reason given is that the prisons were more than full and that it is impossible to build any now. Furthermore it was stated that the increase in prisoners is due to the increase in the population, the migration of natives to the towns and the war conditions of the black-out and visiting convoys. [Time limit.]

At the request of the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) who is indisposed, I am raising the question of a payment of £2,000 by the Transvaal Provincial Administration to the Crocodile Valley Citrus Company, and the subsequent investigation held into that matter. Hon. members are acquainted with it. All I need say is that the Commission was appointed in consequence of a report by the three senior legal advisers suggesting that the payment of £2,000 to the Crocodile Valley Citrus Estates (Pty.), Ltd., had been made under circumstances which amounted to corruption. When the opinion of the legal advisers came before the Committee on Public Accounts the Chairman made this remark in connection with it. He said—

And in consequence of the report of the legal advisers the Committee on Public Accounts reported that—

A judical commission was duly appointed presided over by a Judge and it came to certain unanimous decisions on the evidence placed before it on investigation lasting over several months. The charge arose from the payment of £2,000 to the Crocodile Valley Citrus Estates (Pty.) Ltd., in respect of the uprooting of citrus trees for the purpose of a national road. It was necessary for the purpose of the road to have turning places, and certain trees had to be uprooted in order to provide for the turning places. And the allegation was that whereas £252 would have been adequate compensation to the company in respect of the trees which had been uprooted, a sum of £2,000 had actually been paid under circumstances which amounted to corruption. Mr. Ivan Solomon, a member of the Provincial Council at that time, was the principal shareholder in the company and although no direct allegations were made against him the allegation of corruption in respect of the payment of £2,000 necessarily involved him as being practically the only shareholder and Managing Director of the Company. He held all the shares except one share which was held by his wife. After the commission was appointed, Mr. Solomon wrote a letter to the Secretary for Justice in which he asked whether, although his name was not specifically mentioned, the Government Attorney intended persisting in allegations involving him. I quote a passage from this letter which was written on the 9th June, 1943, in these terms—

To that letter the Secretary for Justice sent a non-committal reply. As the proceedings before the judicial commission had practically started, the Provincial authorities sent an official—an expert—in order to re-examine the facts of the case on the estate, and this expert, during the month of June, and after this letter was written, re-examined the estate and came to the conclusion that so far from £252 being an adequate compensation to the company, if anything the £2,000 which had already been paid was a very considerable underpayment. Notwithstanding that report, the allegations were persisted in, and evidence was led, and Mr. Solomon was obliged to engage counsel and appear before it. I may refer to the allegations in the report of the judicial commission in connection with that. Section 104 is to this effect—

And in the same paragraph we find this—

The position is that the Commission continued its sittings and it was then found that the whole of the charges which had been brought were completely baseless. For example, this is what is found on Page 18, in Section 97—

And then in Section 102—

And then in Section 25 on Page 26—

Well the proceedings lasted for several months and as Mr. Solomon was a prominent public man who had been Mayor for three years … [Time limit.]

I was busy discussing the release of prisoners. I maintain that it is entirely wrong to release people on a large scale at a time of disorderliness, thefts and drunkenness which in times of war always assume serious proportions. In the larger towns 3,817 prisoners were released. Measures of this kind create a feeling of contempt for our judicial system, especially amongst the non-Europeans. We have read in the papers that there were cases of persons who one or two days before the general release were sentenced to one or two months’ imprisonment and were then released the next day again. If those things happen the nonEuropean is going to feel contempt for the judicial and punitive system of our country. The Minister empties the gaols completely. If he wants to release prisoners, he should release those who have already served for some time, but he releases all those who have been sentenced to imprisonment for three months, even though they have been in gaol for only one or two days. I think it would have been better if he had rather reduced the sentences of long-term prisoners who had still to serve three months or less. The whole system of releases is wrong. If the gaols are too full, other provision should be made so that people may be punished in some other way, as they will otherwise begin to think that they can continue committing crimes because they will be released again. I have never believed in this total release. The Minister was not in a position to give us the figures to show how many of these prisoners have again landed in gaol in the meantime, but we read in the newspapers that quite a number of these persons appeared again before the magistrate the following day. They celebrated their release to such an extent that they again landed in gaol and I want to express my dissatisfaction about this state of affairs. Then I want to raise a matter which in my opinion the people outside should be aware of, and that is the Minister’s so-called secret service, people who are being used by him to bring other people into difficulties. I raise this matter in order to draw the attention of the public outside to it so that they may be on their guard. A certain police inspector, a captain in the Police Force, allegedly refused to sign the red oath—the Africa oath. My information is that he was punished for it afterwards, that he was transferred to a smaller station, but that he thereupon resigned from the service. He pretended to be a strong opponent of the policy of the Government. He pretended to feel terribly wronged, but all the time he was in the service of the Government. He was all the time playing a role for the Government. In October, 1940, he resigned. Thereafter in June, 1943, he was reinstated in his previous rank as inspector, nearly three years later. I then asked the Minister what the man had been doing in the meantime, and the reply was—

I thereupon asked why he was reinstated in the service, and the reply was—

It is not a usual thing that a man who has resigned from the police service is again reinstated.

There have been cases like that.

I say that this is the policy of the Minister. There may have been a few cases where it has happened, but this is the policy of the Minister. Since the war started this is the only person, according to the Minister’s reply, who has resigned from the police service and has been taken on again and what is more with the retention of his previous rank. In the meantime the man has been working for the Government. The Minister may be entitled to adopt such methods, but I quote this instance in order to warn the people outside against it, against men who have allegedly resigned but all the time remain in the service of the Government and are used as traps and carry information to the Minister and thereupon are reinstated in their previous rank. The Minister knows the case I am referring to. One should like to know whether that person when he resigned was honest in his attitude or whether he resigned with the full knowledge of the Minister and his chiefs, well knowing that he would have to play that role; or if that is not the case, whether he was afterwards bribed by the Department to join again? One of the two must be the case, and both look equally doubtful. I want to bring this to the notice of the country so that the people may know that they have to be on their guard against this sort of thing. The question of secret services has during this session again been discussed by the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and great dissatisfaction was expressed about they way in which these things are done. The Committee recommended that this procedure should be changed and that it should come under one head; every Minister should not have his own secret service. In the Third Report of the Select Committee we find the following recommendation—

I had some information from reliable sources that persons in the Civil Service are getting a certain amount per month extra pay for spying on their colleagues sitting alongside them. Of course you never can prove that, but I was informed that this is really so, and the Select Committee on Public Accounts is strongly opposed to it, and I hope that the Minister of Finance and other Ministers will take care that our Public Service is kept free of that sort of thing, i.e., that ordinary civil persons should not be made to do spying work and be paid for it. It is entirely wrong and all the members of this House who served on the Select Committee unanimously recommended that civil servants should not be used for this purpose, and I add to this also civil servants who so to say resign in order to be reappointed again and who have to play this dirty role in the meantime. This spying causes great dissatisfaction and discontent in the country, and I hope that a stop will be put to it. A number of matters have been mentioned about which we as an Opposition are dissatisfied with the policy of the Minister during the past year, and for that reason we move this amendment as a demonstration of our dissatisfaction.

I should like to thank the Minister for what the South African Police have done during hard and troublous times on the Rand. We know that when the Minister came in, when his new Commissioner came in, they had a very bad time and they found that quite a number of members of the Police had followed the lead of the hon. member who is just walking out of the room (Dr. Malan) and some of our leading internees. I wish the hon. member would sit down.

Will the hon. member address the Chair.

It is rather hard on me. Every time I am addressing the House I am called to order. I am addressing the Chair and no one else, and I am going to treat the Chair with all respect but I want it to be understood that I am a member of Parliament and I am addressing the Chair and I am treating the Chair with respect.

Oh, sit down.

I would like to thank the hon. Minister for what has been done. Excellent work has been done by the Civic Guard in Johannesburg. Men up to the age of 70 years looked after Johannesburg. I find that among them are very few if any men on the side of the Nationalists, men who could have gone out and who should have gone out to protect the women and children; and there are large numbers of their own women and children in Johannesburg but they did nothing to protect them. The work had all to be done by the Labour Party and the Dominion Party and the United Party, but the Nationalist Party did nothing to protect their own homes against burglaries. All that work was done by the parties on this side. I can quite understand why the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) was annoyed about Smith not being hanged. Of course he would like every British soldier to be hanged. When he talks about Leibbrandt I would like to say that a large number of people in South Africa believe that Leibbrandt should have been hanged. This is what the judge said about Leibbrandt. Mr. Justice Schreiner said—

Leibbrandt himself admits he was sent out here by the German authorities. I have never heard any of our friends over there complain about Leibbrandt not being hanged; and he committed the worst crime any man can commit in South Africa, that of high treason. But they acclaimed it; they said it was the right thing to do. They did not stand up in Parliament and say the Minister had done this or done that. One often wonders how close the Nationalist Party was to Leibbrandt; how much they knew about Leibbrandt; and it will probably come out one day. Probably Leibbrandt will tell the story of how near he was to the Nationalist Party of today. We know, Sir, that there are a large number of young men interned today, interned entirely through what was done by the Leader of the Opposition who said: “ The O.B. claims that they stand for the unity of Afrikanerdom, but this is not true; instead of building up the nation the O.B. is a gangster organisation.” That was said by the Leader of the Opposition, and we know that the Leader of the Opposition got up in the House and asked that the O.B.’s should be interned, and that a large number of men who are today interned were not put there by the Minister—[Interruptions.] What appeared in the O.B. newspaper only a few days ago? That newspaper said: “The biggest detective on the side of the Government helping the Minister is the member for Winburg (Mr. Swart).” They published that twice. They said the biggest detective, the man who gets Afrikaners on to the side of Dr. Colin Steyn is the hon. member for Winburg. We know, Sir, that so annoyed are the O.B. whose friends are in the internment camps that young Van Rensburg, the son of the Commandant-General of the O.B.—a boy of eighteen—came down a few days ago to Cape Town, and assaulted the editor of the “Kruithoring,” the hon. member’s newspaper, a Mr. Malan. So annoyed was this young man that he committed this assault and had to be punished. We know that all the trouble made in South Africa has been made by the gentlemen on the other side, and those are the people who always say the O.B.’s should be put in the internment camps. The Minister has released a number of men from the internment camps. I ask him to let more of them out. These men will tell you that they are not against the Government; they are not against Hans van Rensburg; but they are against the gentlemen on the Nationalist side. These hon. members on the other side are the people who are in danger. We have seen in Adderley Street a few days ago when young Van Rensburg knocked about young Malan; if we are not very careful old Van Rensburg will knock about old Malan.

What a mentality!

My hon. friend has no mentality; he never had any. He will fight for anybody, he will do anything for anybody. He will hang on like a limpet. I am sorry to see the hon. member attack the great Roman Catholic Church. I knew it was coming. First the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) attacks the Jews. Now the hon. member sitting alongside him (Mr. Swart) is attacking the great Roman Catholic Church. I am warning him that he is taking on something when he attacks the Roman Catholic Church. There are some Roman Catholics in this House and they are not happy about it, and there are a large number outside who will not let it pass. But the hon. members there will attack anything and everything. They attack coloureds; they attack the Jews; they attack the English; they even attack themselves. My friend need not be so happy. He is one of the most unpopular men in the party. I want to say this to the Minister: I hope he will release some of these men. I will stand good for them myself. They will listen to me; but I must ask him to guard very carefully the Leader of the Opposition, and I am talking very seriously when I say this. The Leader of the Opposition is in danger. The Minister will have to see he gets a certain amount of guarding from either the police or the civic guard or somebody else, because we do not want to lose the Leader of the Opposition. He is the greatest asset we have got; we should be very sorry to hear that they were going to hang him on a sour apple tree. I am asking the Minister to help us to keep him.

The hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Barlow) is very worried about the Ossewabrandwag. May I suggest to the hon. member that he should go and have a talk with his Minister, the Minister of Lands. May I remind him that the Minister of Lands during rhe lastest election sent a telegram to Beaufort West to the Chairman of the United Party, in which the request was made that the United Party candidate should stand back in favour of the Ossewabrandwag candidate. Whence then this sudden concern about the Ossewabrandwag? This is the telegram—

Mr. Nel was the United Party candidate who at that moment had not yet been nominated—

Those who were consulted of course included the Prime Minister—

That is of course me—

He is of course the secretary or chief organiser of the United Party. His party collaborated with the Ossewabrandwag. He should therefore not show so much concern now! The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) compares the case fo Leibbrandt with that of the raper and murderer of an eleven year old girl. I must say that matters have come to a sorry point in our country when rape and heinous murder of an eleven year old girl are compared with what is after all a political crime.

A political crime?

May I remind the hon. member of Sir Starr Jameson and Sir Lionel Philips, Charles Leonard and Sir Abe Bailey. The hon. member should not begin to squeal again. Weren’t they sentenced to death and pardoned for something which is on a par with the crime of Leibbrandt? I do not want to excuse Leibbrandt but the hon. member should not come here to draw comparisons of that nature. He should remember his own pals, Jameson, Bailey, Leonard and Philips, those great capitalists whose interests he is also trying to protect in this House. That much about the hon. member. I think it would be in his own interests if he were to keep quiet in future. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) proposed to delete the salary of the Minister of Justice and he did so on the grounds of certain actions by the Minister. He mentioned some definite matters. I also want to raise a few matters, not so much about his actions, but rather about his inaction. During the previous Session and also in the course of this Session serious warnings were uttered here against the communist propaganda amongst natives in our country. I am glad to see that the Minister of Native Affairs is present, for this is a matter which concerns him and his Department.

The old story again?

Yes, I know, these things hurt and I hope that the hon. member will now stop crying. I referred to the propaganda amongst natives by communist agitators. What was the reply of the Minister? We came here and brought proofs and mentioned quite a number of proofs and quoted documents, but the reply of the Minister was—

I shall give facts today. The Minister also said at that time—

I shall today give facts from his own little circle. I am going to quote the evidence of his own Government offices, viz. the evidence given before the Select Committee on Public Accounts by the Secretary for Native Affairs. Then the Minister will have his facts.

Business suspended at 1.0 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

When business was suspended, I was pointing out that we have discussed the question of communistic propaganda amongst natives during the previous Session and the point of view adopted by the Minister of Justice was that we came here with stories, bogies as he called them, and that we could not bring proof of it. Today I want to bring the necessary proofs here but I want to add that on those previous occasions we also brought the necessary proofs. At that time we definitely produced proofs of communistic incitement amongst the natives. Now, however, we have had a most interesting statement during the course of the evidence which was given by the Secretary for Native Affairs before the Select Committee on Public Accounts. The following question was put by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. Solomon) to the Secretary for Native Affairs—

I myself, as a member of the Committee, then asked the following question—

You will notice that he does not deny that they are communistic agitators, but as an official he of course does not want to say anything against any political party. The questions go on—

What is your definition of a “communistic agitator”?

Well, I must say I had a higher opinion of the Minister’s intelligence. Of course they are the agitators of the Communist Party. They are agitators who spread the doctrines of communism amongst the natives and who incite the natives. That is quite clear. The reply to that question was—

He does not deny it and he does not confirm it. We can understand why he as an official does not take sides. He, however, continues with his reply—

Mr. Chairman, I wish to bring to the Minister’s attention something that I am fully aware he has been engaged upon for some time past, and that is the question of the abuse of liquor, particularly in the Western Province. The position in regard to the abuse of liquor is one which calls for prompt attention and quick action on the part of the Government, and particularly is it so in regard to the Western Province, because of the revelations arising from statistics published in regard to this matter. We find that during the last recorded year there were 51,830 convictions for drunkenness, and that figure, of course, omits many cases that might have been brought before the magistrate, but the number of those cannot obviously be estimated. These convictions are indicative of the tremendous extent of the evil of drunkenness in South Africa, more particularly when we consider that a considerable percentage of the convictions relate to the coloured people. Out of the total of 51,830, the convictions relating to coloured people number 20,943. Having regard to the proportion of coloured people to the total population of South Africa these figures call for the urgent attention of this House and the Government. The convictions relate to the adult section of our coloured population, but they tell us nothing of the effect upon the child-life of this very important section of our people. I think, Sir, that I speak as representing the main body of public opinion, and I have in support of that statement such an important journal as the “Cape Times”.

Don’t rely on them whatever you do.

This paper, Sir, in referring to the comments made by two of the highest judicial authorities in South Africa, and in calling attention to the urgency of the matter, used the following terms—

There is no doubt that not only the press, not only the churches, not only the social welfare association, but the industry itself is concerned about the serious position particularly in the Western Province. We find that in regard to the City of Cape Town which has come very noticeably before Parliament this session, its leading Medical Officer, Dr. Shaddick Higgins, said—

I trust the Minister will be able to announce to this House that he will at any rate undertake an enquiry or appoint a commission to investigate the position in the Western Province if not the whole of South Africa; but, as a commission takes a considerable time to report and the Government to take action on the report, it seems to me that the occasion is one for the introduction of a special emergency measure. In the Western Province you have numerous licensing courts administering the law, and different rules and regulations in different areas, so that a regulation which may be operating beneficially in one area causes people in that particular area—over the weekend—to go into an area just over their boundary in order to take advantage of the longer hours of sale laid down by the court in that area. Now it seems to me that the Cape Peninsula and the area extending to Stellenbosch should, in order to secure the benefit of the general opinion of these courts, have some means whereby the regulations laid down by the majority of the courts shall prevail throughout that larger area in order to ensure that the evil which it is desired to curtail in one area shall not mean an extension of the evil in an adjoining area. I think it is within the knowledge of the Minister that during some weekends parties will go from an area where the hours have been curtailed into another area in which more opportunities to secure liquor prevail, and that liquor is then brought back into the area where the hours are curtailed. I trust the Minister will take this matter into serious consideration, and I ask that some definite action will be taken in order to meet what is a public demand in the Western Province.

I was busy quoting the questions which were put to the Secretary for Native Affairs. I now come to the last question—

Moses Kotani was the secretary of the Communist Party. The reply of Mr. Smit was—

It is quite plain from the replies which were given there—plain as daylight for any person with common sense, even for the Minister of Social Welfare— that the Secretary for Native Affairs was here referring to communistic agitators among the natives, but because he is an official he will be embarrassed if he has to mention names. I am sorry that the Minister of Native Affairs is not at the moment in the House, but I should like to put this before the Minister of Justice. Here we have a plain statement by the head of the Department of Native Affairs. I want to hear from him whether this statement has already been brought to his notice. If not, then I want to know whether he as the head of the Department of Justice will get into touch with Mr. Smit in order to find out what the position is in regard to this communistic propaganda and whether he will give instructions to his police officials to take steps against this incitement of the natives. This propaganda is, however, not carried on exclusively in the native reserves. I can read here from statements which were made at meetings of the Communist Party, where inciting speeches are made, where the native is being incited against the European. At the beginning of May a great procession took place in Johannesburg of, according to the newspapers, more than 10,000 natives. All traffic in Johannesburg came to a standstill as a result thereof. Amongst other things they carried banners with the following slogans: “Natives, be united and free like the air,” “We demand our rights,” etc., etc. But this is happening not only among the natives. That communistic propaganda is also being spread among the Europeans in South Africa, and on May Day a large communistic gathering took place in Johannesburg. I have got a description here which appeared in the Johannesburg “Star”. They mention inter alia that banners were carried and mention a long list of communistic organisations which took part. I have not got the time now to read those names out in the House. And then they say the following—

And the message sent by the Minister of Justice ends with the following words—

He wants to wish them every success with that propaganda which I read about just now from the evidence of the head of the Department of Native Affairs. The Minister who has to take the necessary steps against the communists, he is the man who sends congratulations and such a message to these communists.

Tell us about Kadalie.

We have heard the story ad nauseam that the Comintern has now been dissolved and that there is therefore no longer any danger of propaganda directed from Moscow. The other day we still had a statement, according to a Sapa news item, of the man who was the head of the Soviet Purchasing Commission in America and who stated that the whole idea of the so-called dissolution was an enormous piece of bluff. The hon. Minister in his speech about Communism on the 12th February, said the following—

The shadow of Joseph Stalin is to be found not only in South Africa. Churchill is much concerned about the shadow of Joseph Stalin which hovers over the continent of Europe today.

Poor old Joe.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) who is a so-called follower of the Prime Minister this. He has followed the Prime Minister merely in order to get a seat in Parliament. His own leader saw the shadow of Joseph Stalin when he made that explosive speech in London last year, when he said that Joseph Stalin is standing astride Europe, when he spoke of the Russian colossus. You can read this morning’s “ Burger”. You will not find it in the “ Cape Times”. Read the news in regard to the position of Poland. The shadow of Joseph Stalin is over Jugoslavia. Marshal Tito is the instrument of Joseph Stalin.

Tell us about Kadalie.

There is trouble in Greece as a result of his shadow. His shadow hovers over Czechoslovakia. An agreement has been concluded between Benesh and Stalin which is causing concern in America and England. Now, however, they are squealing like the hon. member for Hospital. The Minister apparently does not read his newspapers. He does not know what is going on in the world. The shadow of Joseph Stalin about which the Minister is making fun is also to be found in France and Italy. There is much concern in England about the establishment of relations between Stalin and the French Committee. There is grave concern in England and America because Joseph Stalin established direct relations with Italy without asking or consulting England or America. There is grave concern throughout England as well as on the other side of this House about the shadow of Stalin. I have here before me a Canadian newspaper. A proposal was made in the Canadian Parliament that since Russia was now fighting on the side of the Allies—this was in February of last year— Canada should now be prepared to lift the ban on the Communist Party as a party in Canada. The Communist Party is banned there. They then said “We are now fighting together with Russia; let us repeal the ban”. What was the reply of the Canadian Minister of Justice?

What has that got to do with the Vote?

This has got very much to do with this Vote. You find the same Communistic propaganda here. This is what the Minister of Justice of Canada replied—

The hon. member who has spoken just now always comes here with his speeches about Communism. He is much concerned about the shadow of Stalin. But I want to see the hon. member tell us whether he does not believe or is not convinced that during the last few years, South Africa was in a much greater danger owing to Nazi propaganda than through Communism? Why should I say this? In our country discussions about Communism have been going on for years. It has often been discussed here, also by means of motions. During the last general elections Communism openly took the field. Here and there they caught a few votes. But what about the enormous Nazi propaganda? This was so serious that even before the war a large commission had to be appointed to investigate matters in South-West Africa. What did they find there? A real Nazi organisation. The hon. member will at once say that he is not a Nazi, that he does not associate himself with that, but seeing that Nazi propaganda was conducted on such an enormous scale, why did the hon. member not ask that’ Nazi propaganda should also be suppressed? He attacks Communism, which at the latest general elections proved to be a non-existing danger.

Are you judging on the votes?

But the natives did not vote.

They openly came along and entered the political arena and it then appeared that there is no Communistic danger. And the man who says that the native is susceptible to Communism does not know what he is talking about. There is a greater danger that he will remember Nazism, for the mad Nationalism will sooner enter the brain of the native than Communism. The hon. member, however, continues talking about Communism and he is always seeing the shadow of Stalin. The hon. member makes a study of foreign politics and he should therefore know that Communism in South Africa has no connection whatsoever with Stalin. Russia as such has repudiated the Communistic organisations in our country. The day will still dawn that the hon. member will ask the churches to fix a day of thanksgiving for the fact that there was such a country as Russia. One would think that the hon. member must by now be tired of talking about it, for all the talking here and all their motions have made no impression on the people outside. The absence of the danger of Communism has become apparent during the last elections. I got up, however, to ask the Minister what the position is in regard to the arrest of Mr. F. A. Smit, Secretary, and Mr. Nel, Organiser of the Running Staff Union. According to the sworn declarations I have here and which I am prepared to accept, Mr. Smit was arrested and also his organiser, Mr. Nel, and also Duvenhage. They were accused of “An attempt to defeat the ends of justice.” The case is No. 489 of 1943. These people were arrested on a serious charge against them and Mr. Smit was incarcerated like a person who had already been convicted and had been declared a criminal. He was forced to do the work of a convict, to scrub floors and other things which usually are only the work of convicts. His protests were of no avail. Bail was refused. He was arrested by Sergeant Myburgh of the Railway Police. After he had been in gaol for a number of days and had to do convict work for a number of days, he ultimately was brought before the court, where the Public Prosecutor got up and declared: “There is no charge against these people.” I now want to ask the Minister whether it is still possible in this century that a respectable man is arrested, is thrown into gaol, has to do the work of a convict, and can then simply be told: “There is no charge against you?” I want to ask the Minister whether he has had the case of these three men investigated. Representations have already been made to the Minister.

Who made the case against them?

The Railways; the South African Railway Police arrested them. The evidence on which these men were arrested was supplied by a person about whom the judge has already said—

The judge said that he attached no value to his evidence and that he would ignore it entirely. [Time limit.]

I wish to bring to the Minister’s knowledge the state of affairs that has grown up in Johannesburg. I refer to the traffic control, and in connection with it the financial relations between the Central Government, the Provincial Council and the local authorities. I would plead for a revision of the existing system in the interests of better working. The Government has requested Johannesburg to take over the traffic control in the city, and after a year’s working, last year, it was informed ….

Order! I do not think the hon. member can discuss that under this vote. What is the hon. member discussing it under?

Justice.

What particular item is the hon. member discussing?

The police.

Is not traffic control confined to municipalities?

I am speaking of the amount of money the municipality is getting.

The hon. member is not in order in discussing that matter at present.

I would like to bring up another matter. In Johannesburg we have two or three organisations—private, police— which I consider is wrong. They go under the name of “Night Patrols.” I do not say they are wrong, because lately we have had very poor protection by the police, and that is the reason the organisations have been instituted. First of all, had it not been for the civic guard we would have been in a very bad way in the suburbs of Johannesburg. If these private organisations have to be kept on, I should like to see them under police control rather than private control. It has been found that very doubtful characters amongst the natives have been enrolled by those organisations; it is even suggested in Johannesburg that some of these natives have been responsible for some of the burglaries that have been occurring, and that they have agents in various houses who keep them informed of the movements of the residents.

They are very good.

They may be very good, but if you must have them let it be under police control. Why not get the Department to see whether there are not returned native soldiers available who would be fitter for the work than any odd native who just happens to come along? I feel it my duty to bring up this matter of traffic control ….

I am afraid the hon. member cannot do that.

Under what vote can I bring it up?

We have the peculiar phenomenon today—judging by the interruptions from the other side and the speech of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) that hon. members over there are now defending Communism.

Nonsense.

We are not dealing now with Russia as an ally, but hon. members over there now stand up as the defenders of Communism.

Tell us something about Nazism.

The hon. member always trots out these childish retorts. In view of the evidence I have quoted by the Secretary for Native Affairs—very serious evidence at that—hon. members should think twice. The hon. member for Krugersdorp didn’t say a word about it. Why didn’t he make an effort to reply to what I said about the evidence of the Secretary for Native Affairs? No, they trot out this old story of Nazi propaganda.

Was it not Nazi propaganda on Hitler’s part when the natives in the reserves were promised 10s. per day?

As soon as we on this side of the House draw attention to Communistic propaganda and Communistic agitation, hon. members over there indulge in these well-known tactics of drawing a red herring across the trail by talking about the alleged Nazi propaganda in this country. And their next argument invariably is that the Communists obtained very few votes at the elections. That argument was used by the Prime Minister himself. Hon. members opposite know that our main complaint is about Communistic propaganda among the natives and the natives have no votes.

The natives take no notice of it.

If that is so, why then, does the Secretary for Native Affairs utter this word of warning?

These are bogys.

†*Mr. LOUW. In his evidence he drew attention to the effect which this Communistic propaganda was having on the natives. Hon. members opposite can try to shut their eyes to the evidence of the Secretary for Native Affairs, but there it is. And these are our complaints that the Government allows this propaganda to go on although we only have 2,000,000 Europeans in this country as against 8,000,000 non-Europeans. That being the position the Government and the Minister of Justice allow this pernicious propaganda to be carried on among the natives.

Why did you not object when the Nazis promised the natives 10s. per day if Hitler won the war?

Yes, the Minister is again trying to drag a red herring across the trail. Hon. members opposite are unable to reply to our charges so they trot out their old story about Nazi propaganda. They know very well that this Communistic propaganda is going on. Let me refer again to what Canada has done about Communistic propaganda. Communism in South Africa is of the same type as Communism in Canada. Tney may say that the Comintern has been dissolved. We know it has not been dissolved. For the sake of camouflage it may be said that it has been dissolved, but we know that Communism is unchanged and that the Communism of Canada is identical with the Communism we have here. The Communistic Party of Canada is identical with the Communistic Party here. They were all part of the Comintern and they still are. There was a debate in the Canadian Parliament in February of last year, when one of the members made these remarks—

All the time Russia was not in the War on the side of the Allies the Communists in those countries went against the War. And now let me come to the Minister of Justice. Canada has a Minister of Justice who has Canada’s interests at heart. In Canada there is a prohibition of the Communist Party. Representations were made for that prohibition to be raised because Russia had become an ally, and now we find that the Minister of Justice in Canada said this—

He is wrong.

Yes, the hon. member apparently knows more about Canada than the Minister of Justice of Canada himself. Their eventual objects remain unchanged. He goes on—

That is Canada; talk about South Africa.

I say that this House and the people who have some common-sense, people who have South Africa’s interests at heart, will take very careful note of this.

Are you serious?

I am serious. Hon. members must not try to tell me that the Canadian Minister of Justice did not realise the danger. He knows what he is talking about and it is no use hon. members opposite making such a fuss. Canada has banned the Communist Party, as the Canadian minister said in his speech, because their original Communist aims were still unchanged. Hon. members opposite tried to ridicule me when I spoke about the shadows of Joseph Stalin. They say: “What happened in England during the recent big coal strike?” When they realised what Communism was doing there, people suddenly said it wasn’t Communism but Trotskyism. That is the story they broadcast. We know that Trotskyism no longer exists in England—it has vanished completely since Trotsky’s death in Mexico. Those strikes were caused by Communistic influences. The Communists and Stalin are playing a double game. Members opposite know it and they are scared of Stalin and of Communism today more than they are of Hitler. They know that Stalin and Communism are getting a hold on Europe. What we are afraid of in South Africa and why the Minister of Native Affairs should be concerned ….

Why didn’t you warn the people against Communism when Russia was Germany’s ally?

I have always warned them against Communism and we on this side have always been warning this country. On my return from Europe in my first interview, I spoke about the danger of Communism and I have consistently maintained the same attitude. Hon. members opposite, by their interjections, try to soothe their own consciences because they know that they have a bad case. But they can’t get away from the evidence of the Secretary for Native Affairs. The Minister of Native Affairs adopted a strong attitude in Another Place and I now ask him to tell us whether he believes what his own Secretary for Native Affairs stated in evidence. If he says that he believes the statement of his own Secretary, then I say that the attitude we on this side are adopting is perfectly correct, and that is why we have moved a reduction in the Minister’s salary because he refuses to take action against this agitating propaganda and against the agitators who are working among the natives in this country.

Mr. Chairman, when I was interrupted by the time limit I was about to indicate the damage which had been suffered by the unfortunate victim of this judicial commission, Mr. Solomon. He had been Mayor of Pretoria for a period of over three years, he was a Provincial Councillor for one of the Pretoria seats at the time of the proceedings, but when the proceedings were instituted the nomination for the new election took place, and he alleges that full use of the suspicion which was cast over him in consequence of those proceedings caused him to lose the nomination. Although there was a very large poll he lost the nomination by only 15 votes, in a poll of over 2,000. That was only one of the injuries which he suffered. In consequence of his public position it was necessary for him to be fully represented at the Commission, and he incurred a very considerable amount of costs in the course of that representation; that is apart from the fact that the Commission found that had he proceeded with the Supreme Court action which he had instituted, and which he settled for £2,000, he would have got instead of £2,000 anything between £3,600 and £4,400. At the termination of the proceedings an application was made to the Commission for his costs, and an application was also made for the costs of the Province. The Commissioners refused to consider giving the Province its costs, holding that its action in proceeding with the inquiry after it had investigated the facts would have prevented them from exercising discretion in the Province’s favour. But as far as Mr. Solomon was concerned the Commissioners said that had they been in a position to give him his costs they would have undoubtedly done so, but it was ultra vires, that is, beyond their powers, and therefore they decided that they could not do so. They, however, expressed the opinion that they would have awarded him his costs had they the power to do so. In these circumstances he was completely absolved, although his political career was stopped, and although he suffered monetarily very considerably in order to make what he considered a settlement advantageous to the State. I have risen to ask the Minister whether the Government accepts the findings of the Commission unequivocally as being correct and as absolving, not only the Provincial officials concerned, but also Mr. Ivan Solomon without any reflection on his integrity or his honour, and I want to ask the Minister whether he will not make some effort to pay the costs which have been incurred and which have been forced upon Mr. Solomon in consequence of the unwarranted and unjustifiable opinions of the law advisers.

I wish to ask the Minister to give us a clear statement in regard to the Government’s policy towards the coloured question, especially as far as his department is concerned. The reason why I raise this subject is because a proclamation has been issued which is applicable to the whole of the Transvaal and I assume to the whole Union, that an Indian can walk into any bar or into any place where liquor is sold, and the hotel-keepers have to supply him with liquor and have to treat him in the same way as they treat a white man. We know that the Association of Hotel Proprietors has already notifed its members that in terms of the regulations the Indians are now to be treated in the same way as Europeans. We can imagine what the position in the Transvaal is going to be. There used to be an old law in the Transvaal under which only Europeans were to be supplied with liquor and nobody else, except on a prescription from a doctor, and any contraventions of that law were punished by six months’ imprisonment with hard labour without the option of a fine. It was a law which was very strictly applied. Aterwards it was amended, and I assume that there was justification for the amendment, but I have merely referred to it to point out in how serious a light this matter was regarded. And now we are to get equality—equal treatment. I could have understood it if the Minister had said that an Indian, who has a permit from the magistrate—say a prominent business man or someone like that—was to have the privilege of buying liquor in the way it is now proposed to supply all Indians. We could have understood that, but we are now getting complete equality of Indians and Europeans. They can walk into any hotel, they can sit down in the lounges where Europeans are sitting and they have to be served with liquor. There is to be no distinction between them and the Europeans. That is what it means. Now I want to ask the Minister whether this applies only to Indians, or to Japanese or Chinese as well. It is fresh in our minds that a few weeks ago a case was decided in Port Elizabeth where a Chinaman claimed that he was entitled to book a room in an hotel and that he had the right to demand equal treatment with Europeans, and actually won his case. That shows the direction in which we are going—absolute equality with the Europeans in the country. Is that the Government’s policy? We should like to know what the policy is. And if you apply it to the Japanese, the Chinese and the Indians so far as the Liquor Law is concerned, where are you going to draw the line as far as the coloured man is concerned. If you apply it to those non-Europeans what right have you to refuse this to the educated coloured man in this country? What justification is there for refusing them the right to walk into an hotel and to be served there? What then becomes of the preservation and the maintenance of European civilisation in South Africa? Now let me say this to the Minister. In the Transvaal you have this position, that Indians have businesses in many of the native areas. In days gone by they could get no intoxicating liquor. What is going to prevent them now from ordering cases of liquor from the bottle store? They are to be treated in exactly the same way as Europeans. I regard this matter as being of outstanding importance and I feel that we are justified in asking the Minister to make a clear and unequivocal statement in regard to the Government’s policy. It is not only in this department that that policy is being applied. We notice what is happening on the railways today. A regulation has been issued that Indian officers are to be treated in the same way as Europeans on the trains. In the past they were given separate compartments. Now they are to be given the same compartments as the Europeans, there is no differentiation between Europeans and Indian officers in the dining saloons, they are to be treated on a footing of equality with the Europeans in the dining saloons. That is the Government’s policy and I am convinced that it is a policy which most hon. members opposite will not be prepared to defend. They are Afrikaners and I feel that the Minister himself is a good enough Afrikaner not to allow it, and yet that is the position. The Indian can walk into any bar today, the same as the Europeans do, he can walk into any bottle store and order his liquor there. We are entitled to a clear statement by the Minister on this subject.

I think I should now reply to some of the questions that have been put to me, and I would at once deal with the matter raised by the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé). It seems the hon. member is under the impression that we are departing in principle from the policy which so far has been followed in South Africa. The hon. member will realise at once that he is entirely mistaken. In regard to the question of the Indians, we have simply followed the policy of the old Nationalist Government when we opened the door to the Indians. The old Nationalist Government did it in respect of the Japanese.

What are you talking about now?

I shall explain it. Under the Liquor Law certain provisions are not applicable to the Japanese. I do not know whether hon. members are aware of it. It was done for the Japanese by the old Nationalist Government. No more is done for the Indians now than was done for the Japanese at that time. The principle is the same.

There were three Japanese in South Africa.

There were many more than three. The Japanese wool buyers came here and they were welcomed. The principle is the same whether there were three Japanese or ten. The application of the principle may have a different effect, but a principle of opening the door to the Japanese was accepted by the old Nationalist Government and the Indians thereupon approached the Government and used that as an argument. They wanted to know on what grounds we refused their legitimate request. They said: “The Japanese are your enemies. The Japanese are fighting on the side of Germany, and are trying to oppress you. We are fighting on the side of the Allies for freedom and democracy.”

Yes, Burma.

My hon. friends were not so very happy when the Japanese were near. It is because others have made great sacrifices that they are able to laugh at the danger today.

You haven’t made any great sacrifices.

I realise, and I appreciate the sacrifices that have been made on our behalf. That is the point. I am not talking about my sacrifices. I say that as the result of the policy laid down by the old Nationalist Party, the policy of not applying that law to the Japanese, it was made impossible for us not to do the same thing with regard to the Indians, and by giving the Indians the same rights we only followed the example of the old Nationalist Government. It was done for the Japanese in those days because we wanted them here to buy our wool. It was done merely to get some economic benefit from the Japanese. In those days we were prepared to jettison that principle. On this occasion we did it to show our gratitude for what the Indians have done for our freedom. That is the distinction. I know that my hon. friends opposite will try to make political capital out of it but I can assure them that they will not succeed. The hon. member said that they could walk into any hotel That is not so. Wherever there are separate places for Europeans and for non-Europeans they can be kept separate, and any hotel can refuse to serve a person on hotel premises.

What happened in Port Elizabeth?

In any case what we have done here is no more than what the Nationalist Government did for the Japanese, and there is no need for me to go any further into this point; When I reply to charges made by hon. members opposite I hope they will realise that I am of opinion that they are entitled to criticise me, and I hope I shall be able to answer their criticisms, and when I do so I trust they will not look upon my reply as an insult, because I shall try to answer in a dispassionate manner. In regard to internments I am carrying out the promise I made here some time ago, viz. that we shall release as many of these people as possible, having due regard to the safety of the State and having due regard to the interests’ of the public. But I did make it clear at the time that my promise did not apply to members of the police who had been guilty of subversive activities and that it did not apply to people who had committed acts of sabotage. From February to the end of May, 77 people had been released. There are only about 177 Union citizens—I am not quite sure of the number—who have not yet been released. In any case the number of Union citizens still detained is less than 200. There are also some South West African citizens. I don’t include them among the Union citizens, but so far as Union citizens are concerned, there are still about 200 at the utmost in the internment camps. We are still looking into their cases and some of them will be released as time goes on, if we can do so, without endangering the safety of the State. I believe there are 88 naturalised citizens still in the internment camps.

Is that figure correct? You told me today that there were 301.

That is together with the internees from South West Africa. The number of Union citizens is round about 174. I believe it is definitely less than 200. I am not speaking of the naturalised Union citizens now, nor of those who come from South West Africa. The policy I am following has met with general approval throughout the country. I repeat that this Government is not justified in releasing anyone who might be a danger to the State. We have been told by hon. members here that some of these people in the internment camps are there on trivial charges.

Some of these internees are quite innocent of anything.

My hon. friend cannot mention one single instance of an innocent person having been placed in an internment camp.

What about the Arndt brothers?

I am familiar with the tactics which hon. members opposite indulge in. They want to get me to give the names of people who have been released because they have supplied us with certain information. In regard to the church organisations mentioned, only 3 per cent. of the internees are members of the Reformed Church, and they themselves have never asked for a predikant of their own church to minister to their needs in the camps. If they ask for it themselves I shall consider it. In regard to the question of prison warders to which my hon. friend also referred, I may say that the majority who are interned today are there because of the part they have played—which they have admitted themselves, and this fact is confirmed by the evidence of senior warders. We are also told that there are innocent people in the internment camps. A great many people have been interned, but it has never yet been proved that an innocent man has been interned.

Have they all had a trial?

Every case is very thoroughly enquired into.

By your Gestapo?

I was seriously criticised when people who had taken part in cutting wires were interned. On that occasion too we were told that a lot of people who were quite innocent had been interned, but afterwards 95 per cent. of them admitted their guilt. I don’t want to use any strong terms. The cases of these internees will all be dealt with on their merits. Dadoo’s case was also referred to. He was placed under control at one time, and that control was subsequently removed in the same way that it has been removed in the case of hundreds of other people. Recently he was warned again. I have personally gone into the matter in the same way as I have gone into a great many other cases, and I found that there were no substantial grounds for a charge against Dadoo. The complaints were really placed on his political attitude and we are not taking any steps in that respect. And that applies generally. Nobody is going to suffer for his political convictions, and it is clear therefore that it would not be fair to take action against him, no matter whether one agrees with his political views or not. Reference was also made to the “Roman Catholic Book” if I may call it that. Anyone reading the book and knowing anything about the man who had written it will describe it as scurrilous, and the police report in regard to this man is anything but favourable. It was published at a time when the position overseas was serious and feeling was running high in this country, and it was advisable to do everything possible to avoid any trouble, and to avoid feelings being stirred up unduly.

But that book was written 50 years ago.

The book was banned and when the war position became more favourable the ban was lifted, and a further reason was that people have come to realise who the author was and what the book was. There was no need to maintain the ban. Hon. members may laugh, but that is the position and I certainly feel that I am in a better position to tell the House why the ban was lifted than hon. members opposite. Now we come to the reprieve of Smith and I want to deal with that very briefly. This question was discussed in Another Place and I gave the reasons there as far as was possible to do so. Hon. members opposite may think that those reasons are inadequate. To my mind they are adequate, and I think the Government did the right thing.

Can you mention five members on your side of the House who agree with you?

The whole country will agree that it was the right thing to do. That is what I predict and to that I want to add that eventually hon. members opposite will also agree with me. I shall leave it to their judgment and if they don’t agree with me than I have made a mistake. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition who has been present on similar occasions in the past knows that it is not always possible to give the actual reasons which induced the Government to come to a certain decision. I do not want to say that that applies in this case, but it is self-evident that when reasons are given only such reasons are published as it is possible to make known in the public interest.

We are not in, the Senate now. Give us the reasons now why it was done.

The hon. member criticised me and he said he didn’t know what had astonished him more, the reprieve or the reasons I had given. There is one reason in particular which I want to bring to the notice of the hon. members opposite. They urged me very strongly in certain cases not to carry put the sentence of death, after sentence of death had been pronounced by a competent court and no reasons for mercy had been given. We have had three cases lately. The cases differed from each other but the penalty was the same. The one was the Benoni case—it was a case of sabotage where an innocent man lost his life; the other was Leibbrandt’s case in which sentence of death was also pronounced without any recommendation for mercy. I don’t want to go into those cases again, but it doesn’t become hon. members of the Opposition, who approached the Government in those cases and begged the Government to be merciful, now to criticise the Government in respect of a case where a British soldier has been reprieved. I want to make it clear that the death sentence is not, as a rule, carried out simply to punish the individual, but as a deterrent against similar cases occurring in the future. Tens and hundreds of thousands of British soldiers have passed through this country and their conduct has been exemplary. They defended us up North and saved us from a terrible fate. Now, one of those, whom the hon. member for Winburg has described as a mad animal, commits a murder. We can call it a gruesome murder. Are we immediately to apply the extreme penalty to him or can we say that he has made certain sacrifices on our behalf …

He was a deserter.

And was it important that he should be hanged as a deterrent? These troops have gone and it is highly improbable that a similar crime will be committed here again. That is why we did not apply the extreme penalty. Hon. members may not agree with me, but others do agree.

Who?

They Will find that out afterwards. Before the case has run its full course hon. members will agree with me. It is very easy to stir up feelings and I don’t want to do so. I have given reasons and I have made hon. members think a little. Now I want to deal With this question of the release of prisoners. I have made a statement on that subject before. The gaols were chock-a-block, it was war time and there was no other accommodation. The experiment was a great success. If it had not been a great success the few who were released would have been back in gaol within three months, but it was a success.

If that is your argument, then it will always be a success and you should never put anyone in gaol.

To show mercy has proved a success as hon. members who have tried to induce me to release certain other people should know.

We have never pleaded for the release of thieves.

In regard to the Secret Service, a Secret Service is always required, but in time of war it is more necessary. The case of an officer who had been reinstated in the service was mentioned. I can only say that he rendered a very great service to the country in the public interests. More than that I am not prepared to say. In regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) I believe the man referred to was detained by the Railway Police and while he was under detention he broke certain regulations. I am trying to get some further details, however, and I shall inform the hon. member. The whole case will be thoroughly enquired into.

I want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) for what he said about the police. He is perfectly correct; we owe the police a great debt of gratitude, especially from the moment that they cleaned their own ranks. They did that themselves, and since then they have rendered this country signal service and, though it may not be known to hon. members on the opposite side, they have very often owed their safety to members of the South African Police who guarded them when they were not aware of the fact. In connection with the police, I should also like to take this opportunity of expressing our sincere gratitude for the very effective and conscientious help which the civic guard have given us. I can go further and say that without their help it would have been very difficult to maintain law and order to the extent to which it has been maintained in South Africa during this very difficult period. At great sacrifice to themselves and great inconvenience, men of mature years have come forward and rendered signal service. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) has raised a very important matter, the question of the increase of drunkenness and the abuse of drink amongst a certain section, more especially in the Western Province and the Cape Province. In consultation with some of my colleagues, a commission is being appointed by me to investigate the matter. The personnel of the commission has not been fixed, but the chairman will be Mr. Elliott, the Chief Magistrate of Johannesburg, who will go very thoroughly into the matter. I think hon. members will agree that before we take steps an investigation should be made and recommendations obtained. As far as the “Night Patrol” in Johannesburg is concerned, I shall discuss that matter with the police; I agree with the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Gray) that every precaution should be taken to see that the criminal element is not admitted into the “Night Patrol.” I think it is a very helpful suggestion, and we shall certainly take steps to see that these elements are not included. As far as the questions are concerned, I think it was the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) who asked whether the Government accepted the finding of the judicial commission on the Crocodile Valley Citrus Estates as correct. That, of course, we have to do. As far as Mr. Ivan Solomon is concerned, there is no reflection of any sort on his integrity or personal honour; the commission was satisfied on that, and the Government accepts that fully in terms of the commission’s report. The next question the hon. member asked was whether the Government would contribute to his costs in connection with the commission. I may say that Mr. Solomon has been the unfortunate victim of circumstances, and this matter is being investigated and will receive attention in terms of the report.

*The hon. member for Beaufort West again raised his question of the Communist danger and he quoted from certain remarks I made some time ago. I still say what I said then. It was stated at the time that we should deport people. All sorts of suggestions were made, and I said that no country could take steps like that unless crimes had definitely been committed. Political agitation had been carried on, but you can’t deport people for that sort of thing.

I didn’t say that you should necessarily deport them.

We have had no statements placed before us alleging subversive activities, there have been no allegations of criminal activities. The Department of Justice can only take steps against people who break the law, and until such time as the laws are contravened we can do nothing. I then challenged hon. members, and I still do so, to prove how the law has been broken and to prove where anything illegal has been done.

Is there a law against agitation?

If we are to apply the law against agitation in the way hon. members want us to apply it against the communists, we shall only have the Government in this House and no Opposition.

Answer my question.

That sort of thing is not going to make the passage of your vote any easier.

Answer the man’s question and don’t insult him.

There is nothing insulting in what I said. My point is this that if we are to take it for granted that the Communists are breaking the law because they are stirring up people, then there will be no Opposition in this House— and I am not just speaking of the one Opposition we have here now. I am trying to give an honest reply to the questions put to me, and I am not just trying to get my vote through this House without any trouble.

The reply given by the Minister of Justice reminds me of a report in a newspaper which is edited by one of the members opposite, and it was to this effect, that a clever Minister like the Minister of Justice will easily get his votes passed through the House by giving diplomatic answers to any questions put to him. The Minister gives us to understand that there is something at the back of the Smith case and that if it becomes known one day we shall be glad that the man is still alive. What does the Minister mean by that? What is there that he cannot tell us now? It certainly doesn’t agree with the replies which the Minister gave previously in regard to this question. If the report of his speech is correct the reason he gave before was this, that the British soldiers had behaved so well that if one such case occurred we should be merciful. He also said that if it had been an Afrikaans soldier he wouldn’t have done it. We think that it should rather have been the other way round. The South African soldiers have done just as much as, if not more than, the British soldiers. So why should the Minister now say that he has shown mercy to this man because he is a British soldier, but that he would not have shown mercy to a South African soldier. He also made a comparison with Leibbrandt’s case, but there is no analogy. Leibbrandt could only be found guilty or not guilty, and if he was found guilty there was no alternative but the death penalty. In Smith’s case the court had an alternative. I want the Minister, however, to take the House into his confidence. This war will not be lost or won by his refusing to do so or by his refusing to tell us why mercy must be shown in this instance. Nor can the Minister compare the murder and rape of an 11 year old girl with a political crime such as that committed by Leibbrandt. It is something entirely different. The Minister’s reply about Communism was no reply at all. He tried to make the whole thing look ridiculous as though there were no such thing as Communism in this country. It is impossible in a ten-minute speech to explain to the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation what Communism is. But we do know that arrests were actually made; we know that meetings of a riotous nature did take place, and we heard what the Minister of Justice of a greater Dominion than South Africa has had to say about the matter. And then we have a Minister of this country getting up here and asking what Communism is.

South Africa first.

That hon. member interrupts because he feels unhappy in that party, and he only sits there because he is annoyed with the Labour Party because he was not given a job. He is one of those hon. members who stabs his colleagues in the back. But afterwards he doesn’t say the same things as he says in this House. Let me read what a certain paper wrote about him …

Will the hon. member tell me what that has to do with this vote?

I want to show this Committee the type of man the hon. member is, because he continually indulges in interruptions, but if you think, Mr. Chairman, that I shouldn’t read it, then I shall not do so.

No, I don’t think that the hon. member should read it because it gets very far away from the vote.

Very well, in that case I shall allow the hon. member to continue his writing because I am sure he is engaged on his usual article: “From the Front Bench.” I want to ask the Minister whether Smith is still in the Union and whether he will give us an undertaking that he will not leave the Union until he has served his sentence. I also want to say a few words on a subject on which the Minister has already partly replied. I refer to the question of drunkenness. I asked the Minister earlier this Session whether he would appoint a Commission to investigate this whole subject, and the Minister replied that he would consider the appointment of such a Commission. I understand he has now stated that he will appoint such a Commission.

Only for the Cape Province.

Very well, in that right direction so I need not say any more about it. If we study the newspapers we find that week after week people are punished for offences caused by drunkenness. The Minister has to sanction those sentences and we find that he sometimes reduces them because he considers that the offences were committed under the influence of liquor. I want to point out that this sort of thing creates a very dangerous impression among a section of the non-Europeans. They take it for granted that when they are drunk they can commit any offence and they will get off with a lighter punishment than they would otherwise have had. I want to ask the Minister to go very carefully into this whole question. We expect the Minister of Justice to act impartially in the application of the Act. The law which applies to one should apply equally to anyone else in the country. I don’t want to talk about the merits of raffles and lotteries but we know that lotteries are at present illegal in this country. I asked the Minister the other day whether the police were taking steps against lotteries in view of the fact that they were illegal in South Africa.

What about the lottery in this House about the Wakkerstroom result?

I suppose the hon. member feels sore about the money he lost. I asked the Minister a question about lotteries and the reply was that he did not know anything about lotteries being conducted in this country. In my next question I gave the Minister more details and his reply was that those lotteries were run for war purposes and that in those circumstances the police took no notice of them. I have a letter here which has come through the post in connection with a lottery which has been going on since the 28th March, according to the envelope, and the people responsible for it are: His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Holland; J. A. Cohen, Chairman; Lt.-Col. Levinsohn, Lt.-Col. W. Pontiss …

He is dead.

Mr. L. H. Oates, Mr. S. Gray and the Chairman of the Association of Professional Punters. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, there is one matter which I desire, with all the earnestness at my command, to call to the attention of the Minister under this Vote, and that, Sir, is the apparently unconcerned attitude of his Department to the continuous slaughter that goes on day by day on our roads. The House knows that for years I have urged the introduction of third-party risk insurance with the idea of getting compensation for the dependants of those killed and injured on the road, but now, Sir, it does seem to me that it is high time the Minister tackled this matter from the other end also and considered what can be done to prevent it. Why, for instance, should Pretoria have a fatality rate of 30.8 per 100,000, and New York one of 10.8 per 100,000? Why should Durban have a fatality rate of 27.8 and Cape Town one of 24.8 while London has a fatality rate of 11.6 per 100,000 and Liverpool and Manchester 10.7 per 100,000? Is it, Sir, that South African drivers are less competent? I, for one, am rather reluctant to believe that, and I am quite sure they would rise up in thousands and reject any such aspersion. But if the drivers are not less competent, then the only conclusion I am driven to is that they must hold life cheaper and be more reckless in the manipulation of their vehicles than those of England and America. Either they are less competent or they are more reckless. It is one or the other. And if that is so, and if drivers in South Africa hold life more cheaply, then, Sir, the urgent question arises what can be done by the Minister’s Department to check that tendency. I don’t for a moment imagine that South Africans are naturally more callous than drivers elsewhere, but I do say that there seems to be a more careless attitude on the part of South Africans, and a greater tendency to accept with a shrug of the shoulder this appalling toll of death on our roads, as being in some sort an inevitable consequence of increasing mechanisation. There is no doubt that a certain number of accidents are inevitable; machines do exact a certain toll on our roads, but they should exact nothing like the number that are killed year by year, day by day, month by month, on our roads. Such a holocaust on our roads is not due to accident only. In the four years, of the war period seven times as many people were killed and injured on our roads as were killed on our fighting front. Here are the figures. Over the war period there were 3,549 killed in South Africa and 48,551 injured whereas on the fighting front there were 2,851 killed and 4,413 wounded, making a total of 52,100 casualties on the roads as compared with 7,264 on the fighting front, i.e. over seven times as many. Now the losses in the war are deeply deplored, but the awful losses sustained on our roads no one seems to be concerned about. There are organisations, more particularly the Safety First Organisation, to which I would like to give all the credit possible, which do their utmost to make this country more safety-minded. They do splendid work among children and others but the slaughter has gone beyond private endeavour and the time has come for the Minister’s Department to do something about it. I am loath to suggest Parliamentary interference in the courts of justice, but I do suggest that sentences for culpable homicide, which are sometimes as low as £25 or £50 fine’s, do not meet the purpose. It does seem that more severe sentences in such cases might have a good effect. Today the position seems to be that there is an impression in the public mind that it is not such a terrible thing to run down a human being oh the road. There is no doubt that the courts have an immense influence on public opinion, and so I would suggest to the Minister that his Department might consult with a conference of judges to see what can be done to put an end to this orgy of destruction. I am not vindictive against motorists. I know that the motorist who kills or injures someone on the roads carries on his conscience a tremendous burden of responsibility. But the public should be made to realise the appalling nature of what is going on and I do urge on the Minister that the best way to do it is to call a judges’ conference as to what can be done in regard to this matter. The loss and waste of human life is appalling. And the public conscience should be aroused. It should be made to realise the tremendous suffering recklessness is causing. And it is high time the Minister and his Department tackled this appalling wastage too with a view to seeing what can be done to end it.

I am interested in this debate on account of certain observations which have been made in respect of the Smith trial. The. hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) asked the Minister of Justice whether there are many who think that he is right. There is a subtle difference between being right and in being not wrong. The Minister of Justice must of necessity be faced with a very awkward position when he has working under him in his various departments Judges of the Supreme Court, of the Appellate Court, magistrates and others, and also when he is of necessity required to pay heed to the medical advisers, to his court psychiatrists and so on. He can think what he likes, but it often is not expedient for him to say what he likes— especially in public. This is the reason why his position is rather awkward, especially in a case of this nature. I happen to be in possession of the medical findings in this case. This is a public debating chamber and while I am not so particularly anxious to reveal everything I have before me, I feel that, in the interests of the country, the public should know. I want to make it quite clear at the outset that I hold no brief or wish to show no signs of mercy for the fiend, the maniac, or the psychopath when I discuss the case from a medico-legal point of view. I would read to the House a few of the findings. This deals with the condition of the child after she was found. The child was admitted to the Addington Hospital in the morning unconscious and covered from head to foot in a mixture of blood and sand—

Hon. members will know how much exudation there must have been from her skull—

This could have been caused by the action of long strong thorns being used to beat the body. In the perineal region there was—

1. (a) Complete disruption of vagina with such violence that its mucous membrane lay in shreds. (b) Vaginal orifice unrecognisable from the surrounding areas of trauma. (c) Extensive tear from this area into fat of left ischiorectal fossa, running downwards and half encircling the anus. (d) Extensive tear through anterior vaginal wall running up and exposing the bladder. (e) Extensive tear on posterior wall exposing the rectum. (f) Bruising of the cervix. The whole of this area was filled with clotted blood. There was bruising on the inner side of both thighs.

I would like to ask this question. Is it possible for any medical individual to conceive that the person who committed this fiendish murder, this satanical destruction of this youngster—there are not words enough to describe the heinousness of the crime—is it possible for such a person to be sane?

He was examined by the court.

Yes. The Judge being a layman is of necessity forced to accept the medical, opinion. Another thing I want to point out is that it is possible for medical specialists to differ. I am not suggesting in this House that these medical folks, who examined this man, who said he was normal, were wrong. I say this man; I do not say “Smith,” I şay this “murderer.” They said he was normal. I say this, that from all the medical and legal works I have read—obviously I haven’t read more than anyone in the country nor do I pose as a medico-legal expert—but the person who committed that crime cannot be normal, and if the person was normal it is impossible for him to have committed that crime, unless of course he recovered sufficiently to a state of normality previous to examination. Another point is this. Those who investigate these cases, regard this one as a very interesting case; because if the incarcerated person has committed this crime, it is something out of the ordinary. We are taught that this type of crime on a female who has not yet menstruated is usually perpetrated by a senile pyschopath in the neighbourhood of 65 or 70 years of age. I am not surprised that the hon. member for Winburg brought it up. He brought it up with his knowledge of the legal side, and he was ably supported by other members also with a knowledge of the legal side. But I want the hon. member to remember that from the legal point of view there is the possibility that the man who has committed this crime must be far from normal, and that must leave the head of the Department of Justice of the Union with an element of doubt.

He denied the whole thing.

I am not concerned whether the man is a British soldier, or a South African soldier or a German soldier. I know this that if this man was handed over to the British soldiers his life would not be worth a penny.

The Minister accepted the finding in the Senate.

Yes, quite so. It is very difficult for the Minister to say that he does not accept the finding. I am not saying that the wrong person has been arrested and I am not speaking on the wrongness or the rightness of the case. There are 13 points dealing with the condition in which the girl was found. I have read only a few, and I say that a man who committed this crime cannot be classified as normal and if the prisoner is classified as normal, then it leaves an element of doubt. I for my part must say, from the scientific point of view—even if you think that a maniac like that is better out of the world— that the law does not allow you to hang a man if he is abnormal ….

Don’t you think the defence could have stressed that in court?

There are defences and defences.

Oh, yes, I know that.

I treated your remarks with respect and I expect the same from you. I close as I started. The hon. member for Winburg asked the Minister of Justice what were his reasons for this man’s reprieve. I am not concerned with that. I should like the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) to let us ask the question whether he was right, or not wrong. Since there is an element of doubt in my mind I think the Minister of Justice has some reason to believe he has not acted incorrectly.

I do not intend going into the matter described here by the hon. member. I merely want to point out that what he said certainly was not the argument of the hon. the Minister. If the Minister had got up here and said that he had reasonable doubt about the man’s sanity at the time the crime was committed, there would have been something in the argument. But that was not the Minister’s argument. His argument was that it was a British soldier, and because it was a British soldier, and because of their appreciation of the services rendered by the British soldier, they had reprieved him.

I agree.

Whatever opinion we may have, that individual was charged, he had the benefit of counsel’s assistance, he had a preparatory examination by the magistrate, he had an advocate to defend him, and a judge went into all aspects of the case, and if there had been the slightest doubt about the man’s sanity, the judge would have ordered special investigation. That argument of the hon. member doesn’t hold water. Let me revert to the Minister’s reply in connection with the supply of liquor to Indians. I want to confine myself to the Free State and the Transvaal. The Liquor Law distinctly states in Clause 95—

And now the Minister says that the Nationalist Party altered the law at some time or other.

I myself was Chairman of the Commission.

No Commission can alter a law, only Parliament can alter a law, and I challenge the Minister or anyone else to show me where the law has been amended, and as long as the law is there no Asiatic is allowed to have liquor. That is the law of the land. The Minister is now trying to alter it, and he says that Japanese were exempted in the past. Where and when?

I shall prove it.

The Asiatics are now, for the first time, given the right to obtain liquor in the Transvaal. Indians have never been allowed to have liquor in the Transvaal.

The Japanese could get liquor.

There were no Japanese and they couldn’t have got any liquor. The Minister says that they are now to be treated on the same basis as Europeans. He savs that we know that provision has been made for Europeans to have separate facilities and for the coloured people to have separate facilities for obtaining liquor, but the Minister forgets that in the Transvaal only Europeans can get drink. There is no such thing as a special provision for coloured people such as there is in the Cape. There is only one entrance to a bar, and an hotel and a bottle store. There is no such thing as the native and coloured people getting liquor there. Consequently if the Indian is to have that right he can only get his liquor where the white man gets it, and he will have to get his liquor in the bar where the white man gets his drink. I want to ask what happened at the Palmerston Hotel in Port Elizabeth. The hotel keeper, I believe, refused to serve Chinese and to accommodate them in his hotel. He was summoned and he had to pay compensation. If an Indian goes to a bar and the hotel keeper refuses to serve him he will have the same rights. I also know that circular letters have been sent to all the hotels, by their association, that they must now treat the Indians on exactly the same basis as the Europeans. It is not so, then I want the Minister to state that an hotel keeper need not serve an Indian with liquor. Many of them do not want to serve the Indians. They feel that it will harm them and that they will suffer as the result and they don’t want to serve the Indians. If they needn’t do it, it would be a concession to a certain extent. Generally speaking, the Indians do not drink and in the Transvaal they couldn’t get liquor. The Mohammedan doesn’t drink. It is against his religion. So those people are not protesting and they don’t want that right. I want to ask the Minister who urged him to grant that right to the Indians. The Minister says that the Indians have joined up and gone to the front. Which Indians in South Africa have gone to the front? And if that is the argument, what right has he not to grant the same privileges to natives and coloured people who have gone to the front? According to that argument he will have to give the natives and the coloured people in the Transvaal and the Free State the right to get liquor. I can assure him that the people in the Transvaal strongly object to this, and it will give rise to very great difficulties. Fortunately the Indian has not claimed the right to any extent, but if an Indian were to enter a bar where there are farmers, the farmers would resent it, and great difficulties would develop of which the Minister would be the cause. The people in the Transvaal don’t want to have anything to do with it. It is no use the Minister’s saying that they will not be served in the same place as the Europeans. There are no separate places in the Transvaal, and if an Indian wanted to go into the Carlton Hotel, according to the Minister, he would be able to do so, or he could go into any other private hotel—I don’t mean to say that the Carlton Hotel means so very much to me. No hotel would be able to refuse him, and if you have to supply him with liquor, how can you prevent them from demanding accommodation, how can you prevent them from being accommodated as lodgers? After all, the same argument applies there—that they have been to the front.

I should like to reply to that point. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) said that I was mistaken and that the law had not been amended. Under the law introduced by the Nationalist Party, Act No. 19 of 1928, the following is the position—

1. (a) The class or race commonly known as the Cape Malays;
2. (b) the Jewish or Syrian race;
3. (c) any race, or branch of any race, declared by the Governor-General by proclamation in the Gazette to be excluded from this definition.

That is Clause 175. Because of this clause the Nationalist Party issued a proclamation excluding Japan from the definition, and we are now excluding the Indians in exactly the same way on exactly the same principle and on the same grounds.

I want to come back to the bogy raised here by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). One hears him talking about Canada so frequently nowadays that I have been wondering whether there is any job going there. Perhaps he is after that. I wonder, when he returns from Canada, what kind of -ism he will then pay homage to. The hon. member said that he had warned the country against the terrible danger of Communism. It does sound rather strange if one considers the past history of his own leader. Not long after the old Nationalist Party came to power, the hon. member for Beaufort West went overseas and when he returned to this country, he issued a warning to this country. But on the 23rd January, 1924, his leader said the following—

Shortly before that the Leader of the Opposition was a minister of religion at Graaff-Reinet and at that time he gave a lecture and wrote a book on Karl Marx and lauded him to the skies. In those days he was in love with Communism. Well, 20 years is not such a long time in the history of a nation. Now suddenly the hon. member is terribly concerned about the danger of Communism. When Russia and Germany had a solemn agreement and Stalin was bluffing Hitler very successfully, we heard nothing about this. Then Communism was a good thing. The hon. member for Beaufort West returned from Europe and deemed it fit to warn South Africa against Communism. Why did he not warn South Africa against another danger, another foreign product, namely, Nazism? We did not find him condemning that. Now we hear that terrible Communistic propaganda is going on and we hear that from a member of a party of which a prominent member declared during the war, not in peace time, that the welfare of South Africa depended upon victory for Germany.

Who said that?

Mr. B. J. Schoeman, at the time leader of the Nationalist Party on the Rand.

If you feel so strongly against Nazism, why do you not go and fight?

I have to stay here to assist in keeping those members in order. Mr. B. J. Schoeman was a responsible member of the party and he turned round and said, notwithstanding the fact that we were seriously engaged in the war at that time, that the welfare of our country depended on a German victory. Was that not a dangerous thing to say? Now these members are trying to put up a smoke screen here in connection with communism. That is just what we may expect from a party who is politically bankrupt and who is grasping every little straw in an effort to rehabilitate itself.

The hon. member must return to the vote.

All right, Mr. Chairman, but I kindly wish to point out that the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) has moved the deletion of the salary of the Minister on the grounds that he was making no attempt to suppress the foreign army of communism in this country. In this connection I am drawing attention to the propaganda made by the Opposition. I have here in my hand an official document in which I find that the Minister Plenipotentiary for Germany said the following with regard to the Opposition—

I think that is sufficient proof of what is behind the terrible uproar about Communism on that side of the House and we are convinced that we have to take a little salt with it. The Miniser of Justice has been attacked here and he and members on this side of the House have been accused of not being true Afrikaners and that they adopt an unsympathetic attitude towards the Afrikaners and that that was the reason why we have put people in the internment camps. I am almost prepared to say that we on this side of the House have got more people out of the internment camps than members on the opposite side. I further wish to point out that it is well known what role was played by the Opposition in connection with the Ossewabrandwag and the Stormjaers. We find for instance that on the 29th November, 1940, the Leader of the Opposition said this—

But it was not long after that that we find him telling them that they are a lot of gangsters and he started fighting them. We also know that the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) and the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) declared that they would rather join hands with Smuts than with the Ossewabrandwag. They should not now try to blame us for the position in which those people now find themselves. It was the encouragement which came from their side in this House which has landed those people in difficulties. The Minister of Justice has treated those people sympathetically, more so than the Leader of the Opposition. They talk about true Afrikaners, but I regard the Minister of Justice more of a true Afrikaner than the Leader of the Opposition. If one plays with the people outside, one is playing with fire and I repeat that members on the opposite side are merely putting up a smoke screen and are only playing with the people. All the blame is put on us and it is quite clear that it is merely a political game. Before I conclude I wish to draw attention to the distasteful and unpleasant attitude adopted by the hon. member for Winburg. Every time a Minister replies to the debate on his Vote, he threatens the Minister that if he replies this or that, he would not get his Vote passed. That is bad taste on the part of the hon. member. No threats are necessary as far as this Vote is concerned. The Minister of Justice is quite capable of handling his Vote and it is only a person from Hollywood who could say a thing like that. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) referred here to the question of drunkenness and I just want to ask the Minister of Justice that all sections of the community should be represented on the proposed commission. We would also like the terms of reference of the commission to be comprehensive, for instance, to enquire into all the restrictions advocated by the abolitionists. The hon. member has put his case before the House. He is the leader of the abolitionists in this House. He only sees the one side of the question, the abolition of the opportunity for selling liquor. He even mentioned it in his speech, but then he himself repudiated his standpoint afterwards when he pointed out that if the hours are curtailed in the one district the people will be able to go to another district. In the division of the Cape there are 1,500 shebeens that are known to the police. The position is that these shebeens are in existence for the sole reason that the hours have been curtailed from time to time and I want the Minister to give the Commission the right to go into the question of the sale and the hours and to ascertain whether the curtailment of the hours of sale has not resulted in an increase in drunkenness. I also want the Minister to give the Commission the right to go into the position obtaining in Lourenco Marques. I mention that because there we have a coloured and native population next to the white population. It is said that where we have a European population only, there could be unlimited hours of sale, as for instance in Europe and South America, but not where there are coloured persons and natives. That is why I want the Minister to give the Commission the right to enquire into the position in Lourenco Marques and also here in this country in order to ascertain whether there has been an increase in drunkenness since the hours of sale have been curtailed. As a wine farmer I hate drunkenness as much as those hon. members. But I cannot see why the people should be deprived of the right to consume liquor in a proper way. That is the point that is not seen in the correct light by those people. If a commission is appointed, that commission should be at liberty to go into all these aspects of the matter and to find out whether there has been an increase in drunkenness since the curtailment of the hours. It would also be necessary to determine what the nature of the penalties should be that should be imposed on certain people. As far as the coloured people are concerned it serves no purpose to fine them. Some of them appear in court two or three times. The number of cases mentioned is 50,000, but there might be merely 10,000 people involved, so that it is not such a terribly high number as we are often given to understand. The fines serve no purpose. In one of the country towns I know, the magistrate refrained from imposing any fines and it had a very good effect. The coloured people are needed on the farms and they simply think that their employers will come and bail them out. I know of one magistrate who used to impose a fine of 2s. 6d. and the result was that sometimes the coloured boy would leave 2s. 6d. with his master when he went to town so that he might be bailed out on Monday morning. We will have to impose other penalties. The magistrate to which I referred had the coloured persons imprisoned without the option of a fine and in the course of one year the number of cases of drunkenness showed a decrease of 50 per cent. That is definite proof that the penalties imposed were not correct. I want the Minister to give the commission of enquiry the right to enquire into all these matters. I am putting this matter very clearly so that it cannot be said later that the Minister did not know about it. I also want to tell the Minister that I listened to the reasons he gave for the reprieve of Smith. I am not satisfied and I do not think that the country is satisfied. It is no use saying that it is a question of the war and that the war is made use of in these things to justify such mistakes. Now the Minister says that there is something else in connection with the case, although in the first instance he declared that he had done this because the person was a British soldier. I do not really believe that there is something else. It appears to me as if there is no excuse. I want to tell the Minister that the entire community has been shocked by this incident and by the reprieve. It was such a serious case that even the officer with the highest authority in the country deemed it necessary to declare that he was not responsible for this. It is a serious thing that a person who was a chief justice before and who is in such a high position today, should consider it necessary to exonerate himself of such a thing. It is clear proof that in his opinion there could have been no doubt about the position. It is one of the most terrible murders we can imagine. A girl, eleven years of age, is enticed away from her mother with premeditation, raped and then kicked to death in such a manner that she was mutilated almost beyond identification. It is one of the most cruel murders we have ever had in this country. Now the Minister says that there were other reasons why he granted a reprieve. That is his story now and the Minister must not think that I believe it or that the people outside believe it. If there had been anything of the nature of extenuating circumstances, the court of justice would have taken cognisance thereof and the highest authority would also have taken cognisance of it. If there had been any doubt in the opinion of the court then we would have known about it. There was no doubt and neither was it argued in the case that the man was not in possession of all his faculties. The Minister of Justice can now say that the punishment was imposed as an example to other soldiers and that no more British soldiers are coming to this country, so that the example is no longer necessary. Go home now and when you get there sit down and think how you would have felt if it had been your daughter. It can happen to anybody. How would you have felt if such a cruel deed had been committed and the man who had committed it is given his freedom in 15 years’ time? But there is another reason for punishment which is just as important and that reason is to lock up the man who had committed the crime in order that he may not commit further crimes and there is the further reason that he should be punished for the crime he has committed It may be that British soldiers will not be coming to this country in large numbers any longer. There are still many of them in the country and the British soldiers themselves consider this thing to have been an insult to their name and even they want to see that justice is done. I am very sorry but I am not prepared to accept that and I do not think the people outside will accept it either. I think the Minister must have a guilty conscience if he thinks of what has happened. I am thinking now, for instance, of a man who was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment for the murder of his wife. After 12 or 15 years he was released. When he went back to the place where he had committed the murder all the women were terribly afraid of him …. [Time limit.]

I have only two points I want to place before the Minister for his consideration. The first concerns the question of a women’s civil police force. I put a question to the Minister on that point early in the Session and I should like to know whether anything has been done in regard to the matter. My second point deals with performing animals on which I also put a question earlier on. This particular matter is becoming a serious problem and I would like to know if the Minister would take steps to enforce Act No. 22 of 1935. Let me read an advertisement which appeared in the “Farmers’ Weekly” on 17th May. This advertisement reads as follows—

I don’t wish to say very much more than that, but I would like the Minister’s assurance that steps will be taken to maintain strict control over this serious problem of the training of performing animals.

I was dealing with the lotteries, and although the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) is not in the House at the moment, I just wish to give the House an example of how the hon. member makes use of quotations. He quoted here what the hon. Leader of the Opposition was supposed to have said about Marx and the hon. member tried to create the impression that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition had approved of Communism. What the Leader of the Opposition did say was this: He said that Marx was a clever man, but in that very lecture which he gave he warned against the danger of Communism. One can say that a person is a clever man without approving of the policy advocated by him. There are many hon. members on this side of the House who say that the Prime Minister is a clever man, but they do not approve of his policy. The hon. member tried to create the impression that the Leader of the Opposion had approved of Communism just because he had said that Marx was a clever man.

I do not know anything about it.

Just now I was referring to the lotteries as such. I gave the names to the Minister. I said that the lottery tickets were openly being distributed throughout the country. If there is nothing wrong in lotteries, why not give everybody the right to run lotteries. Allow people who wish to run lotteries to do so. But if lotteries are forbidden by law then it should be applied to everybody without any exception. The Minister of Justice is not there to bestow favours upon certain people. If it is wrong then the Minister should treat everybody on the same footing and that is just where we find fault with him. The impression we get is that the Minister of Justice is not exercising his power in the way we expect him to do. I put certain questions to the Minister of Justice. I put a question to him about a certain prominent person who was sentenced to imprisonment in Somerset West. I asked the Minister to furnish me with certain facts in connection with the case. The person is a certain Jaffe. He was involved in the embezzlement of money. He was an attorney and for a long time he made use of his position to get money from people and he embezzled that money. The Minister said that there was £15,000 involved in the case. I asked him—

The reply was—

Everybody knows that if an attorney embezzles money his name is struck off the roll of attorneys. I asked the Minister to give me instances and he said I could come to his office and see for myself. He referred to certain instances where a similar reduction of sentence was granted. But there is not one instance that can be compared with this one.

It is exactly the same.

If that is the case, I want to ask the Minister to read out those instances in the House, where a man abused his position and embezzled £15,000 and is not doing hard labour. That was the sentence imposed by the court, but this man is not doing it. I say that one should not apply the law in the one instance in one manner and in the other instance in another manner. The there is another matter I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister. I have a letter here written on the 23rd of March, 1944. I will not mention the name of the person, but I will show the letter to the Minister if he wishes to see it. This person writes—

I am reading this in order to show why we cannot have full confidence in the Minister. The law is not always applied to everybody in the same manner. In this instance this man abused his position most grossly. He embezzled £15,000. Certain persons went to the Minister and asked him not to concern himself with the case. I have a letter in connection with a case which would have been brought before the court. I read it here. It is the case of the Automobile Association of South Africa and the A.A. Mutual Insurance Company in the case of Rex versus Crocker and Whiteley. I asked the Minister whether charges were laid against certain persons with the names of Crocker and Whiteley at the magistrate’s office. I asked the Minister what became of the case and he replied that the case had to be re-investigated and that it would be re-opened. I would just like to tell the House what the position is at the moment. I do not know when the case will be re-opened, but there is a strong suspicion outside the House that certain persons have gone to the Minister and used their influence to prevent the case from being brought before the court. I shall read this letter—

And then he goes on—

As far as we have ascertained from the Minister these facts are correct, but notwithstanding the fact that these persons were charged, the Minister is now as silent as the grave about this case. I would like the Minister to give us some information about this case. Then I would also like him to tell us why the sentence of Jaffe was reduced from six years to four years. I would also like him to tell us why Jaffe is not doing hard labour. Then I would also like the Minister to tell us why the Polish Jew was released while the other person is still being detained.

I think I should reply immediately to certain important points raised here. That might prevent unnecessary discussion. Before dealing with the last question, I wish to state what the policy of the Department is with regard to lotteries. It is exactly the same as in the past. It may be taking place on a slightly larger scale during war time, but the policy has always been to allow lotteries at church bazaars, etc., because they are held purely for charitable purposes. Where lotteries are held purely for purposes of charity or for war purposes, where no profits are made and where it takes place under proper supervision, the police take no action. That is a principle which has always been applied in the past. The hon. member cannot tell me that he does not know of any lotteries that are allowed at church bazaars, etc.

But not on such a scale as this.

It was purely for charity and war purposes.

Are you in favour of lotteries for hospitals?

There is a big difference between charity and war.

That is a different matter. The lotteries are properly controlled and administered. I am merely pursuing the policy that has always been applied. In the past it has always been allowed at church bazaars and for war purposes where nobody makes any profit from it. I want to deal at once with the Somerset West case. It is not necessary for any names to be mentioned here. This man in Somerset West was an attorney and he was sentenced to imprisonment for six years. The hon. member said that there were no similar cases. There was one instance of an attorney in the Transvaal who also embezzled money and in that case the circumstances were exactly the same.

He embezzled an amount of £32,000.

He got six years. I was approached by certain sections, in exactly the same way as in this case, and after everything had been taken into consideration, we reduced the six years to four years as in this case. If anything, that case in the Transvaal was much worse that the one at Somerset West.

Then you have two sins to answer for.

Many hon. members come to me with representations for the mitigation of sentences and that is the practice.

Was the mitigation of the sentence in the Somerset West case a tribute to the Jewish army?

When the other case occurred at Pietersburg it was an Afrikaner and nothing was said then. It would not have been fair if I had acted differently in the case of Somerset West. With regard to the A.A. case, I want to say that the matter is being thoroughly investigated. I never interfere with these things except where it is prescribed by law. It is a matter for investigation and there has been a lot of trouble in connection with the case. The investigation took a long time and eventually a conference was held. At the one I was present; at a subsequent one I was not. I received a report from the Secretary for Justice and I am acting on the recommendations of the Secretary for Justice, the Attorney-General, two law advisers and the police who investigated the matter. They have agreed as to the action to be taken, but as the case is sub judice, it is not in the interests of the country that I should say anything further about it. Just in order to put a stop to all this kind of talk, I wish to state that the matter is being proceeded with. With regard to the case of the Pole, a petition was submitted. The law advisers enquired into the matter and it appeared that this man had merely been a pawn in the game, he is an old man of poor health and the law advisers recommended very strongly that we should do what we have done. I acted on their recommendations.

And what became of the Afrikaner?

I do not know. We must judge the facts. We cannot say the one is a Jew and the other an Afrikaner.

But that is the point.

I referred to the Transvaal case just now where nobody made any objection, but when we acted in the same manner in the Somerset West cáse, objections are raised. These matters can only be dealt with on their merits. As far as the Pole is concerned, it was quite clear that he had merely been used as a pawn in the game. The matter came to me through the Department. As far as the enquiry is concerned, I have not discussed the matter with my colleagues yet. I agree that the commission should be as impartial as possible, but I do not think it would be advisable to have too large a commission. My own opinion is that the membership of the commission should not be much more than three. But I will discuss the matter with my colleagues. The points raised by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) will be submitted to them by me. I agree that the investigation should be comprehensive.

As regards the point raised by the hon. member for Nigel (Maj. Ueckermann) this point about the women police has given us a little bit of trouble. The matter is still being investigated. I do not say it will be necessary, but if it is necessary to have men to inspect the women police it would not serve any good purpose. The matter is one of considerable difficulty in this country, and is not so easily applicable as in England. As far as the question of the performing animals is concerned ….

What about animals?

In reference to the performing animals, I have taken steps to see that there is no undue cruelty. A question was raised in regard to the enforcement of certain regulations. The police only came in after they had broken these regulations, but I do think we should have a national conference on the subject, and I shall discuss the matter with the other departments ccncerned.

I would like to mention two questions which have been referred to by the Minister. He said that nobody has been interned who was not guilty. A number of people were charged together with Leibbrandt. They were found guilty by the court and the Minister interned them. There was a number of other persons at Johannesburg who were acquitted by the court of a charge of high treason, but the Minister had them interned. Were they not guiltless? They appeared before the court and after the judge had heard all the evidence he found them not guilty. But when they got outside the prison, the Minister caught them and had them interned. And then he tells us that he has never interned people who were not guilty. Then I wish to say something about the ban placed on the book “The Roman Catholic System”. The Minister has given us a very poor reply here today. He said that in war-time everything possible should be done to prevent bad feelings being aroused in the country. Are all the Roman Catholics then in favour of the war, and if the book had not been banned, would they have turned against the war? Or are all the Protestants in favour of the war or against the war? No, that argument is really too ridiculous. How can the Minister come here and tell us that because of the war the book was banned? The book was written 50 years ago. And who enquired into the character of the author? The police of today? The Protestants in South Africa have never been more grossly insulted than by this action of the Minister. The Protestants have never asked the Government to ban any writing published by anybody else. The Afrikaans ministers of religion were insulted by the visits of the police to their parsonages. Why were the Afrikaans parsons picked out? A wave of indignation has passed through the Protestant churches and the excuse given by the Minister does not hold water at all because it amounts to this that if he had not banned the book all Roman Catholics would have turned against the war, because he calls it a war measure. That is what his reply amounts to: that if he had not banned the book, the Catholics or the Protestants would have turned against the war. That is the poorest reply I have ever heard. Let the Minister be bold and tell us frankly that he had banned the book at the request of the Roman Catholics. The Minister is trying to ingratiate himself with every section. If a strike threatens where trade unions are involved, he rushes there with the Minister of Labour to curry favour with the trade unions. In this instance he was currying favour with the Catholics. He is currying favour with every section for the leadership of his party. I wish to express my strongest disapproval of the action of the Minister.

The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) a little earlier on quoted certain evidence given before the Select Committee on Public Accounts by the Secretary for Native Affairs which, he said, was evidence satisfactory to himself of the prevalence of what he described as communist propaganda amongst the native people. This evidence related to a situation which has arisen in the district of Pietersburg, and it relates to certain grievances of the native people in Pietersburg against the land settlement policy that is being pursued there. I have session after session listened to the member for Beaufort West complaining of the prevalence of communist propaganda among the native people, and I have always listened eagerly for any evidence to be produced. I myself am a person who not only represents the native people in this House, but who holds many meetings among the native people and who comes in contact with their leaders, and no evidence of anything which the hon. member for Beaufort West is always referring to has, at all events, been brought to my notice. This evidently is the kind of evidence on which he relies, and I want to quote what the evidence was.

I read it out in full.

Yes, but I want to comment on it; because I am going to ask the Government for something, and I hope the hon. member for Beaufort West will support me. The Secretary for Native Affairs was dealing with the situation in Pietersburg with reference to the land settlement policy being pursued there, and the opposition his department had met from the native people in that district—

Then the hon. member for Beaufort West came in—

Have you had any evidence of Communistic propaganda amongst the natives?— I cannot say that it is Communistic, but there are agitators who are very busy among my people stirring them up and upsetting our measures of control.

Mr. Bell: Are the agitators European or native?—Natives, but we feel sometimes they have Europeans behind them.

Don’t read that last part so softly, read it out.

—

Have you the names of any of these people?—Yes, we are removing several of them.

Can you give us the names?—I have the names of a number of them.

Natives or Europeans?—Natives.

No Europeans?—I certainly have evidence that there is European influence behind this.

Read that a bit louder, every time you read those parts very softly.

†Mr. MOLTENO:—

Four of these people whose names are mentioned include a native who is an ex-school-master and who has been for a number of years President of the Transvaal African Teachers’ Association. He is a man of some prominence. There are three others and my information is that none of these people are Communists at all. The hon. member for Beaufort West mentioned Kotani. He is a Communist, but the hon. member for Beaufort West does not mention in what circumstances he went there. He went there during the elections for the Native Representative Council to support the Communist candidates. Now I think it would be fair for the hon. member for Beaufort West, when he talks about Communist propaganda amongst the natives, to point out that two Communist candidates stood for the Council election and were both defeated. The hon. member does not mention that.

I did not know that, but I am very glad to hear it.

There are more things you don’t know.

I thought the hon. member for Beaufort West did not know very much.

I am glad to know what you have just told me.

He apparently does not know that the Communist candidates were defeated in the election.

They were also defeated in France.

The hon. member for Beaufort West keeps on interrupting. We are going to raise this matter again on the Native Affairs Vote, and we are asking for a full enquiry into this situation.

Who are “we”?

The members on these benches. Will the hon. member for Beaufort West support us in our demand for an enquiry into what is going on in Pietersburg?

I will hear what you are asking for first.

It is our contention that this situation at Pietersburg arises from genuine grievances in relation to the Land Settlement policy being pursued there by the Native Trust. I am not going into the merits of that state now, Mr. Chairman, because you would rule me out of order; it will have to be raised on the Vote for Native Affairs. We are asking for an enquiry into the Land Settlement policy there and why it was necessary to remove these people who were making representations on behalf of the natives. I want to know from the hon. member, is he prepared to support us in that demand for an enquiry and to abide by the result of that enquiry?

The hon. Minister of Justice said this afternoon that he was going to appoint a commission to enquire into the abuse of alcohol in the Cape Province. I live in the Transvaal, and although I take liquor, I would like the commission not to be limited to the Cape Province but must also cover the other Provinces. My reason is that there is not only an abuse of liquor in the Cape Province but also in the rural areas in the other provinces where the natives come into contact with liquor; and our families are in danger when there is no control. I therefore hope and trust that the Minister will not only include one province but that he will take steps for having the enquiry cover other provinces. We can also go to the large cities in the other provinces to see what the position is. I do not want the sale of liquor to be stopped but I want to appeal along with others for moderate sales and use of liquor. I therefore want to ask the Minister in all seriousness not to restrict the commission to the Cape Province but also to include the other provinces in the enquiry. Then I would like to deal with another matter. I want to thank the Minister on behalf of those in Northern Transvaal whom he has released from the internment camps. Their families have made the sacrifice to come to me to thank me and they have asked me on their behalf to convey their thanks to the hon. the Minister of Justice. I do so now and I trust that the Minister will accept it in the spirit in which I am conveying it to him. They feel that members of their families acted wrongfully and they are grateful that the Minister has shown mercy.

I would like to bring a matter to the attention of the Minister. On the 10th April a young man, Alex Jensen, was shot dead by a coloured guard in the internment camp at Andalusia. As a result there was great indignation. I want to point out to the Minister that this side has urged that internment camps should not be placed under coloured or native guards. It appears in this case that a coloured guard went too far and did not take the necessary steps before going to the extreme. He simply shot blindly and killed this man. As a result a petition was addressed to the Minister reading as follows [Translation]—

What is your assurance that defenceless internees will in future be protected against a repetition of this incident?

There is only one way to prevent a repetition of an incident of this nature and that is the immediate removal of the coloured troops from the camp at Andalusia.

We ask you respectfully not to refuse our request so that the good relationship between internees and the camp authorities be not disturbed.

This is a petition signed by 20 wives and children, members of the families of the internees. I think that this incident is a very sad one because it appears that this young man was shot dead at four o’clock on the 11th April and the parents received the following particulars: About 11 o’clock a person in civilian clothes called upon them and handed a telegram to the daughter stating that the son, Alex, had been shot dead and that the funeral had taken place on the same day at eleven o’clock. The mother writes that they held a memorial service that evening because the son had already been buried. Subsequently the undertaker informed them that the body had been sent to Johannesburg and that it had been buried there on the thirteenth of the month at State expense. That is a statement signed by the mother of the youth. She is an Afrikaner, born Van Staden. The father of the son arrived from Germany in South Africa in 1899. He was naturalised there and later in the Union. The son was interned. The circumstances of the shooting incident are as follows as given to us. On that evening the gate was open and there were no guards. A few of the internees walked through, and after passing through the gate, when they were about twenty yards from the coloured guards, and without “halt” having been called, they were shot at by this coloured soldier and he shot the young man in the chest so that death was instantaneous. It appears that these coloured guards do not exercise sufficient self control when incidents such as these occur. I trust that the Minister will take all possible steps to prevent such sad incidents again occurring in our internment camps. Then I would like to ascertain from the Minister whether he does not consider it advisable, especially where Union nationals are detained in camps, not to place coloured guards there who act in this manner? He knows that we feel very strongly about colour and I want to express the hope that he will remove these coloured guards there. I am informed that fifty of these coloureds serve as guards in the camp. There is also another side to the matter. It is alleged that the gate was purposely left open as a kind of trap for the men. But my main objection is the following. The Minister of Justice knows that the police regulations provide that they must not shoot immediately but that they must take certain other steps before taking extreme measures. In this case it was not done and I am asking the Minister to appoint a committee of enquiry from his Department to find out how far there had been compliance with the regulations under which these soldiers have to carry out their duties. I also want to know what has been done with the coloured soldier. Was he charged before the court with culpable homicide? It is a case which has caused much concern in the Transvaal and numbers of relations of these people feel concerned about this state of affairs. This young man was 25 years of age and an engine driver. My information shows that his father came to South Africa in January, 1899, and his mother was born here. Then there is another case. That is the case of a young man whose mother lives in my electoral division. At present he is at Germiston. I am referring to the case of Nicolaas Gerhardus Swart. He is 28 years of age; he is married and his wife is at present at Germiston. He was interned under the emergency regulations and he is one of those who have been charged and been found not guilty. Immediately thereafter he was interned. He may have been a Stormjaer; I do not have that information at my disposal. Recently he was granted six weeks’ parole and was in Germiston when his wife had to undergo an operation. He was first placed on parole for three weeks and subsequently the period was extended to six weeks. On the 4th of April he returned to the Cape. He was formerly in the police service but he bought his discharge before the war. As far as I can ascertain there is nothing against him except that he was concerned in 1939 in a case of assault when he was still a commandant in the Ossewabrandwag; but he was found not guilty. The mother of this young man is in my electoral division and she is deeply concerned about this youth. The whole family believes that he is not guilty and as far as I can find out he is not guilty of sabotage, and as the Minister has laid it down as his policy that where anybody has not been guilty of sabotage he will be released, I trust that he will release this young man also. [Time limit.]

One would have thought that after the hypocritical propaganda carried out by the Opposition in the recent by-election they would have avoided being criticised for their inconsistency on the question of commuting death sentences. I feel that anything we may say in this House on this unfortunate question cannot alter the decision come to. The Opposition’s attitude can only serve one purpose and that is to revive bitterness and sorrow in the minds of the unfortunate parents. I personally believe in a life for a life, and I can only hope that this murderer will meet with an early death in gaol. I agree with the Minister when he says that had this soldier or murderer been an Afrikaner we would not have had this discussion at the by-election or in this House. If the Opposition disagree with me, I would like to remind them of the Coetzee murder case in Pretoria. I do not know of a more premeditated cold-blooded murder in the annals of crime in South Africa. In this particular instance he did not only take the life of the unfortunate Miss Opperman, but he took the life of an unborn baby.

He wasn’t sentenced to death.

He was sentenced to life.

By whom?

By a judge. But that doesn’t alter the fact that we had a Nationalist Government in power and no one raised any objection, no one said that the individual should have been sent to the gallows.

We cannot criticise a judge.

You could have raised the question and not altered the law. It was a most cold-blooded murder and it was up to the members of the Opposition to have made their voices heard, and it would not have been the first time for a judge to be criticised in this House. When this individual was sentenced to life, his wonderful football qualities were referred to by the judge. That evidently was why Coetzee used this unfortunate girl as a footfall notwithstanding her condition. It ill becomes the Opposition to have tears in their eyes when dealing with these questions. I say that they are not sincere, and I say so for this reason, that when there was attempted mass murder at a railway line near Pretoria, when there were thousands of soldiers on the train, at least 60 per cent. of whom were Afrikaans-speaking, the Opposition supporters made martyrs of the man who was blown to atoms and of the other one who was killed. I feel, irrespective of parties, the question of commuting death sentences has gone on for many years, and if the Opposition want to make propaganda out of cases such as these, then the quicker members of this House get together on non-party lines and agree to abolish capital punishment, the better, because they would be doing a great service to the person who has a relation murdered. I now want to deal with one or two points of a more savoury nature. I again want to appeal to the Minister of Justice to investigate the question of police protection in Pretoria, Recently a deputation from Pretoria came to see the Minister in Cape Town and he promised to go into the matter. I understand that certain steps were taken which resulted in a temporary improvement. But I have received information from Pretoria that thieving and burglary are still going on on a large scale. If there is a shortage of policeman, as I know there is, then I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to make use of some of those special police, 300 who were employed at Iscor and paid off recently in summary fashion Could not they be used in the police force for night patrol to try and lessen the tremendous number of burglaries. I also want to appeal to the Minister that when the Commission recently appointed is investigating conditions of the Public Service, to make special representations to see that the members of the C.I.D., the police and the prison warders have their rates of pay increased, because I feel that quite a number of individuals would like to enter these forces, but the starting rates of pay are too low.

The hon. member who has just sat down has made the mean allegation against this side of the House that if Smith had been an Afrikaner we would have pleaded for a reprieve. I reject that allegation with the contempt it deserves. He puts forward the case of Coetzee. The hon. member is so dense that he does not even know that Coetzee was not sentenced to death. The judge did not impose the death sentence; and the hon. member says that we did not complain about it. He states that we should have asked for an alteration to the law. But the law is quite clear on this point. Punishment for murder is the death sentence if there are no extenuating circumstances. The hon. member must not talk so much nonsense in this House as he has been doing this afternoon. Let that hon. member rise and state that they approve of the action of the Minister. We would like to know whether they approve of Smith being pardoned. They have not the courage to say that they approve of the Minister’s action. Let the members from Natal rise and say it. I would like the Minister of Justice to address a meeting in Durban and advance the arguments he has advanced here this afternoon. The Minister of Justice will not have the courage to defend this case in Durban and to use the arguments he has used here this afternoon. He will not do it. The Minister has advanced here as his main reason that it was a British soldier and that if it had been a Union national he would not have done it. It is not the policy of the Union Government to depart from the death sentence and if Smith had been a Union national he would not have recommended a reduction of the sentence. The Minister has referred here to the wonderful work of the soldiers. According to his utterances I assume that if a Union soldier who has fought in Egypt and Abyssinia had returned here and committed such a crime he would not have extended mercy. Then that argument would not have applied; he would not have shown such mercy to a Union soldier. But he extends that mercy to a deserter from the British army. Quite conveniently the Minister has not stated that Smith was a deserter. He wants to create the impression that it is a brave British soldier; he does not state the fact that it was a deserter, somebody who did not do his duty. To show his gratitude to the British army he reprieves a deserter from that army who commits a mean crime in this country. The man has previous convictions. He is a criminal and he is a deserter from the army. But in admiration for the British army he has to extend this mercy to a murderer. No, that argument is not acceptable and I even notice that the Minister has acknowledged that he has insulted the British Army. When a certain Senator stated that the British Army feels deeply insulted the Minister stated: “I agree.” He thus agrees that the British Army is insulted thereby, that he spares the life of a deserter who has committed such a serious crime. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Dr. L. P. Bosman) comes here from his study with his learning and pathology. Why did the counsel of the accused never try to prove that the man was not normal? They never did it but the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) talks glibly and tries to cast doubt upon the finding of the medical men who gave evidence in the case. What right has the hon. member to cast doubt on this matter? What value can one attach to his evidence when he did not even remotely see the person? What is the value of his evidence against that of medical men who saw the person? Here from his study the hon. member asserts that the person was a lunatic while the medical men of Durban who examined him stated that he was normal. His opinion is valueless against the opinion of those who had examined the person.

Your opinion is perhaps of value?

I am not going on my opinion but on the opinion of the medical men and the judge and the jury and they all state that he was not suffering from any abnormality. What right has the hon. member to say that he was abnormal? It is nonsensical to come along and reject the judgment of these people when he never had the opportunity to examine the man. I prefer to accept the opinion of the medical men to that of persons who did not see him. I do not cast any doubt upon the ability of the hon. member but then he must have seen and examined the person. The reply of the Minister is completely unsatisfactory. A storm has swept the country to show what the people thought of it. The Minister refers to the Benoni case. There the judge had no choice. I was present myself when the death sentence was imposed. The judge even asked the defending counsel whether he could give another decision than the death sentence and the reply was: “No, according to the emergency regulations you are compelled to impose the death sentence whatever the extenuating circumstances may be.” I am convinced that were it not for the emergency regulations the judge would have imposed another sentence in that case. The persons were not found guilty of murder but of a crime under the emergency regulations for which the death sentence had to be imposed. It is not in terms of the law but in terms of a proclamation of the Government. We are extremely dissatisfied with the Minister’s action in this case, and he gets no support from his own side. Not only the Afrikaansspeaking people are dissatisfied. Most dissatisfaction in connection with this case is found amongst the English-speaking people. In the English Press you even now find numbers of letters of protest. There is nation wide dissatisfaction with the wrong step taken by the Minister.

The hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) dealt very exhaustively with the question of the judicial commission that was appointed to investigate certain matters connected with a citrus company. I do not propose to follow him, nor to deal with the matter too extensively, but there is just one aspect of that particular matter to which I wish to refer; it is this: I understand that the costs of that enquiry will run to something like £30,000 or £40,000. I think that is a fair estimate of what the costs are going to be. All I wish to say is that it is a great pity the country was put to that tremendous expenditure merely because of a very undignified and unpleasant wrangle between two high officials; that is what it turned out to be in the end. It appears that these two officials carried on a war of words in their correspondence with each other, and the result was this enquiry, which ultimately will cost the country something like £30,000 or £40,000; I feel I am entitled strongly to voice my protest against that unnecessary expenditure.

It was just to create employment for certain unemployed advocates.

Now, Sir, I want to ask the Minister whether he proposes to take into consideration the recommendation I find here in the Hotel Investigation Committee’s report; it is the recommendation contained in paragraph 47 of that report which reads—

We see then that the committee recommends that such a board should be established particularly with a view to controlling liquor licences. I think the appointment of such a board is long overdue, and I hope the Minister will tell the Committee that it is his intention to act on this recommendation. I have in mind a recent application that was made by a couple of retired police officers for a liquor licence in one of the suburbs of Pretoria, and they came very near to getting that licence too. I have no objection to that, but when one realises that that licence, if obtained by these people, would have gone the way of all other licences, that is to say, they would within a very short space of time, have got into the hands of certain interests which appear to be working in the direction of establishing a corner in the liquor trade; when one thinks of that, I say it is high time that we did have some controlling board that would make quite sure that these licences are not trafficked in in the way they have been in the past; and that if transferred they will not be transferred to people who are undesirable and who are really not fit to hold such licences. I wish to impress on the Minister that I think it is a most desirable board to have established. It is an undesirable thing, and does not work very well, when the local licencing boards, consisting of a couple of town councillors and one or two other nominees presided over by the magistrate, have to deal with this important question of liquor licences. In the earlier part of the Session I asked the Minister a few questions that I now want to read for the information of the Committee. The first question I asked—and I want to comment on it afterwards—was—

The Minister’s reply to that question was—

I should like to ask the Minister whether he has considered it further, and whether he will give the Committee an undertaking, if he has not done so, that it will be considered, and very seriously considered soon. I say that because all members are aware that the public is very much alive to the large numbers of burglaries that have been taking place particularly in the Transvaal, owing, of course, to shortage of police, and whilst the police are sufficiently vigilant to bring these culprits to book, one has also noticed that where people have been charged with being receivers, they have escaped, largely because there is no definite proof forthcoming that the property they offered for sale, the property they received, was stolen property. I say, Mr. Chairman, that if the law is so altered ….

Order. I should like to remind the hon. member that it is improper in Committee of Supply to advocate legislation.

Let me then just say, Sir, that I hope the Minister will take into consideration the question of investigating this aspect of the matter, to see if something cannot be done to bring these receivers to book. Then I asked the hon. Minister this further question Is there in existence an institution for the proper and efficient training of policemen and detectives in crime investigation and detection; if so, whether he will give the House some information in regard thereto, and if not, whether he will take into consideration the advisability of establishing such an institution under trained and experienced instructors.

The answer the Minister gave was—

That was a satisfying answer up to a point, and may I just say here that some of the Opposition papers sought to ridicule me for asking such a question. They said in affect: “Here is the member for Pretoria, who does not know of the existence of such a depot in his own town.” Let me say I know very well that there is such a depot in existence. I know it only too well, because at one time I contested Pretoria (West) for my party, and it was my privilege to visit that depot, and I there saw what very good work was being done. But in asking that question—as I say I knew those people were being trained there—I had in view something better than what is being done there at the present time. My own idea of crime detection is that it should be undertaken by, shall I say, a better paid man and a person who has, if I may say so, a higher standard of education, because crime detection today is a very skilled occupation. All I wanted to know was whether the Minister would provide the country with an institution such as I know they have in England and America, where people are trained in the higher branches of crime detection, and where they are paid very much higher salaries than we pay our police force. [Time limit.]

I want to confine myself mainly to this important matter of the reprieve of Smith. I want to say that this House and the country are disappointed with the reply of the Minister and with the manner in which he has acted. If we are to make a summary of the action of the Minister of Justice this afternoon then it amounts to this: This case is a very serious one. It is a case which has stirred up feeling throughout the country amongst all sections of the community. And then the Minister of Justice comes along and he gives us the impression as if it were not necessary to say anything more about the case in the House. He gives us the impression that he said something in Another Place about it and had given his reasons therefor and that it is not now necessary to say anything further in this House in that regard. Thereafter he took up this standpoint: “Well, I am now going to give the reasons, but if I give the reasons it may be that it will not be all my reasons. There may still be other reasons which I am not giving.” And then the Minister concluded at this enormous tempo that he was not going to give us all the reasons, that we must ourselves find out those reasons some day and when we then do find them then we will see that he was right. That now is the attitude of the Minister of Justice in connection with a very serious case such as this. But to come nearer now to the reasons advanced by the Minister. The only reason on which he has concentrated, or the main reason advanced by him, is that this person belonged to the British Army and that the British Army has protected us now in this country. Let me say to the Minister. It is not the British Army which has been protecting other people in this war but it is other people who have been protecting the British Army and have protected British interests. If he says that the British forces have taken part in the war and that the British Army has protected us in Kenya, in Abyssinia and elsewhere then we want to say to him that it was the Afrikaners who have protected. British possessions there; and then he comes along and uses this argument here to serve as the reason for the reprieve. The Minister’s argument goes even further and he states it quite clearly that if it had been an Afrikaner he would not have shown him the same mercy. The only reason is that the person is not an Afrikaner but a British soldier. To the Union national he would not have shown the mercy. Briefly I want to say to the Minister: Since he has become Minister of Justice scenes have been enacted in this House in connection with our administration of justice which do not make us feel happy. We have had cases, discussed here, where the Minister has extended mercy, and every time it has appeared that he has shown less mercy to people of his own blood.

What about Leibbrandt and Coetzee?

Those are not analogous cases. In the case of Coetzee there was no death sentence. If there is one thing which convinces us of the justice and injustice of this reprieve then it is the hedging of members on the other side. The few who rise to speak about this case simply hedge by referring to cases which are in no way comparable. The one member who actually discussed this matter is the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Dr. L. P. Bosman) and he very clearly intimated to us that he does not accept the reason given by the Minister as good reasons. He has stated that they are nonsensical reasons and he then attempted to give to the Minister a better reason. He gave a professional decision of what the position might have been or could have been.

What it was.

I do not want to say anything about the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) as a medical man but when an enquiry of this nature is required into the mental condition of a person then it is carried out by a psychiatrist and that examination took place in this case. If there had been any doubt it would have been brought out in court and then the Minister would have intimated it to this House as the reason for the reprieve. Where mercy is extended in such cases then it is because there is some doubt in the mind of the judicature. But now the hon. member for Gardens comes here without having the least evidence before him and he considers that this or that may have been the position. If it had been the case it would have been brought out in court. He in any case attempts to give a sounder reason to the Minister as the one given by the Minister to us. I want to object seriously against the attitude now adopted here by the Minister. He appears here behind a screen of secrecy and says to us that he gives these reasons but there may perhaps be other reasons which he is not giving. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) has stated that a Minister of Justice sometimes finds himself in a peculiar position. He may know a thing but he may not declare it. I now want to say to the Minister of Justice that we are here concerned with a matter of great importance and that he ought to take this House into his confidence. If he has any reason for doubt then he ought to rise and furnish the reasons for such doubt to the House. The Minister rises here and he intimates that there are other matters which he will still ascertain and that we will then be glad that he acted in this case in that manner. Is that now what the administration of justice in South Africa must be; is that the example to be set by the Minister of Justice where such a case has been dealt with by our judicature? Then we can simply make any mistake in our administration of justice and say to the public outside that it must be satisfied because it does not know everything in connection therewith. That is the sort of thing we have to do. I want to say to the Minister that he owes this House and the country a full statement and that he must not endeavour to create the impression that there are things which he cannot say and may not say.

I just want to ask the Minister of Justice why he does not suspend the issue of new liquor licences for the duration of the war? I ask it in the first place because it would be consistent with the Government’s policy. We know that the Government has, in connection with land settlement, laid down the policy that it was not going to grant land during the war, until the soldiers have returned. I now want to ask the Minister to carry out that policy consistently and not to allow new businesses of this nature until the soldiers have returned from the front. What is the position today? The Minister knows, I think, that this House knows it and the public outside knows very well that all is not in order in the issue of liquor licences. When the board has to decide on the issue of a licence then there are always two or three soldiers, wounded in the war, who reply. If we go into the matter properly then we find the people behind the licences are not wounded soldiers. It is always the liquor magnates who are applying and that they are simply using the sympathy of the board for the wounded soldier to obtain a liquor licence. The liquor magnates are busy exploiting the sympathy for our wounded soldiers to acquire liquor licences. They use the wounded soldier’s name and as soon as they have the liquor licence then the business belongs as little to the wounded soldier as to me. The liquor magnates simply use these soldiers to acquire liquor licences. If there is anything in our country which detrimentally affects the liquor trade then it is the manner in which they exploit the wounded soldiers. I protest against it and I ask the Minister whether it is not possible, although it may now be rather late, to suspend the issue of all new licences until the war is over. And when an application is received from a wounded soldier then the board has to make certain that it is not a liquor magnate which is behind the matter. Now, I want to ask the Minister whether it would not be better if he were to abolish all liquor licensing boards and make the issue of licences subject to the approval of a court consisting of a judge as chairman, and a jury chosen in such a manner that the parties concerned do not know who will on the following day decide on the licence. Supposing there is a list of 100 jury members then lots can be drawn at the moment for the twelve to decide on the licence. Then there will be no danger of other influences being exercised, no influence from the side of those men who are so astute in obtaining licences.

That also is dangerous because you may perhaps find people who know nothing about the matter.

No, it ought not to be an objection. That objection would also apply in respect of other liquor licensing boards. In my opinion it would be better to have such a system of jury members, elected in this manner. I say emphatically that in the issue of our liquor licences matters are far from being in order. One’s feelings get the better of one if one thinks of the way things are now going. It is a shame for Johannesburg and for us all if what we learn is happening in connection with licences is true. I trust that when the period for the present boards expires it will be the last we hear of liquor licensing boards in South Africa.

I want to reply immediately to the points raised. Apart from my private opinion the issue of liquor licences does not vest in me and I may not prescribe what the boards have to do.

On a point of personal explanation. The hon. Minister must not assume that I in any way considered that the Minister exercised his view in a single case.

That was not my impression. I have no jurisdiction to submit it to the licensing boards. The liquor law is of course somewhat obsolete. The point has been considered whether we should appoint a commission of enquiry but it has not been possible. The commission which has now been appointed has to enquire into the conditions in the Western Province especially but into the conditions in the Cape Province as a whole. It is not practicable to appoint a commission but the whole matter is being considered by the Government. In connection with the point raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Clark), as far as the report is concerned, that enquiry has been undertaken for special purposes. The whole matter of our liquor laws is being considered by the Government. I am not one of those who believe that one is to place the onus overmuch on the accused. He has to fight the whole power of the State and I believe that it is wrong to place too much of the onus on the accused. But as I have stated the matter is being considered.

With regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hopf)—the question of burglaries—there has been a good deal of cleaning up in Pretoria. We trust the steps we have taken will lead to further improvements and I certainly hope the whole trouble will be adequately dealt with. As far as the other matter is concerned, it certainly is a subject which the Public Service Commission of Enquiry will are thus incorrect.

*I now want to refer to the case raised by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie). His facts are completely wrong.

As usual.

He says that the gate was open. He says that the men passed through. That is quite wrong. They climbed over the gate. They ran away. It was shouted to them to stop but they did not stop. They were about 200 yards off in the grass. The facts of the hon. members are thus incorrect.

Distortion.

No, I will not say that it was a distortion but his information is incorrect and the matter was thoroughly enquired into by the magistrate at the post mortem and the finding of the magistrate was that it had been done in the lawful exercise of his duty apart from the regulations in connection with the matter. It is customary in connection with the matter of coloured soldiers. It was also done during the last war.

Do you approve of it?

It is not being done in connection with Union nationals but there can be no complaints if we do it because it was also done during the last war.

Was the person not a Union national?

He had been in South West Africa. He belonged to a Nazi sabotage movement and it is not an innocent matter as hon. members would like to show. Other cases have also been raised here where persons have been found not guilty. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) referred to them but he forgets that they were found not guilty in many cases on the evidence adduced. Take the case of the persons who were found not guilty some time ago in Johannesburg. Take the case of Kroukamp. For two years he was abducted and he was treated in such a way that he is today in a lunatic asylum. The hon. member now wants us to release those persons. In the case of Kroukamp the court has done so because we were unable to persuade Kroukamp to give evidence.

What of the case of Leibbrandt?

In the case of Leibbrandt there were persons who gave us information and for their protection we had to take these steps. We are of course not going to release persons where we know that they are guilty. When a case occurs where two witnesses are required and they refuse to give evidence they are interned. Kroukamp, the chief witness, was abducted. It was a dangerous case. It was connected with sabotage and I think the hon. members will appreciate that no government can under such circumstances release such a person. I have now given the reasons. I have compared the punishment of Leibbrandt with that of other cases. But I think that a very important speech has been made here this afternoon to which hon. members do not want to attach any value. I have explained my position in Another Place and I am explaining it here again. Whatever my opinion may be in connection with the person who committed the murder on the girl has nothing to do with the matter. I accept the finding of the court and I accept as far as Smith is concerned the statements of the persons who examined his mental condition. Therefore nothing what I say now must be taken as casting a reflection on the court but I only want to repeat what the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) has stated here. The hon. member is not alone as far as that opinion is concerned. They are matters submitted to me but I cannot depend on them.

By whom?

I cannot tell that.

Still more secrets?

There are very good reasons why it should not be given. It has been said here by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) that, speaking medically, apart from Smith, if one looks at the body of the murdered girl and takes it into consideration with all the other facts one must come to the conclusion that the person is a lunatic; this is what the hon. member has said.

But that was not his defence.

The crime has been committed, as the hon. member for Winburg has expressed it, by a mad animal. That was the view of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) and also of other persons, that the person who committed that murder is a mad animal and therefore they argue—I may not argue that way—but their argument is that ….

Is that a defence?

… the man who murdered that girl is a lunatic and if the medical men are right that Smith is normal then he did not commit that murder; hon. members must bear in mind that there was no direct evidence in the case.

It is a British soldier, and that is the whole matter; it is of no avail to talk about it.

I have spoken about the matter of British soldiers and I take full responsibility for what I have said. I am referring here to the distortion of the facts referred to by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens). It is the opinion of the hon. member, and it is supported by prominent medical men in this country, that the man who committed the murder must have been a lunatic and on the other hand if Smith is normal then he could not have done it. If I am asked here to defend my opinion then I say that I accept, as Minister of Justice, the finding of the court and that of the medical men but I do say that these are arguments which I cannot reject in a frivolous manner.

I did not intend speaking about this case but one is compelled after the explanation given by the hon. Minister and the speech of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Dr. L. P. Bosman) to say something. We must accept that the court examined the matter properly. We must indeed accept that the bench very thoroughly went into all the aspects of this case. The bench will surely not find an accused guilty of murder unless it is in the first instance convinced that the accused is the murderer, and in the second place that the murder has been committed within the scope of the provisions of the law and to sentence the accused to the death penalty. Surely in fairness we must accept that the bench went into the case thoroughly. We are not doing justice to the bench by expressing judgment on its work. We must accept that the bench—the judge was judge Carlisle—did not perform its work well and thoroughly, and we must accept that the bench was not satisfied with the evidence, that it was not satisfactory and final and perfect in this case to guide it to another conclusion. There must be no question about the decision of the court. We dare not doubt it and the judge did not recommend mercy. The judge cannot be accused of having had a racial feeling in the matter. He has only judged upon the facts before him. But we are not alone in this view. Nobody less that the head of the State feels the same about this matter and he has expressed himself in public on this matter—an exceptional incident—to express himself in public in this matter and that on a special occasion. We thus do not stand alone in this matter and the acting head of State is an old chief justice of the country. He chose an exceptional occasion to refer to the matter and he has led us to believe that he did not concur in this decision. Thus we do not stand alone in this matter and when we raise the matter hon. members must not accuse us of racial hatred. Not one member opposite and not even the Minister has attempted to defend this matter on its merits. If we are to build on the reason advanced by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) then the only thing a murderer has to do is to commit murder in such a vile form as he is able to because then our Minister of Justice will say that the man must be a lunatic and if he is not a lunatic then he did not commit the murder. There is no case in such an excuse. What becomes of our judges? Do we have no judiciary? The judiciary is there to administer justice for the whole population, irrespective of colour or race and the bench has given judgment in all the other cases referred to here and we abide thereby.

Did you abide by the decision in the case of Liebbrandt?

As the Minister knows it was a political murder as the Jameson invasion was a political murder.

Leibbrandt was a renegade.

Jameson was the biggest renegade, just as you are a renegade.

Order, order. The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw. There are tens of thousands of English-speaking people who agree with us. Listen to what the father of the little girl says—

That reflects the feeling of the country. We feel concerned about the action of the Minister in this matter. We feel concerned and we trust that he will not build further on the logic of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Dr. L. P. Bosman) and on the reasons he himself has advanced, in future cases.

We shall hang you if you are found guilty.

Has the hon. member the right to say that? I may only say that the member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) is actually not worth anything and he does not deserve the consideration of any decent and thinking person. He, more than anybody else, lowers the status of this House. He conflicts not only with us but also with the Speaker and with you Mr. Chairman. He has become a stumbling block in the House. He is an old man and we would like to respect him but he causes us who are young not to respect age.

On a point of order, may an hon. member say that another hon. member has made himself a stumbling block in the House?

The hon. member may now proceed but he must not be so personal.

We want to protest strongly against the violation of the administration of justice in our country.

I want to express my surprise at the hon. Minister. I have here the report of the debate in the Senate. The Minister devoted six columns to explaining his attitude, namely, that he had made this recommendation because of the fact that the accused was a member of the British Forces. Well, as a result of the speech which was made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Dr. L. P. Bosman) the Minister has now changed his whole attitude. He now gets up and makes a long speech and shifts his whole position. He did not mention this new proposition in the Senate. There he stated—

When the Minister spoke in the Senate he was prepared to accept the certificates of the doctors. When he spoke this afternoon for the first time he did not mention the question of the possibility of mental derangement. But after the hon. member of Cape Town (Gardens) had spoken, he shifted his whole position and argued that the man might be insane.

I stated clearly that I adhered to my former attitude, but that this was a point which hon. members on the other side could not ignore.

You yourself are ignoring it.

The Minister is now trying to draw a distinction between his personal opinion and his attitude as Minister.

I also did so in the Senate.

Well, here we have the evidence which was given in court by medical men, not one but more than one—because the plural is used. They gave evidence that this man was not mentally defective. But what is of very much more importance is this, namely, the duty of the judge on the bench. The Minister, by profession, is an advocate. I had an opportunity for years, as the registrar of judges, to gain experience, and I can testify to this fact—and probably the Minister can do the same—that when a judge has any doubt at all, especially in a case where the death sentence may be imposed, he would not hesitate if he is worthy of the position of judge, to say: “It is true that the doctors said that the accused is normal, but the circumstances surrounding the crime are such that I think the accused might possibly have been temporarily deranged.” Does the Minister want to tell the House that any judge of standing would sit on the bench and allow a man to be sentenced to death if he has any doubt? Now I come to the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens), and I want to express my surprise at his attitude. Here we have the position that medical men—usually specialists in mental diseases in such cases—were called in, and they stated that the man was not mentally defective. I do not know whether the hon. member for Gardens is a specialist in that sphere.

No.

Specialists were called in, and they had an opportunity of seeing and examining the accused. They came to the conclusion that he was not mentally defective, but the hon. member for Gardens— and I say it with all due respect—has the audacity to get up in this House, never having seen the man, and to say that because the crime was committed in a certain manner he is of opinion that the man was mentally defective.

On a point of explanation. I said that the man who committed the murder could not have been compos mentis.

The hon. member is a pathologist, an expert in his own sphere. Here we have a man whom he did not examine and whom he never saw, but nevertheless he expresses his opinion on the matter. What would the hon. member have said if he, as a pathologist, had given a certain opinion as a result of personal investigation, whether in regard to the patient’s blood, or some other condition, and another doctor in Pretoria or Durban were to say: “But according to certain evidence my opinion is this, that or the other.” If the doctor concerned did not agree with the hon. member’s opinion, I should like to know what the hon. member as a pathologist would say. But, of course, the Minister grasped at it. Why? Because he realised that his attitude in recommending clemency, because the soldier was a member of the British Army, was very weak. I can only say that the attitude of the Minister of Justice casts a serious reflection not only on the specialists, but also on the judge. The judge had an opportunity of hearing the evidence and seeing the man personally, and it is far reaching for the Minister to cast any reflection on their judgment. I want to repeat what the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) said, namely, that the Minister of Justice, as an advocate, knows that in any murder case the first defence which counsel for the defence will plead, is the defence of mental derangement. That is a typical defence in such cases. I want to ask the Minister this: I take it for granted that Smith was defended by counsel, and that the Minister gave him a good advocate. Why, in view of the particular circumstances which were referred to by the hon. member for Gardens, did his counsel not advance this argument in defence of Smith? I notice the hon. member for Gardens is shrugging his shoulders, but now the Minister grasps at that defence, and shifts his whole position, because he realises that his first standpoint is unjustifiable. We as a party are not looking at this matter from the point of view of the man’s identity. We are not opposed to clemency in certain cases. I personally have very often, especially where it concerned young people, pleaded for clemency. But in this case there were no grounds for it at all, and the story that clemency was shown because he was a soldier who had done a great deal for South Africa, does not hold water. Where did the soldiers go who passed through Durban? Practically all of them were on their way to Australia or India. How can the Minister advance the argument that they saved South Africa? Not only does he cast a reflection on the judge and the medical men, but also on his own Union troops. He adopts the attitude that it is the foreign troops who defended our country. But on the other hand we are told, especially in recruiting speeches, that our men drove the Italians out of North Africa. According to the Minister the British troops saved South Africa. No, the Australians came via South Africa on their way to England, and the other troops landed here on their way to India and Australia. The Minister apparently takes a greater interest in and has greater sympathy for the soldiers in transit than he has for the father and mother of this child who was murdered in such a brutal manner. He has more sympathy for those soldiers than for the parents of this child. This attitude on the part of the Minister is interesting, because it is an admission that his first defence is so hopeless that he himself did not want to adhere to it. Now he grasps at what the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) said, although the specialists in Durban clearly stated that the man was normal.

Mr. Chairman, the whole question comes down to this, a German soldier was sentenced to death in this country, and the Government reprieved him, and before he was reprieved our friends on the other side went on their knees and asked that he should be reprieved, a German soldier, in a German uniform, who came to this country in a German U-boat with the object of upsetting this country, turning it upside down and having thousands of our children murdered.

Did he rape and murder a young girl?

I don’t know whom he raped, I know how your friends raped young children in Europe and he belonged to that army. I don’t know whom he raped, he was a friend of yours and you may know.

Order. The hon. member must address the Chair.

Well, then, Mr. Chairman, through you I don’t know whom this man raped, but the hon. member should know because he was a friend of his. A German soldier came to this country in a U-boat, and our friends over there asked that he should be reprieved and he was reprieved, and I was the first English-speaking journalist in this country who wrote an article asking him to be reprieved. I saw the Minister and I went to ask for Leibbrandt to be reprieved, but there are a large number of English-speaking people who will never forgive this Government for reprieving him. They believe that Leibbrandt should be hanged, and I believe, secretly in his heart, that the hon. member, the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan) would have been far more pleased if Leibbrandt had been hanged. They don’t want him ever to come out of gaol and hang them. I have been listening to the Minister very carefully and I am going also to read what he said in Another Place. He said—

“Whatever my private opinion may be.” I want to repeat that because one of the main reasons which induced him to recommend a reprieve was the fact that the man was a member of the British army. This is not the first case of a British soldier being reprieved in this country. We reprieved a Canadian not so long ago, a young Canadian soldier committed a murder in Natal, and he was reprieved because he was a member of the forces. There was no noise made then, our friends never said anything about it. That is the second case and it works out equally—one British soldier reprieved, one German soldier reprieved, and two men reprieved who were responsible for killing people in the Benoni explosion. Sir, I would like to believe that the hon. members on the other side are really earnest and sincere in pleading the cause of this unfortunate man, in pleading that he should be hanged. I believe, Sir, if that man had not been in the British uniform we should not have heard a word about this from the hon. members. That is my absolute belief.

Don’t judge other people by yourself.

Probably it would have been better for Smith if he had been hanged. I believe if that unfortunate man had not worn a British uniform our friends on the other side would not have said a word, it would not have been raised by them in this House. If that man had been one of their own party they would have asked that he should be reprieved. I don’t for one moment believe that they are honest and sincere in this attack they are making on the Minister.

Order. The hon. member cannot say that he does not believe that the Opposition is not honest and sincere.

No, Sir, I know, but Mr. Chairman, when I was called a traitor just now there was no apology called for. The worst thing you can call a man in South Africa is a traitor.

We are now dealing with the matter before the Committee.

I am only putting a matter before the Chair, I don’t quite know where I stand with the Chair. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman; you will tell me how I stand with the Chair.

Order, order. All I can say is that the hon. member should observe the rules.

Mr. Chairman, I want to know whether, if I call an hon. member on the other side a traitor, I must apologise or withdraw.

I am sorry I cannot answer hypothetical questions.

That is a matter I can bring up later. I seem to be in conflict with the Chair the whole of today. [Interruptions]. My friends on the other side won’t shake me about that, I shall give every courtesy to the Chair, but I don’t know how far I may go about this position. I don’t think the Nationalist Party are for one moment sincere when they write in their papers that they are sorry that this man was not hanged. I say the Nationalist Party outside were hypocrites. They wanted this man Smith hanged because he was a soldier in a British uniform and that is the opinion of English-speaking people in this country. [Interruptions.] My friends on the other side think they are going to get political kudos by bringing on to the floor of this House the case of a poor, emotional man who lost his only child, and I say that is the lowest form of politics I have ever heard of in my life. For a member to get up in this House and lay bare the heart of a poor father who has lost his child in such circumstances, and to make party capital out of it, is one of the most astounding things I have ever seen, and this to come from the leader of the Symbolic Trek. I always had the greatest respect for the hon. member, I wrote him up and I had the greatest respect for him, but I never thought he would go so far as to lay bare the heart of an unfortunate man whose child had been murdered in such circumstances purely for political ends. We have had enough of this in this country.

What about the “Natal Mercury”?

I will close my remarks on the hon. member. I will give the House a little of his history. I have never seen a man bowled out middle stump better than he was by the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno). [Time limit.]

I just want to ask whether the Minister will be prepared to report progress and ask for leave to sit again.

No, I am not prepared to do so.

Move it.

In that case I move—

My reason is that this vote is still very far from being disposed of. There are many members who still want to take part in the debate. When the Acting Prime Minister altered the sitting hours he stated that we would carry on after a quarter to seven if the vote under discussion was nearly disposed of. This vote is far from being disposed of, and I think it would only be fair on the part of the Minister to allow us to go home so that we can discuss this vote properly tomorrow.

I do not think we should accept this motion, and I am not prepared to agree to it. I think it is the wish of the majority of members to sit a little longer. Hon. members had a holiday on Saturday afternoon, and we can now make up for that time to some extent.

Last Saturday has nothing to do with this vote. Members on the other side wanted to go to the footbal match, and we agreed to finish at 1 o’clock. Every year the same thing happens; certain votes come up for discussion at a late stage, and we have to dispose of them in the late hours of the evening. The same thing happens every year with the vote of the Minister of Justice, and I should like to know why this vote has to be disposed of in such a hurry. We all want the session to come to an end, but if the Minister wants that to happen, concessions should be made on all sides. We have been sitting the whole day, and this vote only came up at 12 o’clock. It is 7 o’clock, and the Government now expects us to carry on without supper until this vote has been disposed of. We shall not finish within half an hour. There are numerous speakers on this side of the House who want to take part in the debate. If we adjourn now, we can discuss this vote properly and dispose of it tomorrow. The Minister will gain nothing in this way. I say it is unfair. I have been in my seat the whole day, because I am in charge of this vote, and now that we are tired, the Minister wants the vote to be disposed of in this manner. Is it the Minister’s intention that we should finish this vote?

Yes, only the Justice Vote.

I want to make an appeal to the Minister to discontinue these methods. I told him at the beginning of the session that they would again try to put votes through towards the end of the session when we are tired. He then stated that it was a matter for mutual arrangement. We have now come to an arrangement, but the Minister simply wants us to carry on.

Why did you threaten this morning?

I had the right to tell the Minister that if he gave this type of reply, he could not expect his vote to be disposed of speedily. I want to tell the Acting Prime Minister again that he ought to be reasonable; in that case we too will adopt a reasonable attitude.

We are quite prepared to be reasonable, but in that case we expect reasonableness on both sides. We hoped to come to an agreement as to the date on which the session will end, and if we had succeeded in doing so the position would have been different. But we did not arrive at an agreement. It makes the position extremely inconvenient for members, for the railways, for the officials of the House, if we do not come to such an agreement. We tried to do so today, but without success.

Whose fault is that?

But apart from such an agreement, it is in the interests of the House to dispose of this vote.

I sincerely hope you and I, Mr. Chairman, will not get into conflict again because there is no man I have greater respect for than you. But what are we dealing with now …

We are dealing with the question that progress be reported and leave granted to sit again.

Oh, very well, I shall deal with that. I think that this discussion should go on because I do not think we have ever heard such poor arguments from the Opposition as we have had today.

You are a good judge of poor arguments.

There is no Minister more kindly and more accommodating than the Minister of Justice.

He never says anything.

He comes here with a benign smile and answers all the questions in a nice way. And what does the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) do? He throws up his arms like a windmill and says: “We shall know how to deal with you if you answer like that.” The Minister haş answered every question. It is a long time since I have heard a Minister answering questions in a nicer and more courteous way. He tells them everything they wanted to know and a lot of things they didn’t want to know, and it is because of that that the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) got up and had such a lot to say. He is an expert on every subject—the biggest expert in this House except William the Silent, the hon. member for Swellendam over there—the hon. member for Beaufort West is an expert on Canada, on America, on crime—although he is a briefless barrister—he is even an expert on judges—although he has never appeared before a judge, which is a very lucky thing for him. And we are prepared to sit tonight, and tomorrow too and to see it through.

You’ll have to sit next week as well.

I have sat in this House hour after hour—I have not missed a single sitting, although I live a long way from here. But hon. members over there go away—and stay away for weeks. Some of these members were away for 20 days at Wakkerstroom, wasting the time of the country.

Yes, to your sorrow?

Not a bit of it—you’ll find that out all right, but we had to do the work of the House. There is no hon. member on the Opposition benches who can say that he has spent as many hours in this House as I have. Tonight they have another Wakkerstroom party on so they want to go away. Nothing doing. We shall sit here as long as you like. You can make the session as long as you like. We don’t mind. We are prepared to meet you man to man including the emotional Trek Leier (Mr. Klopper) who throws up his hands in holy horror. We are ready to see this thing through to the bitter end. If some of the Ministers want to go home they can go all right; I shall lead the party and I am sure we shall have a lot of recruits. I am an old man but this old man will take on any young man over there. We are prepared to take on the Nationalist Party at any time on this question of Smith, and leave the country to judge. I wish the leader of the House would go out for five mintues and he will then find that all members sitting behind me here, will give the Opposition all they ask for.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—23:

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, A.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

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

Noes—57:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fawcett, R. M.

Gray, T. P.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Neate, C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Solomon, B.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Motion to report progress and ask leave to sit again, accordingly negatived.

I should like to come back to the vote. I just want to put a few questions to the Minister of Justice, since he is a lawyer. When a judge comes to a certain finding and the report goes up to the Minister, does the Minister usually act on the report if it recommends clemency? I wonder whether the Minister can mention a single case where the Governor-General commuted the death sentence in the absence of a recommendation that clemency be shown? I just want to give a brief imaginary outline of what would have taken place in court. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Dr. L. P. Bosman) stated that in his opinion there was a possibility that the accused was not altogether compos mentis. I want to ask the Minister as a lawyer whether he has ever been in court where such a possibility existed, and where counsel for the defence or the judge himself did not strongly emphasise the point? If the Minister says that the speech of the hon. member for Gardens did not influence him, why did he raise this point after the hon. member for Gardens had spoken? I want to touch on another matter, however, namely the question of internees. I want to leave the Smith case. May I just add that as far as we are concerned it is not a matter of a soldier or a civilian. This is probably one of the most atrocious crimes in the annals of history, one of the most repugnant murders which shocked the whole nation. But I want to come back to the question of the internees. When the Minister made this statement at the time, he gave the impression that the internees would be released on a large scale. [Quorum.] The Minister stated that with the exception of small groups no Union citizens would be detained in the camps. That is the impression he gave. I recently asked how many internees were still in the camps, and the reply was that on the 1st May the number was 301 Union citizens, of whom 220 were Union citizens by birth and 81 by naturalisation. I should like to know whether all these people committed sabotage. But there is another point I want to raise. The Minister sometimes releases people, but frequently under impossible conditions. I have in mind one person whom the Minister released, and who had a practice in a certain place. He had been in camp from the beginning of the war. He has not got a penny left, and his family is seriously in debt. Now he has to live in some other place. How can he carry on under such circumstances? He has to live in one place and his family in another. Financially he is broken. Why should such conditions be imposed? Why is the position of such a person not investigated when he is released? The conditions which are imposed are impracticable. Why is it done? Then there in another point. We, as members of Parliament, have approached the Minister in connection with people whom we should like to have released. I take it the Minister goes into those cases when the promises to do so, but we are then told that the person concerned cannot be released. Latterly there has been a different tendency, and that is to give a specified person or persons the credit for having been instrumental in obtaining the release of these people. When one makes representations, one’s request is refused, but then the internee is told to apply to some other person, and thereafter he is released. The Minister knows the specific case which I have in mind.

No; will you give me the name privately?

Surely the Minister knows to whom I am referring. The Minister refuses to accede to our request, and then he tells the internee to approach some other person who may be able to effect his release. What is the object? These are reasons why we need time to deal with the Minister, because we feel that Justice is no longer what it was under other Ministers. I want to ask the Minister whether every member of the House is treated alike, as should be the case. I am glad that these people are released, but why are these methods adopted? I feel that there are still people in the camps today who are absolutely innocent. In the particular case to which I referred, I am absolutely convinced that the man is innocent. We are given no reasons. The man is ruined, he is released under impossible conditions, after he has been broken. I think this person is innocent. Why cannot reasons be given in this case? I am suspicious. This person had a contract with a certain company, and the firm was anxious to get rid of him. When he was interned, someone else was appointed in his place, and I think those people are not anxious to have him back. [Time limit.]

If there is one matter which gives us reason for satisfaction in connection with this sad tragedy of the Sidney Smith case, it is the natural reaction which came from every right-thinking person in this country. This commutation of the death sentence cuts across the feeling of right and justice of every right-thinking person. It was a spontaneous reaction which followed on this brutal crime, regardless of race or politics. This brutal crime was condoned by the person who has the proud title of Minister of Justice. In the midst of all the unsavoury features of the case, there is one gratifying phenomenon, and that is the natural reaction of the people; the disapproval of the action of the Minister of Justice. This is not a matter of English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking people, or one party or another party, but this was the reaction on the part of all right-thinking people in the country. Unfortunately there are exceptions. The untainted name of South Africa has unfortunately been tainted. There are certain persons—I am glad there are only a few—who are trying to justify the Minister’s action. The greater majority have shown that they still have a feeling of right and justice. One need only read the English newspapers of Natal and the Cape. Read what the English-speaking ministers of religion said in regard to this case. I welcome that. The few exceptions are to be deprecated; but if there was no darkness, one would not know what light was. If there are a few who try to justify this act, they only succeed in bringing to the fore more clearly the innate fair-mindedness of a large section of the population, Afrikaans-speaking as well as English-speaking. What is the defence of the Minister of Justice? He put up a six-column defence in the Senate which is tantamount to this, that clemency was shown towards this person because he was a member of the British Army. I thank God for the fact that the English-speaking people rejected that defence, and that they had the courage to say that the British Army would feel grossly insulted. In adopting this course the Minister did not honour, the British Army, but grossly insulted them, and it must be said to the credit of the English-speaking section that they did not allow their sense of justice to be clouded by racial considerations. Attempts were made to drag racial feelings into this matter, but fortunately those were the exceptions. I know of no single responsible person inside or outside this House who approves of the action of the Minister. I am now referring to responsible persons. I think it is a blot on the history of Justice in South Africa. I think we can reject this defence with the contempt it deserves. As long as there is any justice in our country, this step on the part of the Minister of Justice will redound to his shame. The Minister has now advanced another defence, namely, that the person who committed that atrocious crime was mentally deranged.

I did not say that that was my defence. I said that it could not be proved that the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Dr. L. P. Bosman) was wrong.

If the Minister tells me that he does not rely on that argument, I need not go into it any further.

Does the Minister reject it?

No.

If the Minister does not reject it, it remains his argument and part of his defence. This is the second defence which the Minister advanced, namely, that this person was mentally deranged. He is supported in that attitude by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens). It surprises me that a medical practitioner should have the audacity, since he did not have an opportunity of examining this person, to say that his colleagues who had an opportunity of examining the person, are wrong. It is a reflection on them, on the judge, and on the common sense of the hon. member for Gardens himself. If such an argument had come from a layman, we could still have understood it, but we cannot understand how a medical man can adopt such an attitude. He says that judging by the man’s behaviour, he must have been mentally deranged. Judging by the unreasonable deeds of the Government towards this side this evening, we should then say that everyone on the other side is mentally deranged. One simply cannot advance such an argument and adopt such an attitude. I again want to ask the Minister whether he still maintains that this person was mentally deranged, and whether he recommended clemency on that ground.

You have said so little that I shall not reply now. I shall reply to it later.

The Minister should tell us whether he relies on that defence. I want to be fair towards the Minister. If he says that he does not rely on it, we need not go any further into this allegation of mental derangement.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) said in connection with the release of certain internees that certain members make representations and that others get the credit. I mentioned the name of Senator Raubenheimer because from the very beginning, he took a great deal of trouble to make representations on behalf of those people, and where he started with any case, I naturally discussed the matter with him. It does not behove the hon. member to make such charges. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) made representations; the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) also made representations, and it was reported in “Die Burger.” I do not blame them for it, because the reporter got hold of it, of course. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) also made representations; and in those cases we could do so we made concessions. I think it is very unreasonable to attack Senator Raubenheimer here, because he took a great deal of trouble and incurred expense to make representations to us. Where he gave an undertaking it was always carried out, and that is something which also counts. The latest figures in my possession are up to the 13th May, and at that time there were 174 Union subjects in the camp. Since that time a number has been released. There were 24 people from South West Africa and two from neighbouring states.

Are they all saboteurs and policemen?

A great number of them. I do not want to go further into this question raised by the hon. member; not because I cannot do so, but it may adversely affect the internees concerned. I am merely warning the hon. member in a friendly spirit. I do not begrudge anyone the right to criticise my department on this occasion, and I shall reply civilly even when personal attacks are made on me. I repeated in this House what I said in the Senate, and I adhere to the reasons I gave there as to why I made that particular recommendation to the Executive Council. There were certain considerations which influenced me, but the reasons which I gave in the Senate are the reasons which I was able to publish, and I stand by those reasons. As far as my own position is concerned, certain questions were put to me as to whether this, that or the other might have been the position. The question was put whether this person could have been mentally deranged. Assuming we have evidence from experts that a man who committed such a crime must have been mentally deranged, and, on the other hand, we have evidence that this person is not mentally deranged, it raises a doubt as to his guilt. I say, therefore, that I cannot eliminate evidence of that nature. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) will agree that even where a man has been found guilty by the court, it sometimes happens that evidence later comes to light which proves that he is innocent. I know that in England a man was imprisoned for 18 years, and it then transpired that he was innocent. I dare not act on that, and I did not act on it. I therefore gave the reasons which I did. But as far as I personally am concerned, I cannot exclude the possibility of any evidence which is submitted to me.

Was such evidence submitted to you?

I say again that I gave the reasons which I could make known, and I stand by those reasons, but as far as I personally am concerned I could not exclude any evidence. If one medical man tells me that such a murder could only have been committed by a mentally deranged fiend and it is proved on the other hand that this person is not mentally deranged, it raises a doubt as to whether he is actually the guilty party. I say that the court may convict a person, and cases constantly arise where it subsequently transpires that the convicted person is innocent. We have had such cases in our country. I was asked whether I excluded such considerations. I say that I do not exclude them. But I do not use those considerations as arguments to support the recommendation I made. I say that I could not exclude all those considerations, but it is a different matter to say that I made the recommendation on the strength of those considerations. I stand by what I said in the Senate. These other matters have been raised, and the standpoint of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Dr. L. P. Bosman) was distorted. But one thing is certain, and that is that we cannot reject the point of view of the hon. member. When men of experience tell me that such a murder could only have been committed by a mentally defective person, and I am told on the other hand that this man is normal, the question immediately arises whether he might not be innocent, as he himself stated. Tomorrow or the day after, other evidence may be adduced. It does sometimes happen in connection with such cases. It may be difficult to prove the person’s innocence, when in actual fact he is innocent. It may be difficult to prove it, but there should be an opening for it.

If there is any doubt, should he not get the benefit of the doubt?

It is a matter for the court. Once he has been found guilty, the Crown will sift the evidence very carefully. All I am saying here—and it applies to all cases, and in all countries where there is justice—is that where the Crown obtains evidence which indicates that the man is innocent, it acts accordingly.

I find it difficult to follow the Minister’s logic. On the one hand he says that he does not want to use the possibility of Smith being mentally defective as an argument in support of his action, but at the same time he says that he does not want to exclude it. The Minister cannot have it both ways. He should either advance it as an argument or reject it. He cannot include it and at the same time exclude it. I want to analyse his argument for a moment. The hon. Minister tells us that there is always a doubt, that a man who is found guilty by the court may be found to be innocent years later. He did not say that a person who is found not to be mentally defective may be found to be mentally defective years later. If the Minister wants to apply that principle, it means that the death sentence should never be imposed, because there is always a possibility that in the distant future it may be found that the man was innocent or that he was mentally deranged. If that is the position in our country, then I say the time has arrived when we should pass a law to abolish the death penalty. It becomes a farce. The Minister says there is a possibility that in the distant future it may be found that the man was innocent. If that is the case, it should be applied consistently; it should not be applied in certain cases and not in other cases. If there is a possibility of evidence coming to light to prove that Smith is innocent, I want to ask the Minister whether there is any case where the possibility is excluded that it may be found in the distant future that in actual fact the person was innocent. No, an argument like that does not hold water. It does not behove the Minister of Justice. It does not behove any man who has a knowledge of legal practice, and least of all it behoves the Minister of Justice. He now states that certain evidence was submitted to him, after the judgment of the court. As far as I am able to gather, that evidence must have been submitted to him after the finding of the court, because it is one of the first defences which counsel for the defence would advance in dealing with such a fiendish act. One of the first defences he would raise would be that of mental derangement, and not only counsel for the defence, but if he failed to do so the Crown Prosecutor would give instructions or ask the judge to commit the man to an institution to be placed under observation, so that it may be determined whether or not he is compos mentis; and if the prosecutor fails to do so, and counsel for the defence fails to do so, it is the duty of the court, if it has any suspicion that the man is not compos mentis, to commit him to a psychiatrist and to hear his evidence. Neither counsel for the defence nor the Attorney-General nor the judge in this case asked that this person should be placed under observation, and if he was placed under observation the medical evidence was of such a nature that they came to the conclusion that he was compos mentis. The hon. Minister says that he is in possession of medical evidence. The Minister told us that evidence had come from medical men stating that anyone who commits such a fiendish act cannot be other than mentally deranged. I want to put this question to the Minister. Did those medical men have an opportunity of keeping the accused under observation? Did one of them have an opportunity of saying: “I am not going to judge this man’s action from an academic point of view, but I am going to keep him under observation, not for a few hours but for at least fourteen days”? Did the evidence which the Minister obtained come from a psychiatrist who kept Smith under observation for fourteen days? I should like to have an answer from the Minister to that question. Is the evidence which the Minister got of that type, or is the evidence of the type adduced by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens), evidence which is not worth the paper it is written on? No medical man would have the audacity to judge the mental condition of a man without having kept him under observation. Even where one keeps a person under observation, it is difficult enough to judge in many cases, but where one has not had him under observation it is impossible. Is that the type of evidence which the Minister has? If that is the case I can only say that the sooner the Minister discards that evidence, the better it will be for him and for the administration of justice in this country. Then I want to put this to the Minister. Was that evidence which he had at his disposal also submitted to the head of the State? Was the matter submitted to him? He had to act on the advice of his Cabinet, of course. If this evidence existed and if it influenced the Minister to any degree, did he submit it to the head of the State? I take it that if there is anything in that argument he would have submitted the evidence to the head of the State, and if he did submit it to the head of the State, it is clear that the latter would have rejected that evidence, because otherwise the head of the State would not have gone out of his way to say at a graduation ceremony that he did not accept the responsibility, leaving the impression that this decision was forced on him by the Cabinet. In our present head of the State we not only have a man who occupied a high position in the world, but a man who was an advocate for many years, a man who was a Minister of Justice, a man who was a judge and who ultimately occupied the position of Chief Justice of South Africa; and I say that if that evidence meant anything I would have put this test: What impression did that evidence make on the head of the State of South Africa? And judging by his action, it made no impression on him whatever. I should like the Minister to explain what type of evidence it was, and whether he submitted it to the head of the State; did the head of the State accept that evidence, and if it was submitted to him, why did he go out of his way to explain to the public that he was not responsible for this—one might say—violation of justice which took place? Surely, it must be a very serious matter if the head of the State goes out of his way to explain that he had nothing to do with the matter. I want to give the Minister an opportunity once again to take us into his confidence, and to tell us what is the nature or the effect of the evidence which he obtained after judgment had been given, and which constitutes one of the considerations which he does not want to exclude in dealing with this case. It is remarkable that, except for the fact that he states that he abides by the judgment of the court that there was no mental derangement, he did not advance this argument in the Senate. He did not say that evidence had been submitted to him, and that that evidence had influenced him. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) put certain questions to the Minister. We on this side waited to give him an opportunity to reply to those questions. I cannot see how the Minister can say that questions are distortions. I understood the Minister to say that after the trial had taken place, certain information was submitted to him which could have influenced him or which he could not exclude in deciding to recommend that Smith should not hang. We want to know what that information is. He was also asked whether that information had been submitted to the Executive Council which decided to commute the death sentence? It is surely a fair and a simple question.

Do you want a reply to it?

Yes, that is what we want.

I clearly stated at the beginning that I did not rely on the other evidence. The question was whether I was excluding this evidence, and I replied in the negative. I said that I did not want to go further. I gave my reasons in the Other Place, and I said that I stood by those reasons. I did not speak of any other evidence. The question was asked whether any other evidence had been adduced, and I stated that I could not rely on it, but that I do not exclude anything which is submitted to me. I said that clearly today. I also said that nothing which I said here today should be interpreted to mean that I accept it. I stand by the reasons which I gave in the Senate. I rose to defend the distortion of the evidence referred to by the hon. member for Cape Town, Gardens (Dr. L. P. Bosman), and I was then asked whether other representations had been made to me. I did not say that I was relying on it. I said that I was not excluding it. As far as I am concerned, I stand by the speech which I made in the Other Place, and I am not adding to it.

What is actually the reason which you gave them?

I explained it clearly, and with due respect to the House I am not going to repeat it. It is even against the rules of the House. If there is any misunderstanding I want to repeat that I stand by the reasons which I have already given. I take the responsibility for it. The question was later put whether other representations had been made to me, and in the interests of the accused I say that I do not want to go further into that question. I stand by the reasons which I gave in the Other Place. I cannot exclude other representations which are made to me, but I cannot rely on it, and what I cannot rely on I cannot, of course, submit to the Executive Authority. I would not like to drag the head of the State into this. He stated that under the constitution the responsibility was not his. He accepts the recommendation which was made to him.

The Minister has now tried to explain that the Acting Governor-General practically agreed with the action of the Minister of Justice.

I said that I did not want to drag in the Governor-General. I stated that he had said in Bloemfontein that he has to act in accordance with the recommendations of the Executive Committee. Constitutionally that is the position. I do not want to drag in his name, and do not want to discuss his opinion.

Now we have the position that the Minister is trying to say that the Governor-General did not want to accept responsibility. That he admits. In other words, the Governor-General was opposed to the reprieve.

You are twisting his words.

I asked the Minister whether the Governor-General was prepared to accept responsibility. The Minister replied in the negative. He does not actually want to say. He does not want to say that the Governor-General accepts responsibility. What is the implication? That the Governor-General is not prepared to accept responsibility. The Governor-General states that the thing was forced on him. He goes to Bloemfontein to be present at a graduation ceremony of the Free State University College. He acts as Chancellor at an academic function. There one does not discuss such matters, but in his speech he introduces the subject and says: “I just want to say that you must not for one moment think that I am responsible for the reprieve of Sidney Smith.” Now I ask, what did he intend to convey? Is it not clear that he went out of his way to make the country understand that the Minister wanted this, but not he, and that the thing was forced upon him by the meeting of the Executive Council? We are now dealing with the Minister of Justice, who is more discredited in the political life of South Africa than anybody else, at least among the decent section. Here a crime was committed. There is a reaction throughout the country against the reprieve of a person who commits such a dastardly crime. What was the reaction in Natal? Is there a single responsible newspaper in Natal which approves of his action? Not a single one. They condemn him from start to finish. But we need not go further than Cape Town. The English newspapers in Cape Town were shocked. The same can be said of the Rand and other big towns. All these big papers, including the English newspapers, condemned the reprieve. Nobody supports the attitude of the Minister. All were deeply shocked. What did the Church people in Natal do? The ministers of the English church met and protested because they felt deeply shocked that a man who committed such a crime should have been reprieved by the Minister. In the past people have been reprieved if there was any measure of doubt, or when there was any doubt whether he was in his sound mind, or where there were motives which could have induced him to commit such a crime, but here a terrible crime was committed, almost unknown in our history. There was no motive for the crime, and it was not only a crime, but rape as well, which in itself is sufficient to incur the death penalty in South Africa. According to our law the man could have been condemned to death on two counts. A little while ago people in Cape Town were condemned to death on account of rape. Here you have rape of the worst degree. It deserved the death penalty, and in addition the man committed another crime, also deserving the death penalty. The Minister comes with frivolous excuses why this man was not hanged. Not only was he not hanged, but I suppose that after a while, in accordance with the Minister’s policy, he will be set free and be offered to the country as a potential criminal. As we know the policy pursued by the Minister, he will be a free man one of these days.

You are afraid that Leibbrandt may be set free?

Such comparisons are idiotic. We are dealing with the reprieve of Smith, which makes this Minister the most discredited person, discredited in the eyes of every man who has a grain of respectability in his being.

I am not able to fully understand what takes place from the Afrikaans side of the House, but I judge from the attitude of the members on the Nationalist side of the House that they are making a political question of the decision of our Minister of Justice in regard to the Smith reprieve.

Over a dead child’s body.

I do not know whether these people are aware that justice prevails on all occasions whether we like it or not. It prevails because crime and punishment grow from the same stem. I am not greatly concerned about what the Opposition is saying to the Minister, because my acquaintance with the Minister, though it has been short, has been sufficient to enable me to realise that his nature, on the evidence that was produced here this afternoon by the hon. member for Gardens (Dr. L. P. Bosman) …

It was hearsay.

It was medical evidence, talk as you like. The gruesome evidence we have heard here this afternoon has never been published in the press.

Has he ever examined Sidney Smith?

Don’t talk nonsense; he has never been asked to examine him. He ought to examine you.

Order, order.

If there is anybody who requires to be examined, Mr. Chairman, it is the men who are trying to roast our Minister of Justice on a decision which the Minister’s good nature and the evidence before him compelled him to take. You are all supposed to be Christian people …

Order. The hon. member must address the Chair.

Excuse me, Sir. But we have heard it said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” That is the religion of the Old Testament, but what is the teaching of the New Testament. What did Christ say in one of his wonderful sermons? He said: “You have heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say unto you, resist not evil.” I tell you, Mr. Chairman, if we had the humanity, if we had the same human sympathy as our Minister of Justice has, and had had the same evidence before us, we would never have been able to do anything other than he has done. I am sorry, very sorry indeed, that the Minister tried to make an excuse for what he has done. That is what you have all cottoned on to, the excuse he has made. He did not require to make an excuse at all, according to the evidence we have heard this afternoon. Of course, I might speak differently were I the father of the child, but I nevertheless believe that it should never be within the power of any man to sign away another man’s life.

Why have capital punishment?

I should like the person who has just spoken to tell me whether he would like to be in the position that the Minister of Justice was placed in on this occasion; anyhow, I hope the Minister will say not another word in answer to what comes from the other side. It is all a political move, nothing else but a political move.

Exploiting a dead child’s body.

Yes, as the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) has said, it is over a dead child’s body. I hope the Minister from now on will not take any further notice of the taunts of the members opposite, who profess religion but never seem to practice the religion which they pretend to believe in.

It is scandalous that whilst this serious matter is being discussed, and the Minister is, after all said and done, responsible, that the other side of the House should come along with the contention that we only raise this matter for political ends.

Absolutely!

We have the scandalous remark of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) that what is being said here, is being said over the corpse of a dead child. The hon. member there remarked that we want to make political capital out of the dead body of a child. I will leave it at that. It is worthy of the hon. member. That is the level he has reached, and he will never attain a higher level as long as he lives. He was dying politically, now he is dead and buried. Various matters have been introduced in connection with this question. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean) suggested that the death penalty should be abolished. That has nothing to do with this case. Then the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Dr. L. P. Bosman) argued that the crime was of such a nature that it could only have been committed by a lunatic. He is entitled to use those words. But these are not words to be used by a responsible person. A layman in the street may use these words, and probably many people have argued like that at the time. The reaction of the country was such that it is essential that this matter should be probed. The Minister has stated his reasons, and he added that there were other motives, other matters which might be introduced, but which he did not want to advance as motives. Nothing has appeared from the evidence before the court, showing that the court was under such an impression. I want to say at once that the last thing on earth anybody with any humane feelings desires to have thrown on him, is the responsibility of such a duty as was placed on the shoulders on the Minister of Justice, the Cabinet and the Executive Council on this occasion. The Minister acted and the reaction of the country was that he had not acted correctly. On the other hand we have the evidence of the psychiatrist, and if there was any doubt, it would have been right and proper, as the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) suggested, to leave an opening to keen the person under observation for a fortnight, as is sometimes done on the instruction of the court. The Minister said that we were twisting the words of the hon. member for Gardens. That is not correct. The hon. member for Gardens merely expressed the opinion that no normal person could have done such a deed. He said what the man in the street said at the time, and he forgets that in his position he is speaking as a man of responsibility. We find that where the court passes judgment in such cases, if there is any doubt whatsoever, the accused gets the benefit of the doubt. In some cases a life sentence is imposed because there might be the least semblance of doubt and because we do not want to do an injustice. In this case it is evident that there was no doubt in the minds of the court, that the country knows of no point of doubt in this matter, neither do the newspapers which dealt with the question. If there had been any semblance of doubt, the Minister would have been justified in giving the accused the benefit of the doubt. But it is admitted on all sides that in this case there was no room for doubt. Now as far as the reasons are concerned, which were advanced by the hon. the Minister in the Other House, I want to point out that he was in a position to consult with the heads of the British Army in South Africa. The position in the army is that if a crime of this nature is committed in the front line or behind the line, such a crime incurs the death penalty. There can be no doubt about that. But I want to point out that if the Minister contends that he cannot give the actual reasons, it would have been better for him not to give any reason at all. Moreover, I want to say that hon. members on the other side should not have let this opportunity pass without giving expression to their dissatisfaction in this matter. They did not do so, and I think they will admit that it was our duty to raise the matter here.

I listened with approval to the speech of the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer). This is the first moderate and reasoned speech we have heard from the other side. The hon. member for Stellenbosch realises the grave responsibility, as he mentioned, placed on the shoulders of the Minister of Justice. He is not the first Minister of Justice who has to make such a decision. We have had several cases of this nature in South Africa. I do not want to draw a comparison between the case of Leibbrandt and this case. I do not think the two cases are on a par. But yet reprieve was also granted in that case, and hon. members on the other side should realise the responsibility on the Minister when he came to that decision. Hon. members over there have talked lightly this afternoon that the two cases should not be compared, that the one was a case of murder and the other only high treason. If we realise the meaning of high treason, then we will understand that that may not only cause one murder to be committed or one death, but thousands. We know what high treason has cost our country in the past. I have listened to the sneering remarks of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) concerning Jameson, Lionel Philips and company. He referred to them in order to excuse Leibbrandt.

No I did not. I mentioned those cases as the result of the speech of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow).

The hon. member mentioned this in a sneering way. I think that if ever a mistake was made in the history of our country, it was when people committing high treason, were not punished with the death penalty. It was a mistake, and from those days we have had quite a sequence of high treason cases, where a reprieve was granted and the death penalty was not carried out.

What is your opinion of the Smith case?

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and if we do not apply that, we should abolish the death penalty.

Then you do not agree with your Minister?

Let me tell hon. members on the other side that they may think what they like. I will say in this House what I want to. I am speaking here in all earnest. The hon. member for Stellenbosch has referred to the great responsibility resting on the Minister of Justice. The Minister has advanced reasons why he did what he has done. He carried out his duties according to the light given him as a human being, and where he showed mercy, we want to abide by his decision.

I want to raise another point. On the 1st November, 1941, something happened in South Africa which came as a great shock to the Afrikaner nation. I am referring to the internment of a learned and honoured man, Mr. Stephen Eyssen. He is an Afrikaner and the principal of a big high school. Suddenly, without anybody being aware of it, he was taken from his school and interned at Graspan. He was held there for almost a year. The Minister of Justice was approached and in August, 1942, he was let out on parole. He had to remain on a farm.

He was not allowed to return to the Transvaal, and on that farm he could not even get medical treatment. Then he was allowed to return to the Transvaal, but he was refused to be allowed to accept a position at Heidelberg, where he was the principal of a school.

That is not correct; they did not want him there any longer.

I do not take any notice of the kitchen. I do not think the hon. member is even fit to cook Mr. Stephen Eyssen’s food. Mr. Stephen Eyssen was without a job up to 1944. Previously he was enjoying a salary of £950. For three years and two months he was without a salary. That means that he was fined £3,000. I hope the press will give publicity to this matter. I have been instructed by his family to raise the matter here. At present he is teaching at Pretoria as an assistant. He is not even allowed to drive through Heidelberg. He has to make a detour of miles. At the moment he is in receipt of a salary of approximately £325 less per year than the salary he was enjoying before. I have the information that he will be punished for the duration of the war.

That is right.

It was done on the recommendation of the Minister and the chief control officer.

Why was he punished?

He does not know, and nobody apparently knows.

He knows very well why he was interned.

The whole case rests on stories and suppositions.

Ask the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart). He will tell you.

This man is highly respected. He is a member of the Executive of the Federation of Afrikaans Cultural Societies. He is a co-composer of the “Volksangbundel”. He is a highly cultured man. He is a singer. He has composed songs. He is a pioneer in the sphere of music.

Isn’t he a member of the Broederbond?

For three years he brought together the boys of that school in a musical society and they sang Afrikaans songs. All the world wants him to return to that school.

Not the whole world.

The whole of Heidelberg is looking forward to his reteurn. Representations have been made by the students to the chief control officers. These representations came from the children. Representations were also made through the Minister of Agriculture. I notice he is present here. He cannot deny that. He was the advocate who acted on behalf of Mr. Stephen Eyssen. He also could not succeed to get the matter put right. There was a controlling body which controls the high school on behalf of the Department of Education. They made representation that the man should return to his post. The Church Council of Heidelberg made representation to the Minister that he should return. The Town Council, Mr. Jordaan, the Mayor, specially came down to Cape Town and he also tried to use his influence to get the person returned.

All that proves that he is guilty.

The whole personnel of the school, with the exception of two teachers, want him to return, and you can understand why these two teachers do not want him to return. They were accomplices in his removal. I say this deliberately. The Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation said at that time that he would shortly allow Mr. Stephen Eyssen to return to Heidelberg. When the matter was handed over to the present Minister of Justice, we heard nothing further about it, and it seems to me the Minister is at present the tool of the agitators at Heidelberg. Petitions were drawn up by hundreds of the students, but it availed nothing. Now I will tell you what helps on the other side. There is the Sons of England in Heidelberg, the B.E.S.L. and the New Guard. They are the agitators. They are pushing the matter, and they are influencing the Minister not to allow that person to return to his work. I have shown that the people all wish him to return. I want to go further. There are other people in Heidelberg who have been interned. Mr. F. Rosier, for instance, committed sabotage, and he is back in Heidelberg. He walks about a free man, and here a person like Mr. Stephen Syssen is kept away from Heidelberg. This unfair thing is happening today under the Minister of Justice.

I suppose he is a member of the Broederbond.

I can mention other cases where people have been released. I can mention the case of someone who had a secret radio in South Africa. That man is today a free man. He had a secret radio, but he has been released. But this man, who does not even know of what he is accused, may not return. Peculiarly enough, he may go through the whole of South Africa, but particularly at Heidelberg he may not be. Usually it is the other way round; the person usually has to remain on his own farm or in his own area. He is not allowed to go somewhere else, but here it is just the other way round. Why is that? It is because there are certain agitators who do not want the man to return. I have referred to the punishment he received, because each year he receives £325 less than he received previously. He is at present 54 years old, that is, in six years’ time he has to retire on pension. Now for the duration of the war he has to sit there. We do not know when the war will be over. Quite probably it may last another ten years. For another six years he must remain there. In six years’ time he has to retire and then his pension is calculated on the basis of his salary during the last seven years of his service. Thus his pension will also be much lower. That is a further fine. It works out at a tremendous sum. [Time limit.]

I have listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink) who has just sat down. I often wonder, when a special plea is made here, in connection with a particular friend of ours …

He is a Union national of repute.

I accept everything which he could possibly be, but I accept for once and for all that this Government, in the careful investigation they made in connection with the activities of certain persons, would not put innocent people in that position. I accept that he would not have been placed in that position if he had not been guilty.

How many did not the Government release?

Does the hon. member wish to imply that we must not release anyone? Does the hon. member want the Minister not to show mercy? But there are certain persons in the country who were leaders of movements, and they go free while the less privileged people must pay. I say therefore that if you can get hold of the leaders, then they must be punished. Leniency must be shown to the subordinate, less privileged people, who are led astray by these leaders. In my area all the people who were not leaders were released. I pleaded for them. But when you come to the leaders who led other people astray, then they must be punished. The hon. member for Christiana said the whole of Heidelberg protested against the treatment of the particular gentleman when he was interned. Does the hon. member not know that since that time that matter was fought out in an election, and does he not know that the majority of the people do not hold that view?

That was not a point in the election.

It was all brought up during the election. The hon. member now wants to tell us that the majority in Heidelberg adopt his attitude, and that is not true.

What about the other parts?

There are Ossewabrandwags throughout the country, but I say that the people in that constituency have shown that they approve of the attitude of the Minister of Justice.

Are you talking about the provincial election or the general election?

Both.

You had no decided majority there.

Let me just refer to what the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) said just now in connection with the murder. I do not want to say anything against it, because I have my own opinion about the seriousness of murder, but the hon. member said that if the person had appeared before a military court, then he would have been finished. I want to put this question to the hon. member. What would have happened if many of the people who have been interned had to appear before a military court? The hon. member said that Smith should have been brought before a military court. But what would have happened to many of the internees if they had been brought before a military court? The Government has shown leniency to these people throughout the war.

To whom?

To you.

What have I done?

I refer to the speeches which the hon. member made in my presence.

You are now fighting for freedom.

I agreed with the clemency which the Minister has shown, but at the same time he gained my admiration that after that sabotage and encouragement of sabotage, not only by the Leader of the Opposition, but all those members …

The hon. member must not accuse another member of sabotage.

One feels deeply disappointed when one listens to the arguments which have been put forward today in connection with the Smith case. Afrikaansspeaking members on the other side of the House get up and condemn it that mercy was shown to Afrikaans-speaking people. The hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe) has said here that mercy should not have been shown to Mr. Eyssen, while he does not know of what Mr. Eyssen is accused, but because he is a good Afrikaner, the hon. member must attack him.

On a point of explanation; I have never said anything like that, and will never say anything like that, that because a person is Afrikaansspeaking, he must be sentenced. The matter is far too serious to me to say such a thing.

I did not say that the hon. member said, “because someone is Afrikaans-speaking.” I said that when we plead for mercy towards the Afrikaans-speaking people, then the hon. member gets up and opposes it. That is the attitude he adopts. If anything is said about an Afrikaans organisation, such as the Broederbond, and it is spoken of in a derogatory manner, then the Afrikaans-speaking members of the Government side cheer such remarks. They know as well as I do that some S.A.P. men also belong to the Broederbond, but they join in the cheers of the English-speaking members if an Afrikaans organisation is ridiculed. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) read a letter here today, written by the father of the unfortunate victim of Smith, and immediately the hon. member for Hospital said that the feelings of the poor father were exploited for political ends.

That is true.

Did not the father publish the letter in the press to protest against the reprieve of the murderer of his child. Did he also exploit this for political ends? But when we read the letter, we are accused of exploiting it. No, the hon. member is hiding behind the corpse of the child. It is said that we are making political capital out of the matter. Is the English press also doing the same? The English papers are protesting. Are they making political propaganda? The hon. member knows that the terrible crime has shocked the whole country. The poor mother …

Ah!

There you have it; the hon. members are frivolous. They sit there and laugh. But let me tell them that people belonging to all political parties, people with more sense, abhor the action just as much as we do. There is the deepest indignation over the reprieve.

That is why you are exploiting it.

Then your press is also exploiting the matter. We have put the matter concisely. The whole press has expressed its indignation and numerous letters of protest have been published, but when we lodge our protest, we are told that we are exploiting the matter. Let them accuse their own press. The hon. member for Hospital is always making a noise like an empty tin. He has belonged to every party and has been kicked out everywhere, and now he is trying to use the last political party.

In my constituency, which is very extensive, and where most farmers are cattle farmers, numerous stock thefts have taken place. Sheep have been stolen on a large scale and it has become almost impossible to carry on farming operations, but I want to thank the Minister that as a result of police action, it has almost stopped. A lot has been said today about people who should have been hanged or shot. I am not going to take any notice of that. As far as the unfortunate case in Durban is concerned, I think that the less said, the better for all concerned. Anyone will sympathise with the father and mother of the unfortunate child.

You are sympathising with the murderer.

In a Christian sense, yes. That a human being should fall so low as to commit such a deed, arouses sympathy. It has been contended that people should have been hanged in the course of our history. I think it is very fortunate indeed that so few people have been hanged in our country. At Slagtersnek people were hanged and it is still exploited today by political parties. I say that the hon. the Prime Minister and his colleagues must be congratulated that so little blood has been shed during the last five years. It is something the whole nation can be thankful for, because if blood is shed in a country, it is not easily forgotten. The sabotage and all these things will be forgotten in the course of time, just as we have forgotten the happenings of the Boer War. We forget that certain people fled to Basutoland with all their sheep and were abiding their time until the war was over. We forget that, but we refer to the history of the Afrikaner nation and we are proud that we have a Louis Botha and a Koos de la Rey and a Christiaan de Wet and others, and we remember their heroic deeds. Those little things which separate us will disappear and we will come together. This is only a small party squabble. Our difficulties will be so great that they will force us to come together, as the difficulties of the past brought Gen. Hertzog and Gen. Smuts together. If blood had been shed, things would be much more difficult. I believe that in a few years’ time these little things will be forgotten and we will have to come together. I do not want to criticise the Minister. The responsibility is on him and he had to accept that responsibility. What does it help us to criticise? But when there is an election, then these little things are exploited from one platform to the other and the womenfolk are brought together and in the end their tears run down their cheeks. That is party political exploitation. Let us let this matter rest. Do not let u.s hurt each other.

But you are accusing us of political exploitation.

I am saying that in the Wakkerstroom election this matter was exploited for political ends. At Welgemoed the women were brought together in a hall and it was so impressed upon them, that they started crying.

Nonsense.

That is my information. If I am wrong, let them prove that I am wrong.

I want to return to this question of the admission of Indians to hotels. The hon. member in defence of this new policy—I cannot call it anything else but a new policy—has used the excuse that a few wool buyers who came from Japan in 1928, were given the privilege of staying in European hotels. As a young member I ask the Minister in all humility whether he really thinks that the two cases are on a par. If a few wool buyers from India were to come here for commercial purposes, I am convinced that we would not object. But how can you draw a comparison between a few wool buyers from outside and 300,000 or 400,000 Indians of the lowest type, living in our country? Fortunately in South Africa we do not have the problem of intermingling with Japanese or any other Eastern race with the Europeans in our country. But we have a problem, a permanent problem, which is viewed in a serious light in our country, and which our friends from Natal in the course of this session have raised as a special problem of Natal. We cannot approve of this position which has been created. I think the Minister should take this matter into consideration again, because we are dealing with the dangerous problem of putting different colours on the same basis. Then I want to turn to this drama in Natal, which has cast a tragic blot on the history of our country.

We are tired of it already.

The hon. member may be tired of it. South Africa is not. We cannot understand how hon. members on the other side can approve of it when a child is murdered and mutilated in such a way. They contend that we are trying to make political capital out of this matter. Take the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe). I respect him as a balanced man, but how can he approve of such a crime?

I never approved of murder, and I do not approve of political exploitation of murder.

When the Acting Governor-General made his speech, was he guilty of political exploitation?

The hon. member should not mention the actions of the Governor-General here.

The English papers and the English clergy condemned the action. The hon. member for Gardens (Dr. L. P. Bosman) made certain remarks here, but from a private conversation I had with him, in the lobby, I know what his attitude is.

The hon. member should not repeat a private discussion here.

Mr. Chairman, may I know under what ruling you give this decision?

It is not customary for a private conversation to be made public here.

It may not be customary, but there is no rule prohibiting that. I want to suggest that you have made a mistake, because there is no rule to that effect.

The hon. member should not say that the Chair has made a mistake. It is not customary to quote private conversations here.

I regret that I have gone a bit too far. I told the hon. member that I was going to refer to that conversation, but I will discontinue doing so. We are dealing here with a very serious matter. A mistake has been made, and it is no use saying that we should forget about it. Then we might just as well kill each other and say that it is a matter of the past and that we should forget about it. If such a matter is to be treated in such a lighthearted manner, then justice will be a thing of the past. This is a serious matter. Can the Minister of Justice imagine how he would feel if such a thing were done to his child?

I want to ask the hon. member not to repeat those arguments.

I am coming to another matter. In the Annual Report of the Police Deparement mention is made of a native riot in the district of Pietersburg. The report says that the natives were armed with assegais and other dangerous objects. The police was forced to bring strong reinforcements and 127 persons were detained. According to my information a certain person was guilty of inciting to riot.

Who was he? Mention his name.

According to mv information, it was Senator Basner. There was documentary evidence that this party was responsible for the trouble, and according to our information, it is supposed that on the instruction of the Minister of Justice, this person was not prosecuted. If that is so, what must we think of it when the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink) has to rise here and plead for a man like Mr. Stephen Eyssen who was interned without a hearing. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) made mention of Slagtersnek and said that numerous people had been hanged there. Why were they hanged? Because they incited natives to oppose the Europeans. Here we find that people were hanged because they incited natives against Europeans. Why then is it, if our information is correct, that no steps were taken against this man? I must take it for graned that he was not prosecuted on the instructions of the Minister of Justice. We would like to have some information from the Minister.

I regret that I have to rise again in connection with the Japanese question. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) said here that I was wrong in saying that anything like that was done by the Nationalist Party. I refer him to Act No. 30 of 1928. If he looks at Section 175, which contains the definition, he will see that Asiatics can definitely be excluded by proclamation, and as far as the Free State is concerned, he will remember that the previous member for Ficksburg (Mr. Jan Keyter) was very dissatisfied about it. There is a provision in the Bill which gives the power to make regulations, so that the Nationalist Party could exclude Asiatics by proclamation. By proclamation 214 of 1928— they acted soon after the Act was passed— the Japanese were excluded.

But you know that no Asiatics are allowed in the Free State.

Only in exceptional cases. That also applied to the Transvaal. I say that the Nationalists made use of that power under the Act. But I also wish to refer to Section 114, in which it is laid down that any licence holder, his servant or agent, may exclude any person from one portion of the licenced property which has been set aside for any particular purpose. This Section proves that there are no grounds for the assertions made by the other side. That Section was specially inserted because such wide powers were given to the Government to enact proclamations to exclude Asiatics from the application of the provision.

But Asiatics are not allowed in the Free State.

The Act was for the whole of the Union. Asiatics were allowed in the Free State. Although they were only a small number, they were nevertheless allowed. It was applicable to the Japanese. I quote these provisions, not as a reproach to members on the other side, but to assist them. The hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) asked me in a very emotional manner how I would have felt had it been my daughter who had been murdered like that. Everybody has the deepest sympathy with the parents of the child. But now I ask the hon. member how he would have felt if it had been his son who was killed in the explosion in Benoni? Feelings were very strong in the country at that time—not on the part of members on the other side, because they rejoiced in it—because the Government reprieved these people from the death sentence. There was a strong feeling and I was sharply criticised. There is now still a strong feeling about Leibbrandt, with the exception of members on the other side. But those who disagreed with me at that time did so in a dignified manner and they did not try to make capital out of that matter. I have been bitterly attacked here. I do not like to concern myself in such a matter, but I think that hon. members on the other side will concede that when I recommended that mercy be shown to this British soldier, I was not out for personal popularity. I knew what it was going to mean, that I would be criticised and that there would be a strong feeling in the country. I knew that there would be dissatisfaction. If hon. members are dissatisfied about this case, let them think of those who are dissatisfied about the case of Leibbrandt and others, and let them act in the same dignified manner.

I want to bring to the Minister’s notice a very serious position which has arisen in the Peninsula around Cape Town. A big part falls within my own constituency. There are today in that area no less than 60,000 natives, of which tens of thousands came to the Peninsula during the last seven or eight months. I am not in possession of the figures, but the Minister will probably admit that the police force in Cape Town since that time has not been greatly increased. On the contrary, it is most probably the same or even smaller. 60,000 natives comprise a considerable proportion of the population of the Peninsula, and there are numerous cases of housebreaking in the Peninsula where people have been robbed in a flagrant manner, and particularly in Bellville and places like Kuils River. Those places where the natives simply sleep under trees, where they are under no control; and the European population and even the coloured population of those parts are very worried about the serious state of affairs which has arisen here. We all know that there are exceptional difficulties to get sufficient policemen, but the point is that not only have these people not been provided for socially, but they are allowed to come to the cities in thousands every week. They can find no houses. They come here and there is no work for them; there are no houses for them, and there are no social services for them.

On a point of order, can you tell me under which vote that falls?

That is not a point of order.

We know that it is very difficult to obtain more police. But no provision has been made for these people, and no steps have been taken to prevent them from committing crimes. I know that in the first instance the fault does not lie with the Department of Justice, but with the Department of Native Affairs and with other Departments, which should make provision for the population before they migrate on a large scale, as happens here. But if a state of emergency arises, then it is the Department of Justice which must see to it that crimes are not committed and that the people are placed under a proper measure of control, even if it is an emergency measure, even if sections of the army are used to see to it that the public in those areas is protected. I know of one lady who has thrice been threatened, robbed once, and once had a narrow escape near the town. I wish to appeal to the Minister to listen to the outcry of numerous people who are harried by these people, and to go to the root of the matter.

I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink) has just said in connection with the case of Mr. Eyssen. First of all, I just want to say this. I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe) and to his speech. I just want to tell him that that type of spirit and the type of attitude he adopted does not in the least enhance one’s dignity; that type of attitude lowers one to the uttermost depths. The hon. member for Christiana put up a serious plea to the Minister in connection with the case of Mr. Eyssen. If there is a man who really deserves consideration, who merits attention being given to his case, it is certainly Mr. Eyssen. Nothing concrete was proved against this man, but apart from that the whole country, and especially his area, knows Mr. Eyssen as a man whose word of honour one can accept; they know him as a man who is an asset to our whole country, who is an asset to our country from a moral point of view, and I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Christiana in making a serious appeal to the Minister of Justice specially to consider this case. Mr. Eyssen has to support his wife and children. Those children have to go to the university. Today he is drawing a small salary, after having drawn a high salary for many years. On his present salary he cannot keep his children at the university; he cannot support his family. I hope the Minister will be magnanimous enough to give his immediate consideration to this case. There are numerous English-speaking people amongst his ex-students who share the views of the hon. member for Christiana, as well as mv views, in regard to this case. Then there is another cáse which I should also like to bring to the notice of the Minister. That is the case of Dr. Chris Neethling. I hope the Minister will give his attention to this. Chris Neethling occupied a high position in the Department of Agriculture. By this time he has suffered enough; and I want to make an appeal to the Minister to give his attention to that case and to see to it that Dr. Neethling is enabled to support his family properly. Then there is a third case which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. The Minister of Demobilisation is in the House at the moment, and I hope he will listen to this. I refer to the cases which took place in Klerksdorp. Those people were punished, and I am thinking more particularly now of the case of a teacher who was merely present at these occurrences. He was fined by the magistrate. Thereafter he appeared before a Provincial Commission of Investigation and he was found not guilty. In spite of that the Provincial Administration discharged him from his position. Now he is allowed to resume duties, but he has to begin at the notch on which he started years ago. I want to make an appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter.

You know what he did.

This is a Provincial matter, but I should like the Minister to give his attention to it and to see to it that justice is done to this man.

It is his own fault.

I am not exaggerating when I say that I rise with reluctance to speak; but it is incumbent upon me to clear up some of the difficulties and misunderstandings which have been raised by the member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw), and thereafter by the member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer). It has been said that the evidence that I produced is mere hearsay. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make it quite clear that the evidence I possess in regard to the details of this murder is over the signature of a very eminent surgeon in South Africa, and it is quite possible one of the most eminent surgeons in Natal. I don’t want to subject this House to a regurgitation of this business, but these are facts. The surgeon who examined this child before it died also gave these 13 lesions in great detail. His private opinion of the perpetrator of this act is beside the question. If I were to tell this House that a man had a fracture of the skull, then it would make no difference whether I was present or not. A facture of the skull is the same whether the patient is in Timbuctoo, London or Siberia. The hon. member for Beaufort West did not mean to mislead the House, nor did he mean to belittle me, but I want to clear away some misunderstanding which he undoubtedly introduced. I wish to make it clear that I am not criticising the opinion of the court or the mental specialist who examined the man. I acknowledge to him and to the House that I am not a specialist in psychiatry, but it does not need much grey matter to assess the seriousness of the wounds to which this child was subjected. It is abundantly clear to the most uninitiated medical man, or shall I say, even a nurse, that this was the work of a fiend—this is the work of a psychopath, the work of a maniac. It is not a question of decapitating anybody or hanging any person. The body of the child lies before you, and one glance, whether the body is in Durban or anywhere else, would show that this is the work of a maniac; that under no circumstances could it be the work of even a respectable murderer. Now, Mr. Chairman, I take a back seat to no one in sympathy with the parents in their hour of trouble and tribulation, and I want to make it quite clear that I am not defending the perpetrator of such a heinous crime. I am also prepared to accept the verdict of the psychiatrist, but here lies the trouble. I wrote to the surgeon whom I knew had attended this child, and I wrote by way of medical interest. Somehow or other, to us in the medical profession, the more morbid the circumstances and the more rare the type of murder, the more interest it excites in us in looking for points of comparison. This is not an everyday murder. This surgeon happens to be a personal friend of mine and I wrote to him to give the details; there were 13 of them which I handed to Hansard on request. The hon. ber for Stellenbosch occupies one of the highest positions in the medical world, here in this country. Consequently I respect him, but I want to impress upon him that this is not hearsay evidence. I am prepared to accept the opinion of the psychiatrists, but I submit to this House, irrespective of the opinion of anybody in the medical or the legal world, that the person who perpetrated that crime could not be normal. I am not concerned with Smith or Jones or James, or anybody, and as a matter of fact I may as well be quite open about it, Mr. Chairman, by telling this House that for numerous reasons I am also totally opposed to capital punishment. The man who serves his 25 years is going through a worse time than the man who is decapitated or hanged.

How do you know?

Have you ever experienced decapitation?

I have had experience of men in for life sentences for murder. Three in the Union of South Africa and one in Great Britain. I don’t want to sav more than this, that to my mind, for what it is worth, there is an element of doubt in this case. We always find the exceptions and it is the exception that proves the rule. This is a crime that is not usually associated with a young adult virile male. I am informed that it is more commonly associated with the prostatic male. So again my interest was aroused by this crime having been perpetrated by a young man. The Minister must accept the opinion of people who act in the asylums. We cannot get up in public and put it aside and not treat this opinion with respect, and, therefore, I end where I started this afternoon—the Minister is in a most unenviable position where these elements of doubt exist.

I do not want to doubt the hon. member’s bona fides. I listened carefully to what he said, but the fact remains that he formed an opinion on hearsay. He received information from another doctor. He himself did not see the body and the wounds. But let us take it for granted that as a physician, with the necessary knowledge, on the strength of the information he received, he is able, as it were to form a mental picture of the body. Even then he comes to certain conclusions which cannot be justified. He admits that he is prepared to accept the opinion of experts, the experts who examined the accused and who had him under observation. I take it that they had him under observation for a considerable time. The conclusion to which the hon. member comes is that anyone who commits a barbarous murder must necessarily be non compos mentis ! If that is so, and if he has all the information to which he referred, why was it not placed before the Executive Council? Why did the Minister not mention it in the Senate?

He did not have it; I received it privately.

In that case, all we have is the hon. member’s own opinion, which he expresses a few thousand miles away from the scene of the murder. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) challenged me. Shortly afterwards he left the House. I stayed here and waited for him. He came in two or three times for a moment or two, and then went out again. I am not going to wait any longer, and I shall reply to him now. The hon. member read the evidence of Mr. Smit, the Secretary for Native Affairs, in connection with propaganda amongst the natives. I see the hon. member has now come back. He read out this evidence, and it is a remarkable fact that when he came to the reply of Mr. Smit to the effect that, in his opinion, there were European influences at work, and later to the words: “It has undoubtedly been proved that there is European influence behind it,” the hon. member read it so softly that it was practically inaudible.

That is absolute shamelessness; it is totally untrue.

I am sorry, but it is nevertheless a fact. He read so softly that I had to ask him to read more loudly. Other members also noticed it. Why did he read so softly? Because it referred to the European influence behind this propaganda.

Who are the Europeans?

We shall leave that for the moment. But we got two very interesting and important admissions from the hon. member. In the first place, he admitted that on the occasion of the election of representatives of the Natives Representative Council, there was a communist candidate. He did not succeed, but he was a communist. The hon. member also admitted that Moses Kotani, Secretary of the Communist Party, was present. Are we not entitled to say then that there were communistic influences behind the trouble in Pietersburg? The hon. member apparently thinks that he is dealing here with children or natives. He admits that there was a communist candidate, and that the secretary of the Communist Party assisted.

Are you prepared to support my request for an investigation?

Does the hon. member seriously want to suggest that there was no communistic influence behind the trouble at Pietersburg? If he wants to make us believe that he must really think that he is dealing with children or kaffirs. He challenges me to support his request for an investigation. What does he want to investigate?

The whole trouble.

I am only interested in the communistic influence. We want to know whether communistic agitators were at work. Well, I know just what would happen if such an investigation took place. We know the tactics of the Communistic Party. What happened in Canada? I have an article here in which it is stated that the communists in Canada hid their identities behind the title “Progressive Labour Party.” We know their tactics. This is happening throughout the world. As soon as investigations are made, no one is a communist! Even Senator Basner stated in the Senate that he was not a member of the Communist Party. Does the hon. member for Cape Western want to tell us that Senator Basner is not a communist? The whole world knows it. It is just camouflage. As soon as investigations are made, they belong to this, that or the other organisation; then all of a sudden there is no Communist Party! As far as I am concerned, I am quite satisfied with the evidence given by the Secretary for Native Affairs. It is very clear. That evidence is as clear ás it can be. [Time limit.]

I am not surprised to hear that the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) is not prepared to support me in my suggestion to the Government that they should institute a thorough investigation into the whole of the Pietersburg situation. That is a proposition which I put to the Government before the hon. member for Beaufort West brought this matter up in this House. I say that I am not surprised at the hon. member for Beaufort West not supporting an investigation and I sympathise with him, because it is so much easier in this House to use the word “Communism” as a political swear word, to fling out charges and challenges and then to refrain from proving your statements before an independent tribunal. I have said here before that Communism is nothing more than a political swear word. The hon. member for Beaufort West has been challenged over and over again to say what he means by Communism. Does he mean a member of the Communist Party, does he mean someone who instigates breaches of the law …

Something subversive.

Exactly. Does he mean someone who believes in the revolutionary doctrines of Karl Marx, because just let me tell the hon. member that his own leader has years ago said that Karl Marx is one of the greatest economists in the world.

I’m afraid your education has been very much neglected.

Quite possibly, but I do want to repeat the simple question: Is he prepared to support an investigation into the happenings at Pietersburg? Now, the information which we have is to this effect, that the land settlement policy of the Native Affairs Department at Pietersburg is causing dissatisfaction very similar to the dissatisfaction which the hon. member for Beaufort West and his friends have been expressing in respect of the Land Settlement Amendment Bill which was introduced into this House by the Minister of Lands a fortnight ago.

I think the hon. member must discuss that on some other vote.

Oh, please let him do it now; don’t let him come with it afterwards.

Well. I won’t discuss that. Any dissatisfaction there may be in Pietersburg concerns the land settlement policy of the Native Affairs Department …

I think the hon. member must now come back to the vote.

Yes, but I do ask your permission, Sir, to answer the hon. member for Beaufort West. If the hon. member for Beaufort West was quoting the evidence given by the Secretary for Native Affairs …

That speech by the hon. member for Beaufort West was made in reply to a speech made by the hon. member, but I am afraid I cannot allow this discussion to go any further.

I shall certainly not pursue it further, Sir, beyond quoting, if I may, the evidence the hon. member for Beaufort West referred to before I answered him.

Are you afraid to ask for an enquiry yourself?

I was asking the hon. member whether he would support an enquiry, and he will not support it, because to him Communism is merely a swear word, and it does not mean anything at all.

It means something to you; you are a Communist yourself.

He refers to Senator Basner as being a Communist, and I say that is untrue.

I say it is true; he is a Communist.

I say that it is untrue.

I don’t care what you say; he is a Communist.

In any case, he is the representative of the natives. The Secretary for Native Affairs, in his evidence, explicitly denies that there has been Communist propaganda.

No, he did not.

I will read it—

Have you had any evidence of Communist propaganda among the natives?—I cannot say that, but there are agitators.

There we have a definite denial.

That is not a denial.

The hon. member for Beaufort West fears coming before any commission of enquiry. No wonder that he will not support what we demand on these benches, an enquiry into the whole situation as to what gave rise to this.

Ask the Minister of Justice what happened about Senator Basner up there.

If he likes to have the opportunity of cross-examining Senator Basner about whether he is a Communist, let him take it outside. In the House he can say what he likes under cover of privilege, and he says things that he would not dare say outside.

I do not think the Committee is interested in Senator Basner.

Hear, hear.

There was no Communist propaganda.

The hon. member doesn’t know what a Communist is.

An hon. member is demanding the prosecution of Senator Basner. I would be very interested to know whether the statement he made would be repeated by the hon. member if it was not covered by privilege. I may tell the hon. member that an attempt has been made, in fact, to prosecute the particular Senator he refers to. A prosecution was launched which I know something about and which I do not wish to say much about now, as I was engaged in a professional capacity. But what I do say is that I know a trumped up case when I see it and that was a trumped up case. [Time limit.]

I am very glad to have the opportunity to say a few words. I was astonished this evening at what happened in this House, the highest authority in the country. Reference has been made to the action of the Minister of Justice in recommending clemency towards a person who committed a crime. But the manner in which that was done greatly disappointed me. We as an Afrikaner nation pride ourselves on being a Christian nation. We are proud of it, and in this House, the highest authority in the country, I do not believe that it is to our credit to discuss a matter of this kind in this manner. I do not think it is to our own credit. All sorts of statements have been made here, even going as far back as Slagtersnek. All those unfortunate things which happened in the past were raked up again, one after another. Is it right, is it honourable and is it constructive? We ought to set an example to the rest of the country, and I want to ask whether we have been setting an example this evening to the coloured people, the natives and the Asiatics, in carrying on in this way? Will it be to our credit if they read in the newspapers tomorrow what took place here this evening? Let us come back to the Minister of Justice. He is a honourable man, the son of one of our great Afrikaners, President Steyn, who is known to all of us and who is respected by all of us. The Minister had to take the responsibility in this case. If it had been one of us, what would our feelings have been if we had to sign the death warrant of a man. He recommended mercy towards this man, and he had his reasons for doing so. Why should we criticise and besmirch him in this manner? I say that the manner in which the Minister is being attacked here is not to the credit of the House. We have been discussing this matter almost the whole day and the whole evening, and we may carry on with the same subject tomorrow and the day after. Are we upholding the traditions of our nation? Are we upholding the honour of the Afrikaner? No, I doubt it. I hope the House will adopt a different attitude, and that we shall try to respect one another, and instead of saying things which are destructive, try to be constructive.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Dr. L. P. Bosman) sought to doubt the findings of the doctors in Durban. What did he accomplish? He only succeeded in shocking the confidence of laymen in the evidence of medical men. Can the medical profession hold it against us in the future if we do not believe the evidence of the doctors? This murder in Durban was a brutal one; the doctors made investigations on the spot, and reported their findings. But a thousand miles away a doctor comes along and tells us to reject the findings of the doctors in Durban. What respect can we have in the future for the findings of doctors, if that type of thing happens, if a doctor with a high reputation, in the highest legislative assembly in the country, by one stroke of the pen, questions the findings of doctors who investigated the case on the spot? It is one of the most tragic occurrences which we have witnessed in this House today. Members on the other side accuse us of wanting to make political capital out of a murder. By implication those hon. members accuse themselves of partiality towards the murderer.

It is a shame to make such a statement.

It is a shame to adopt such an attitude. If that side had sympathised with the victim, we would not have been accused of trying to make political capital out of this case. This side sympathises with the victim; and that side of the House is opposing us. In that case it is their own fault if they are accused of sympathising with the murderer—and not we. No, this attitude is not a credit to that side. They openly criticise the action of the Minister, it cannot be a question of political gain, and in that case we on this side cannot be accused of wanting to score a political advantage. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to something else. In my constituency there is a small town where there is a Justice of the Peace. He has an office with two small rooms attached to it. He has an assistant, and there is also a native interpreter. After my election I made representations to the Minister. We have strong views in regard to the colour bar in South Africa. I asked the Minister to give his attention to this matter. At Odendaalsrust the woman clerk and the native interpreter have to work practically in the same office. I asked the Minister, in the circumstances, to make provision for the appointment of a European interpreter, but the Minister of Justice replied that he could not do it owing to the shortage of staff.

What about the native girls on the farms?

I am sorry the Minister wants to draw a comparison between these two cases; that he wants to compare a European woman in the office of a Justice of the Peace with a native girl who works on a farm.

Is the hon. member referring to the court of the Justice of the Peace?

Yes.

The hon. member should raise that on a subsequent vote, namely, Inferior Courts.

I am glad that the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Dr. L. P. Bosman) is present, because I think he laid down certain propositions which we cannot allow to go unchallenged. I should like to put a question to him. He is a medical practitioner, and he is, of course, acquainted with the contents of the Mental Disorders Act. In terms of that Act certain requirements have to be complied with before a person can be taken into custody under the Act and placed under proper care. I want to ask him whether he will be prepared to certify this person, Smith, under the Mental Disorders Act?

I did not examine him.

The hon. member correctly replies that he did not examine him, because he did not examine this person he is not in a position to express an opinion as to whether he is mentally deranged. Provision is made in Section 6 of the Mental Disorders Act for an examination by two doctors, and only in those cases where two doctors are not available, the magistrate can be satisfied and order detention on the advice of one doctor. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) now states that he is not prepared to say that he will certify this person. In that case, I ask him with all due respect, what value can be attached to the opinion which he expressed here today? We are dealing here with a medico-legal question, namely, the mental derangement or otherwise of a person who stands accused before the court. There are certain acknowledged rules which have been laid down for that purpose, rules which were laid down years ago by Lord McNaughton.

They were laid down by the Privy Council.

They are known at the McNaughton rules. The Minister has been away from the Bar for some length of time.

That is quite correct.

I am glad the hon. Minister agree with me. This time he is correct. These rules were laid down, and the crux of the test is this; a man is not regarded as mentally defective when, in the opinion of the ordinary man in the street, he is certifiable. The most important test which was laid down is this: Was the man aware of the nature of his crime at the time he committed it? And the question I want to put is this: Was this person aware of the nature of his crime?

A man who commits such a crime could not have been aware of it.

The hon. member says that he could not have been aware of it. Then I want to ask the hon. member, what about the other Smith in the “Brides in the Bath” case? Could he have been aware of the nature of his crime? He murdered eight persons in a cruel manner. Was he also mentally deranged? And then I want to ask him whether the court in that case committed the terrible faux pas of sentencing an accused to death, although he was mentally deranged? And was the man who committed the cruel crimes of a Jack the Ripper, mentally deranged? The hon. member’s only ground is that the nature of the, crime is such that one must infer, without having examined the accused, that he must have been mentally deranged.

Did you read the evidence in this case?

I want to come to another point. It is now stated that this agitation is based on racialism, but I just want to point out to hon. members on the other side that a resolution was passed in regard to this matter immediately after this crime had been committed, after the Minister of Justice had recommended mercy, by the Durban branch of the National Council of Women. Mrs. Forbes, the chairman of the Goodwill Club, expressed her opinion in regard to it, an English clergyman expressed his opinion from the pulpit, and feelings ran so high that no less than 41 letters appeared in the Natal newspapers protesting against the Minister’s action. These are not people who were actuated by racial motives. These are people whose feelings of justice had been shocked, and who reacted spontaneously. It is not a racial question. That accusation is rebutted by the Natal newspapers. I mention these facts because I want hon. members to understand that we are not regarding this matter as a racial question. We want a greater sense of responsibility to be manifested, and one should not reject the valued opinion of the head of the State, since he has extensive experience of these cases. What we are doing here is not to put one party or section before the other. It is a gratifying sign that with few exceptions, the natural reaction of the people of South África was a sound reaction against the act of the Minister. It was as though their natural sense of justice was immediately shocked. When one administers justice, it should also be tempered with mercy, but one should not deny justice for the sake of mercy; and that is the mistake which the Minister made in this case. One defence after another was advanced. We had his own defence in the Other Place. We then had the defence of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Dr. L. P. Bosman). Thereafter we had the defence of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean). I think the Minister might also pray to be protected against his own friends. Now we have the further defence of the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Maré), whom I want to congratulate on his maiden speech in this House. There we have the further defence that we should forgive the Minister because he is the son of his father. Those are not arguments which are acceptable in this House, and I repeat that it is a pity that all these excuses were advanced.

Do you want to hang Smith?

I regret that this matter took up such a great deal of the House’s time. Let the Minister rather admit frankly : “In the enthusiasm of the moment I forgot myself; I made a mistake. In the future, until such time as the highest council of this country decides to commute the death sentence, I shall not act as I did in a case of this nature.” If the Minister had said that it would have made a much better impression on the country, and it would have helped in some measure to rehabilitate the Minister’s position, that position which he has injured so much as a result of his action in this case.

I just want to say a few words with reference to the speech of the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges). He said in the first place that it is the first speech which the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Maré) made in this House. That is not correct. The hon. member has spoken before. In the second place he stated that the hon. member said that the Minister should be forgiven because he is his father’s son. That is not what the hon. member said.

When did the hon. member for Lydenburg speak previously?

You will see that in Hansard. If there is one art in which the Opposition is very proficient, it is the art of flogging a dead horse, and that is the reason why the late Gen. Hertzog said that they would wander in a political desert for forty years. We all deplore the deed committed by Smith. It is a horrible deed, but we have confidence in the Minister; the Cabinet went into that matter, and we have full confidence that the conclusions to which they came are sound and just. We have already had many tragedies in this country. Let us rather be sorry that ten people who committed murder were not hanged, than that one person who did not commit murder was condemned to death. Let us get away from these points and get back to the vote. I just want to say that the statement has been made here that the internees do not know of what they are accused. Every Union National has the right to know the charge against him. I took various cases to Col. Truter, the Chief Control Officer, and I would like to testify tonight to the good spirit in which he dealt with these cases. He submitted to me all the cases which I took to him, and he gave me the details. Most of the cases which I took to him I had first investigated myself, and after thorough discussion, I succeeded in getting those people released from the interment camp. I would like to thank the Chief Control Officer on behalf of those internees, as well as on behalf of their families, and I hope that where there are other cases, they will be dealt with just as sympathetically. I also wish to express my thanks to the Minister for the manner in which he treated me with all these cases which I took to him.

I wish to reply to the assertions of the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler). He told the House that this question of the Durban murder had been made a battle-cry in the Wakkerstroom election, that the women had been called together and that this side of the House wanted to make political capital out the case. It is not true and it is not worthy of the hon. member to make such statements in this House. I was in charge of the organisation of Wakkerstroom and I know it did not happen. It is true that speakers referred to it. The fact of the matter is that the public are indignant about it, but I hold that what the hon. member for Kimberley (District) said is definitely untrue. But there is another very important matter which caused a commotion in the minds of the people of Wakkerstroom and I want to say a few words about that. I am referring to the question of Indians being allowed into European bars.

The hon. member cannot discuss that matter now, it doesn’t come under this vote.

On a point of order, surely it comes under the Minister of Justice. The liquor laws come under the Minister of Justice.

Yes, the liquor laws come under this vote—the hon. member may proceed.

It is a fact that this Smith case caused a wave of dissatisfaction which spread from Natal over the rest of the country. Another question which caused a lot of dissatisfaction is that of Indians being admitted into European bars. On behalf of the Transvaal, particularly, I want to protest most emphatically against this action of the Government. A wave of indignation spread over Wakkerstroom. The people were so shocked that even Government supporters denied that such a thing had taken place. They said there was no such thing, because no Government which had the welfare of South Africa’s future at heart could allow anything of the kind. They challenged us to produce evidence. When we gave them proof the results were shown at a place like Sulphur Springs, for instance, where the Government used to have a majority, and where, on this occasion, the Nationalist Party scored the same number of votes as the Government candidate, if not more. That was the reaction. Now, is it fair to the Minister to draw a comparison with what was done in regard to the Japanese? We have no Japanese problem in this country. The regulation was issued this year, but where did it cause dissatisfaction? I challenge the Minister to produce evidence. The coolies constitute a practical problem. We have a very grave coolie problem, and the Transvaal particularly feels very uneasy about it. The coolies and the natives have learned to work together to a very large extent, and now we get this fact that the natives, and the coloured people in the Transvaal even more, are dissatisfied because the coolies are enjoying more privileges than they are. There again a source of racial conflict has been created which is not going to lead to any good results as far as South Africa is concerned. This matter affects the most profound principles of our policy in regard to our various races. I want to make an appeal to the Government to reconsider this whole subject. The Minister said that those privileges were given to the Indians because they defended the freedom of the country. Is that the price we have to pay for the war? If our young men had known that that was the price, not one of them would have taken up their rifles and gone North. I want to ask the Government another question, viz. whether it is now deliberately going in the direction of racial miscegenation. I particularly want to know whether as far as the Transvaal is concerned the Government is intent on weakening the line dividing the races, and stunting racial sentiments. On behalf of the Transvaal I want to protest most emphatically against the Government’s policy.

During the course of the debate this afternoon the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) pointed out the growing incidence of drunkenness in South Africa and he appealed to the Minister to appoint a commission to enquire into this state of affairs and to try and remedy it. I was very glad to hear the Minister say that he was going to appoint a commission under the chairmanship of Mr. Elliott, Chief Magistrate of Johannesburg. But knowing commissions as we do, they take a considerable time before they report. Is it not possible to have some sort of preliminary examination into the shebeening and drunkenness in the Western Province so that steps can be taken to put a stop to this traffic? In certain parts of my constituency, in the Vasco area, and Cape Town itself, conditions have become so bad that it is unsafe for people to go out at night. I have had numerous complaints from coloured citizens and Europeans that they dare not venture out at night because of the excessive drinking which goes on— drinking which is fostered by the shebeens. If the Minister wishes to obtain the necessary information, I feel he can obtain sufficient to go on with by getting into touch with the Deputy-Commissioner of Police and people interested in social welfare in this area. The Liquor Act when passed originally meant to give the police more powers than they have but we find that in the Cane Town magisterial area and Simonstown area and as far as Bellville restrictions have been imposed by Liquor Licensing Courts in regard to hours and sale of liquor; yet, people living in those areas can go outside the boundaries and get unlimited supplies, and they can go from one bottle store to another and get all the liquor they want. Although the law provides that a man may not purchase more than two bottles of liquor, the police cannot take action if a man is found carrying in a suitcase ten bottles of liquor. I am convinced that if the commission goes into this matter it will find many anomalies and defects in the Liquor Act which require to be eliminated. But some time will lapse before the report will be available and the necessary legislation passed to clear up matters, and therefore I ask the Minister to give his earnest consideration to the necessity for having a preliminary investigation by a departmental committee to see whether, by applying the Emergency Regulations, some steps cannot be taken to clear up this terrible traffic.

I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Wonderboom has said about Asiatics being admitted into the same places frequented by Europeans. It particularly affects the Transvaal. The Minister’s contention is that the Nationalist Party took the first step in that direction by admitting the Japanese. A few wool buyers came into the country, and they were allowed to frequent the same places as the Europeans. Japan today is fighting the Union. Rather let the Minister withdraw the privilege as far as Japan is concerned than aggravate the position by allowing Indians to have liquor. If the Nationalist Party did make a small mistake in the past that surely is no reason for him to commit this serious error now. In regard to the murder of the young girl in Durban, hon. members are trying to condone the Government’s actions and they quote Leibbrandt’s case and other cases of people who in their opinion should have been hanged. Every case must be dealt with on its merits. I put myself in the place of the father and the mother—what must they have felt when their child was induced by this man Smith to follow him on the pretence that he was going to buy her a doll—what must they have felt when he committed this terrible crime? If we don’t raise our voices we are not worth being representatives of the people. I again want to bring Marais’ case to the Minister’s notice. This man is still in the internment camp. I have been bringing this matter to his notice since the beginning of this Session, Marais is still detained. His family are living at Lichtenburg and are suffering great hardships because what they get is very small, they are actually starving. I shall be glad if the Minister will further consider the whole question. Marais didn’t commit any acts of sabotage. There was an idea in people’s minds that he intended committing sabotage. The Minister promised us that he would release people who had not committed acts of sabotage, and I now appeal to him to go into Marais’ position and to reconsider his decision.

When listening this afternoon to the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) who of course is never in his place—he makes a speech and then runs away, and then comes back and makes another speech and runs away again— I was reminded very much of the well-known trial of Mrs. Bardell versus Pickwick and Sergeant Buzzfuss coming in and making a remarkable speech on chops and tomato sauce. The hon. member was all chops and tomato sauce this afternoon but he got no further. I don’t want to go into this question of Smith because I think that as far as that is concerned we have left the Opposition bleeding and very sore. They will hang themselves. But I want to deal with my old respected lily-white friend from Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). The hon. member was bowled middle stump by the brilliant advocate who has briefs—unlike the hon. member who has none—the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno). The hon. member talked about Communism. The hon. member for Beaufort West can speak of Communism, and native Communism, with more knowledge than anyone else in this country. He will remember his friend Kadalie. Doesn’t he remember him? Because if he doesn’t he can talk to the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) who once gave Kadalie £5 to run an election. Does he remember it?

It is an absolute untruth.

The hon. member forgets. I want him to withdraw that word “absolute onwaarheid.” But never mind. If I said that I might have to apologise.

I deny it emphatically. It is an untruth and I must ask the hon. member not to continue with it.

Does the hon. member give way?

No, of course I don’t.

If he wants to tell untruths in the House let him do so. You are telling an untruth.

What have I said; what did I say?

It is an untruth.

What I said is this, that the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) must remember how Kadalie came to him. I sent a note by him and he saw Gen. Hertzog and got £5 out of him to help fight the seat at Queenstown.

I wish to repeat that it is an absolute untruth. If the hon. member is a gentleman he will accept my denial.

He was never at Queenstown.

Dr. Malan sent a message at that very moment to the natives. I am coming to what I told him about Communism. Then the hon. member made his great speech on Bulhoek? Did the hon. member make his great speech on Bulhoek? The House does not know about Bulhoek. At Bulhoek there were a number of natives who called themselves the Israelites. They came out flourishing their swords and in their white robes. Col. Sir Theodore Truter was sent down to pacify them. What they wanted was a communal country, all Communism, and the hon. member defended them from the platform. That was the first time we ever had a Communistic community in this country. They were all black, and they called themselves Israelites. The hon. member for Beaufort West defended them.

I never defended them; it is untrue.

The hon. member has been travelling to Canada and other places, and he has forgotten his own history.

You don’t know what truth is.

Sir Theodore Truter was sent down to stop the trouble, and the hon. member when he lost his seat attacked the Government of the day on the question of Bulhoek, and he knows very well that he supported them; that he supported these Israelites who were dancing about like Dervishes—not Derbyshires—Kadalie and Masabalala are still knocking about. Kadalie was here the other day looking for the hon. member.

That is not true.

Now I should like to get to the question of the Japanese. We know that the law book of this country said no Asiatic shall be allowed to have liquor. I was on that Select Committee. Dr. Hjalmar Reitz was chairman, I was vice-chairman, and the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) was then Minister of the Interior. We wanted to leave out the point of the Japanese and he said that we would have to have a proclamation, because he had made a gentleman’s agreement with Japan. That gentleman’s agreement was made by the hon. member for Piketberg. It was not a matter of one coming in here, they came in by the dozen, many of them as commercial travellers. They sold tackies to the country. They pretended they were going to buy wool, but they never did. They were able to get drinks at the Carlton Hotel and the Queen’s Hotel and every other hotel in the country, all on account of the hon. member for Piketberg; that is the man. That was his gentleman’s agreement.

You should never use the word “gentleman”; that is one word you should never use; it does not apply to you.

I was not discussing the hon. member. I referred to my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition.

I am telling you not to use the word “gentleman.”

The hon. member for Piketberg will remember the Indians—my friend calls them coolies—and how they garlanded him with roses. The hon. member for Piketberg sat there with some flowers on the top of his head and a rose in each ear, and a laurel wreath round his neck, and all garlanded with roses. That was the hon. member for Piketberg. He looked like a fairy on the top of a wedding cake. He shook hands with the “coolies.” He drank tea with them, and they threw their roses and strewed them in his path. He was their greatest friend. No white man has done so much in such a short time for the Asiatic in this country, as the hon. member for Piketberg. Now they turn round and say: Why should there be this law? They call them the “coolies.” It is not the Minister who must be credited with this; he is only following suit. It was the hon. member for Piketberg who set the thing going. He told us to open our homes to them, to sit down with them and said we should treat them like Europeans. Now we are allowing the Indian because he was borin amongst us, to have a drink or two. If any one in this country is to blame for the “coolie” getting drink, it is the hon. member for Piketberg, and if anybody is to blame for having a Communistic State it is the two Dolly Sisters (Messrs. Swart and Eric Louw) who are sitting at the far end of the Opposition front benches.

When I last discussed Mr. Eyssen’s case the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe) declared that the Heidelberg people didn’t want him.

I didn’t say that.

Well, the hon. member gave us to understand that that was the position. Now let me quote from the letter of the controlling body of the high school which is the only body to decide whether Mr. Eyssen is to return or not.

This resolution was unanimously passed and the body which passed it is the only body at Heidelberg responsible for the re-appointment or otherwise of Mr. Eyssen. I say that it is unreasonable and unfair on the part of the Government to keep Mr. Eyssen away from Heidelberg, and in this connection Î want to mention a few other points. A short while ago permission was asked for Mr. Eyssen to sing over the wireless. It was refused. That shows the vindictiveness against him, because the records of his songs are broadcast over the wireless. Surely it is the same voice and the same man. The Chief Control Officer alleged that he had taken part in politics. Let me say that if a teacher takes part in politics he can be immediately suspended from his position under a disciplinary regulation in force in the Transvaal. Nothing whatsoever was done by the Education Department to apply this regulation to Mr. Eyssen. They are compelled to re-appoint him to his position immediately the ban is lifted. They cannot even make a permanent appointment in his place because he has not been found guilty of having taken part in politics. Of course we know that he has been interned as a result of allegations made against him, allegations which certain people are only too ready to swallow. Quite possibly those allegations were made by the Freemasons, the Sons of England or agents at Heidelberg. I want to draw attention to another motive which may have prevailed with regard to Mr. Eyssen’s case. Why is Mr. Eyssen kept away from Heidelberg? There are a number of people who are interested in his not being allowed to return there— there are individuals who are interested in his position. There are a number of teachers who very definitely are after his position. His position becomes vacant next year when Mr. Malan reaches the age of 60 and will have to retire. I want to ask the Minister to be merciful and to make it possible for Mr. Eyssen to take up the position when Mr. Malan retires. He is an honourable man and is highly respected. He is a man of great cultural achievements and I am convinced that he has been interned simply as the result of stories to which undue credence has been attached. And I want to go further than that. Mr. Eyssen was asked whether he was prepared to admit his guilt. I am convinced that if he had admitted his guilt, he would have been reinstated in his position. All they want to do is humiliate him. They want him to degrade himself. He is an honourable man and is not going to do it ánd that is why he is not allowed to return. Is that sort of thing fair and just to an Afrikaner? On a previous occasion I drew attention to the financial damage Mr. Eyssen had suffered. I have worked out the globular amount and I want to tell the House what it comes to. So far he has lost £3,000 in respect of salary which he has not drawn for three years. If the war continues for another six years he will lose another £2,000. He will lose another £2,000 over a period of ten years after his retirement. Altogether it amounts to £7,000. Is it fair that a man who hasn’t even been found guilty by a court should be penalised in that way. Gen. De Wet was found guilty by a court of law and was fined £2,000. This man has not been found guilty by any court and yet he has to bear this tremendous loss. It seems so unfair to me that I can only describe it as a crying shame. We dare not allow such things to happen in this country and I want to protest against them most emphatically. I want to mention another point in this connection. The people who prosecuted Mr. Eyssen were so dubious about his internment that after he had been interned, they made attempts to get information and to get sworn statements against him. They went to the children. They went to the people in the district. They did all kinds of things to get hold of some reasons for interning him. The only reason why he was interned was that he had made the people in that area conscious of the fact that they were Afrikaners. He wasn’t anti-British and he didn’t make them anti-British, but he taught the children to feel Afrikaans and to live and enjoy their Afrikanerdom, and to sing in the Afrikaans spirit and to be proud of the fact that they were Afrikaners and that is the reason why he is in the internment camp today. That is the reason why he is not allowed to convey his Afrikaans feelings to the children— it is simply because he is a prominent Afrikaner that he is kept in an internment camp. The Minister has not yet replied to what I have said about this case and we are very anxious to know his views on the subject. Let him say publicly what he told me privately viz. that Mr. Eyssen is to be interned for the duration of the war and that he is not going to grant any relief as far as he is concerned.

I am compelled to say a few words in order to deal with some of the disgraceful untruths which an hon. member of this House has seen fit to broadcast. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) accuses me of having given £5 to Kadalie on a certain occasion. Now let me test the truth of his statement. At the time this was supposed to have happened I wasn’t even in South Africa. I was in the United States of America.

In Hollywood?

Yes. I was in the United States of America at the time and not in South Africa. That shows how much value one can attach to absolute untruths which are thrown about here by the hon. member for Hospital. I spoke about another subject the other day, the banning of the book “The Roman Catholic System.” The hon. member told the House that I had made an attack on the Roman Catholic Church. What I said was this—that I had a pamphlet, but because it made an attack on the Roman Church I did not propose reading it. I want to ask hon. members if I ever made an attack on the Roman Catholic Church. I did not do it. However, we will let that pass, and I now propose to deal with the argument used by the Minister. The Minister’s reason for banning this book, as he said, is that it is scurrilous. If it is scurrilous, why is it admitted into the country? Surely a book which is scurrilous is not admitted into South Africa. Why does he allow it to be sold if it is scurrilous? It has been admitted here for years and now the Minister finds out that it is scurrilous. Then the Minister said that the book had been banned because it had roused unnecessary feeling and because, at the time when it was banned, the war position was difficult, but when the war position improved the book was again admitted. When has a book dealing with a religious matter ever had anything to do with the war. Is it not a ridiculous argument to say that on account of the Allies being in a difficult position in those days the book had to be banned? If the Minister’s argument is correct, why did he send his police even into the studies of our predikants? I can understand his prohibiting the sale of the book, but he sent his police officials right into the studies of the predikants. The Minister of the Interior in the past, when banning books, did not send the police to search my house, but the Minister of Justice does so, and he instructs the police officials even to go to the studies of the predikants and to look for the particular book in their book-cases. Instances have been mentioned of police officials who have visited predikants up to four times and told them: “We want that book out of your book-case.” The Minister cannot tell me that he has banned this book simply because it stirred up people’s feelings. That excuse, I am afraid, I cannot accept. I am unable to believe that that was the reason the Government banned this book. Now there is another matter in connection with internments which I want to deal with very briefly. I have a case here which I consider to be very unfair. An enemy subject who was domiciled in this country was interned. His wife, of course, is without any income or withont any help and she gets the ordinary allowance which is paid to the wife of an internee. The man was so affected by his internment that he went out of his mind and was sent to a lunatic asylum and immediately afterwards his wife’s allowance was taken away because, of course, the man was no longer an internee. I wrote to the Chief Control Officer and he replied that he couldn’t do anything about it because the man was no longer an internee. The man had gone out of his mind as a result of his internment, and had it not been for the kindheartedness of people in Bloemfontein the woman would have starved. The Chief Control Officer referred me to the Secretary of Social Welfare. I do not know what has been done for her in the meantime, but I do feel this is a most unfair thing seeing that the man was interned and went out of his mind as a result. As the Minister knows, the woman cannot get any work because she is an enemy subject. She is helpless and her husband is in a lunatic asylum. I really feel that in this case the Government has acted very unfairly. As it is, the lot of these people is a hard one, and I want to appeal to the Minister to go into the question.

I do not want to take undue notice of a member like the hon. member for Hospital, but this is the second or third time he has made wild statements here, particularly about myself. I told him on a previous occasion that what he said was untrue. This evening he has again made certain statements and as those allegations of his appear in Hansard I am compelled to get up— especially as he refused to allow me to make a statement on a point of personal explanation—and to say that the hon. member’s allegations are pure imagination. There is not a word of truth in them. I know nothing about Kadalie. He was nowhere near Queenstown at the time when I was there, and I have never heard of a native by the name of Masabalala. Those are one of those wild statements which the hon. member makes here from time to time and they are nothing but pure imagination.

The papers said so.

In view of the fact that the hon. member for Hospital made a series of personal allegations against me, and as you, Mr. Speaker, in the execution of your rights allowed him to do so, I feel it is fitting that I should tell the House something about the history of that hon. member. It is necessary to do so so that hon. members can judge for themselves where those accusations come from. On the 6th May, 1925, he wrote the following letter to a friend of his—

Thus the Minister of Finance can never be Minister of Labour!

I wasn’t born outside South Africa.

He goes on—

“Barkis was willing.”—

And only this morning we heard him say that he knew nothing of “Big Capital” in Johannesburg—

And that is the type of man who comes to this House and spreads untrue stories about the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) and myself and who then runs away from the House before we are able to answer him.

He is a better type of man than you are.

His son-in-law needn’t stand up for him. That’s the type of man we have to deal with, and I hope the House will in future attach no value whatever to his statements.

At an earlier stage of the day I supported the plea of the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink) that the case of Stephen Eyssen be again considered. I then referred to the rising amongst the natives in Pietersburg last year. According to the annual report of the police it was necessary to arrest 127 natives who were armed with assegais and other dangerous weapons and wanted to attack the police. I said that according to my information Senator Basner was largely responsible for the rising. Why was he not arrested? The Minister did not reply. This is a serious matter if a European can be allowed to cause a rising amongst natives. Then the House has the right to hear why the person was not prosecuted. We hear that a person such as Stephen Eyssen interested himself in politics. Personally I will not accept it that he was mixed up with any underground organisation, but here vou have a case of a person publicly organising a rebellion of natives against the police. Why are steps not being taken against him?

I just wish to express my surprise at the fact that hon. members on the other side had the courage to deny that Communistic propaganda is being disseminated amongst the natives. I am especially surprised at the attitude of the native representatives who want to conceal everything. In that way they are not rendering the natives a service but a disservice. They should rather warn the natives against this sort of thing. The fact remains that the Minister of Justice knows, or ought to know, that Communistic propaganda is at work on a large scale, and that if he were to take action in regard to Communistic propaganda in the same way as with regard to the so-called Nazi propaganda, he would have to enlarge his internment camps ten times or a hundred times. It is a disgrace the way Communistic propaganda is today being conducted in the large town locations. You will be surprised if you go and have a look there during the week-end, the chain organisation which exists there and the open Communistic propaganda which is made there. But it is also taking place in the reserves. I have come across cases in Zoutpansberg and as far as the heart of Sekukuland, where Communistic pamphlets are regularly distributed every week on a considerable scale, and what is more, natives are found to take an active part in the Communistic propaganda. Today you find certain cases where the hammer and sickle have been chiselled out on the houses of natives. Is that not enough of a warning? But I have also already pointed out that you find the hammer and sickle among natives as a sort of totem around which they are grouped, one of the most dangerous phenomena. Communistic propaganda is being disseminated on such a scale that if the Government does not take action, you will soon find the position which you found in North Africa, and the hammer and sickle will do for Communism in South Africa what the crescent did for Islam in North Africa. The Minister of Justice will be rendering South Africa a great service if he takes the matter in hand immediately and acts drastically. It is a great danger to the nation. Churches and missionary bodies who come into contact with the situation, supply the evidence. It is a disgrace that the native representatives deny all this without refuting the proofs. You already have the phenomenon that the English missionary bodies also supply evidence about the matter. I ask what is at the back of the minds of hon. members on the other side and of the native representatives that they actually come here and want to make the country believe that Communistic propaganda is not at work. It is not fair towards the nation.

I should like to have some more information from the Minister in regard to the shooting of Jentzen. We have heard that there are native guards at the internment camps. We would like to know whether the native guards are also armed. Are they guarding European prisoners? If any other power has done so, I would nevertheless question whether it is advisable to have native and non-European guards in charge of Europeans in our country. This is a matter on which there has been a great deal of difference of opinion in the past. Even though the prisoners who are guarded are not Union nationals, they are none the less Europeans and a very strong section of the population are opposed to Europeans being guarded by ηοη-Europeañs and natives. We would like to have more information from the Minister. Another point about Jentzen is that I should like to ask the Minister why his parents were only notified the following afternoon, after he had been shot the previous evening. Why was there confusion about his funeral? It could have been arranged immediately. The Minister said that the matter has been thoroughly investigated. We should have a full statement. Was Jentzen born in the Union? That must be the case, because his mother was a South African lady and his father came to the Union years ago. Even though his sympathies might have been with another power, he was nevertheless a Union national. Further, I should like to know whether the Minister received a petition from the wives and children of internees, asking for protection so that their husbands and sons should not be exposed to the bullets of nonEuropeans. How has the Minister reacted to that? How did Jentzen escape? What sort of gate did he climb over? What time of the night did he escape? How did it happen that he was immediately shot dead? Have the guards not been instructed first of all to attempt to wound their man before simply shooting him dead? Has the Minister given attention to this matter in the light that if it had been a European guard who had fired at this young man he would have wounded him and would not have shot him dead? We could reasonably have expected that he would have used his discretion and not just have shot to kill. If the one escaped person could have been overtaken and knocked out, they could not have been too far ahead of the guards and both of them could have been captured since they were not armed. But instead of trying to capture them the coloured man simply lost his head and fired. It is dangerous to put a rifle in the hands of a coloured person, especially when he has to guard a white man. He would be inclined to shoot. This is a matter about which we and a large part of the country feel very deeply. If the Minister has not already done so I would ask him in all seriousness to substitute Europeans for those coloured and native guards. There are many Europeans who are old and too weak to go North, and they can be used for this work. [Time limit.]

I wish to know from the Minister whether it is not possible for him to raise the salaries of the clerks and messengers who start in his Department. Messengers start at £60 a year. There are 20 clerks who are receiving £120 per annum and about ten who are getting £140. That is in the head office, so that these people have to live in the cities, and there is no part of the country where they can exist on such a salary. A portion of it is further deducted for pension purposes. On the other hand we see that there are people who are receiving £1,800 and £1,200, while these clerks have to start so low. I know of fathers who have to give their sons an allowance when they start in the civil service to enable them to exist.

A commission has been appointed to go into this.

Yes, but I ask the Minister to see to it that this matter is taken up and that as soon as possible an improvement is effected for these people. Many of these clerks must handle money, and if one of these people steals money, then it is usually some one who is paid inadequately. The Minister cannot expect to receive loyal service from these people if they cannot properly exist on their salaries.

May I now speak about the salaries of the police?

No, the hon. member can do it on the Vote “Police.”

I had not quite finished. I asked the Minister to consider having the native guards and the coloured guards replaced by Europeans, particularly in view of the fact that the number of internees has now decreased, so that at some of the camps guards can now be spared. If other governments have made the mistake of putting nonEuropean guards in charge of Europeans, that is no reason why we should do the same. If it had to happen in respect of our prisoners of war we will disapprove of it and we should therefore not make the same mistake. Another matter in which I wish to associate myself with what has been said here, is in connection with Mr. Eyssen. The time has come for the Minister to give in. We are not pleading for mercy any longer. We are demanding the civic rights of this man. It is not necessary for us to plead for mercy because we do not believe that the man is guilty. In the past we have pleaded for mercy but without any effect. It was not necessary for us to have done that because he is not guilty. Mr. Eyssen’s conduct is as quiet and irreproachable as ever and there is no reason why his freedom should be interfered with any longer. Then there is another matter, namely, the release of the prisoners. I put a question to the Minister in connection with a certain native who was released in Pietersburg. Within a few days after his release he committed some or other offence which landed him in gaol again. He was arrested on a charge of murder on a European woman. He had a very bad record. He was one of the 20,000 or more who were released. The first night after his release he committed theft; the second night he committed theft; the third night he committed theft; and on the fourth night he murdered a woman in cold blood.

I released a young attorney and within three weeks he had joined Leibbrandt.

Perhaps the hon. the Minister does not understand that we are now talking of the release of prisoners and not of internees. If the reason was that the prisons were too full, why was not only a sufficient number released to make room for the new prisoners? Why should 20,000 be released so that the gaols should be empty? That puts a premium on crime. The prisons are filled and then the doors are thrown open. That is not the way to deal with a matter such as this. We should deal with a matter like this on sound lines. Let us show mercy, but let us do so in a judicious manner. I have drawn attention to the fact that one of the prisoners who was released, within a few days after his release murdered a woman in cold blood. The Minister knows of the case. It is sub judice and I do not want to say anything more about it. If there are too many prisoners for the gaols why not rather release the internees and put the prisoners in the internment camps? The people who are in the internment camps are people against whom there are no charges. They have been sitting there for years. We are not averse to mercy being shown but it should be done with discretion. As far as the internment camps are concerned, there is every opportunity for showing mercy and we will appreciate that. If we grant them their freedom then we could put the prisoners in the internment camps.

I am surprised at the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper). If he talks of showing mercy, he should be one of the members who should know what I have done. Other hon. members have accused me of refusing the release of certain persons on representations made by them. The hon. member for Vredefort knows well enough of the cases where I have released people. Does the same argument apply to those people? He knows of persons I have released and where their freedom has unfortunately been abused. He put a certain question to me and I replied to him with regard to those cases where there were perhaps unfortunate results. The hon. member pleaded here for the internees and told me that I should show mercy in those cases. But if I show mercy in other cases he criticises me. I am disappointed in the attitude adopted here by the hon. member. Now I want to return to the cases mentioned here, but before doing so, I want to say this that the question put by the hon. member in connection with the internees has done them no good and they themselves are concerned about it. To come back to the cases mentioned here. I have said before that I do not want to go into personal instances here because of the fact that it is not in the interest of the internees themselves. If the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) comes and sees me I will discuss those matters with him. But in the interests of the internees themselves I do not want to discuss those special cases here. That is the policy I have laid down in the past and I wish to uphold it now. If any member wishes to see me in connection with any case such as this I would gladly discuss the matter with him, but it is not in the interests of the internees to make these matters public.

Also the case of Marais?

The hon. member can come and see me personally also in connection with that case. I am prepared to discuss it with him privately.

Will the Minister tell us what the policy is with regard to the conditions?

In cases where there is any doubt and where we are given a guarantee that the person will not commit any offence, he is sent to a farm and after a certain period the conditions are suspended.

Can we bring such cases to the notice of the Minister?

Yes, and if it is possible I will suspend the conditions, and if it is not possible we will give the reasons why we cannot do so. The hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) referred to Senator Basner. I just want to say that there has never been a charge of this nature against him. Apparently he is acting on wrong advice. I now wish to come back to another matter referred to here by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper). He asked me about the coloured guards who are put in charge of internees. I wish to remind the hon. member that it was also done during the last war. It was done in South-West Africa by the Germans.

Do you approve of natives keeping guard over Europeans.

I say that where it has been done by them, nobody can object to it.

Do you think that is a good example?

I am sorry that they did it, but seeing that they did so in the last war, they cannot now object to it.

Can you not put them a good example?

I have given my opinion on the matter and I cannot take it any further. After having put coloured guards in charge of our troops, the Italians and Germans cannot raise any objection to it. Then I just want to tell the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) what the position is in connection with the point he has mentioned. The persons now appointed all receive £132 per annum. Typists and second grade women clerks are now starting on a salary of £150 per annum. I agree that it is a matter into which the commission to be appointed should specially enquire and I will discuss it with the Minister concerned.

The other day I raised the matter of Communist propaganda amongst the natives, and the hon. Minister replied in a frivolous manner. His reply was simply this …

It was not frivolous.

I shall first repeat the Minister’s reply to the House and hon. members can then judge for themselves whether his reply was frivolous or not. The Minister’s reply was that if he had to take steps against agitators he would have to take steps against members of the Opposition. That was the answer we got when we were speaking about Communists inciting the natives. I do not know whether the Minister, as in the case of his colleague, the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation, or the member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) is so ignorant that he does not know what Communism is. They pretend to be ignorant. The Minister knows perfectly well what Communism is. What do his own police reports say?

What is Communism?

The hon. Minister pretends that he is very ignorant. He knows perfectly well what it is.

Tell us.

I have given certain quotations here and I got those quotations from the evidence of the Secretary for Native Affairs, and now the hon. member for Cape Western comes along with the yarn that the Secretary for Native Affairs has denied it. He has not denied it.

He has.

It is very clear from his replies to questions which had been put to him that he knows that agitation is going on amongst the natives. The two statements which are very clear are these—

And then he says—

“Behind it” being the incitement of natives. That is the attitude adopted by the Secretary for Native Affairs. When we now lay the evidence before him the Minister comes along with that frivolous answer and he says that if he has to take steps he would have to take steps against members of the Opposition. It is perhaps as well that we know where we stand with the Minister. We know perfectly well that the Minister is not prepared to take steps against Communism. He is not prepared to act. I ask the Minister now to instruct his police officials to go into this matter. It is not a matter calling for an “investigation” as the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) would have it. It is the duty of the police to go into the matter and it is the duty of the Minister to do so. It does not behove him to come along and say that if he has to take steps against agitators he would have to take steps against hon. members on this side of the House. We do not want that frivolous answer. The Minister knows that there are Communistic influences at work among the natives. We expect the Minister to act, especially in view of the fact that we here in South Africa are 2,000,000 Europeans as against approximately 7,000,000 natives. It is a matter of the preservation of European civilisation in South Africa and it is the duty of the Minister not to feign ignorance as in the case of his colleague, the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation or of the hon. member for Cape Western. He knows what Communism is and he knows about the propaganda which is being made among the natives here. We now know where we stand. We now have the right to say that he does not want to take steps against Communism.

The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) deserves the thanks of this House and of the country in that he has repeatedly pointed out the dangers of communism. I want to refer to what the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) said when he stated that the South African communists have no connection with the Soviet communists. We know when meetings are held here by communists, the big portraits of Stalin are put up. The hon. Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation asked here today what communism is.

Yes, I do ask that.

I will tell you what communism is. I will now tell you what is happening in Russia. Let me read to the House what was said by a well-known statesman, what the position is in Russia. It is a well-known statesman who wrote as follows—

It sounds like a Nationalist Party caucus.

… of a conscripted army in war-time; a people suffering in years of peace the rigours and privations of the worst campaigns ; a people ruled by terror, fanaticisms, and the secret police. Here we have a state whose subjects are so happy that they have to be forbidden to quit its bounds under the direst penalties; whose diplomatists and agents are sent on foreign missions, have often to leave their wives and children at home as hostages to ensure their eventual return. Here we have a system whose social achievements crowd five or six persons in a single room ….

That sounds like Cape Town.

He goes on—

It sounds like a Hollywood film.

—

The author of this is Winston Churchill. That is what communism does. You will surely not doubt the word of Winston Churchill.

He has changed his policy, just as the Leader of the Opposition has changed his policy.

That was said 20 years ago.

He still said it in 1938.

It is strange that up to the time that Russia entered the war, Great Britain and South Africa refused to receive an ambassador from Russia, because they were afraid of this sort of thing, because they did not want propaganda for communism. Even shortly before Russia entered the war, petitions were signed in the Cape Town streets not to receive a Russian ambassador. It does not help hon. members to minimise this danger and to pretend that the danger does not exist. Let them go up country. Hon. members do not know what is going on up country amongst the natives. There is a continual inciting of the natives. As Churchill said here, “by stealth and by propaganda”. In that way this propaganda is continued amongst the natives. We issue a warning year after year against the danger which is increasing. The Churches and missions continually warn the Government. Even the Minister of Native Affairs has time and again found it necessary to issue a warning against the agitation amongst the natives. It is useless for hon. members to say that such a thing does not exist.

The hon. the Minister replied to the objections raised by me and other members against the placing of Europeans and Indians on an equal basis; that the Indians will have the same rights as Europeans throughout the Union to obtain liquor in a bar or canteen; that the policy was laid down by the old Nationalist Party. The hon. Minister knows very well that the right was only granted to a small number of Japanese. He knows that there were only a dozen Japanese in the country, practically all connected with the consulate, and when a few Japanese came to South Africa in 1928 to purchase wool, the Government granted them that right temporarily. But in South Africa we had no Japanese at all. That was in 1928. Since 1928 no further extension of any kind took place until now, in 1943. Now as reason it is stated that India is participating in the war. Of course, it has nothing to do with the matter. The Minister included the Chinese in 1943. They obtained the right to enter bars and to receive the same treatment as Europeans. Then he of course saw that he was in an awkward position and that he could not use any argument to refuse it to Indians now. But there is a vast difference between the position. There are thousands of Indians established in this country and there were only a few Japanese at that time. Now I want to say a few words in connection with the case raised by the hon. member for Ladybrand and other hon. members in regard to the shooting of Jensen in the camp at Andalusia. I originally put a question to the Minister. Jensen was not a German. Even then we would have raised objections; but here you have a European who was born in South Africa and who is guarded by coloureds and natives. I think it is the worst policy ever applied. It is stated that the Germans also applied it in East Africa, but conditions were entirely different there. We object strongly. He was a person who was born in South Africa.

Jensen chose to be German. He was born in South-West.

I can hardly blame him for not wanting to stand under the present Government when such things happen.

He preferred to be in the German internment camp rather than in the camp for Union nationals.

Even if the Minister chooses to pose as a Malay, he still remains an Afrikaner. Jensen was born in South-West Africa. The fact remains that they armed natives and coloureds to act as guards over Europeans and, in this instance, a young South African was shot dead. If a European had kept guard it might never have happened. These people are not accustomed to handling weapons.

Jensen said that he did not want to be an Afrikaner.

If this Government arms coloureds and natives to take action against Europeans, I can hardly blame him. The fact remains that he was born in South Africa. Now the natives are placed in a position of power. He later considers that he is the European’s master and has no further respect for the European. I hope that no more natives will be armed to serve as guards over Europeans in future.

The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) quoted the view voiced by Mr. Winston Churchill for the information of the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation. Perhaps the Minister, and also the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno), will pay more attention to the opinion of the Prime Minister (Gen. Smuts). The Prime Minister informed a deputation of English churches who came to interview him in Cape Town in February of last year, that—

Then the report continues—

Now members are quiet. But if I come here and also other hon. members and we say exactly the same thing then it is considered as nonsense. I hope they will heed the warning of their own leader.

I didn’t want to speak again in this debate but the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has twice referred to remarks I made and has twice repeated his completely vague allegations. I must say that I am obliged to the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) coming to his assistance in giving us a definition of communism. I listened carefully to it.

You didn’t listen. I didn’t give it; I said what Churchill said.

Yes, he adopted the definition of Mr. Churchill. I listened to it carefully and I have been very much surprised that anyone on behalf of the native people of Pietersburg could be found to recommend such conditions as he read out in his definition such as “forced labour” and “five people in a room.” If the hon. member wants to find five people in a room he needn’t go to Russia, he can go to Beaufort West location. Let me assure the hon. member for Beaufort West that whatever communism can do it cannot create conditions worse than the conditions which we have in some of the locations in this country.

Now we know where we stand.

No system could do worse than what is found in some parts of this country. The hon. member for Beaufort West has waxed infinitely tedious in this debate with his statements, all founded on certain evidence given by the Secretary for Native Affairs before the Select Committee on Public Accounts. I want to make this point clear. That evidence, the hon. member for Beaufort West says, proved the existence of communistic propaganda. Let me again quote what the Secretary for Native Affairs said ….

I do not think I can allow the hon. member to quote it again. It has been quoted six times already.

I won’t quote it again. I shall remind the committee what that evidence was and I hope the hon. member for Beaufort West won’t deny it. It was put to the Secretary for Native Affairs whether there was communistic propaganda and he said : “No.” And that is the evidence on which the hon. member for Beaufort West asks the Minister to give him some reply.

You are misquoting.

I am not surprised the Minister does not reply.

You are deliberately misquoting. You say he said : “No”. He didn’t say: “No.”

I have been accused of deliberately misquoting; I therefore feel I should quote the words referred to. The question was : “Have you had any evidence of communistic propaganda among the natives?” And the reply was: “I cannot say it is communistic.”

You said : “No.”

Well, that is a quibble, a quibble between “cannot” and “no.” The point I made was this, that when the hon. member for Beaufort West himself asked the Secretary for Native Affairs in relation to the specific situation that had arisen in Pietersburg whether there was any communistic propaganda, the Secretary for Native Affairs said that he could not say that there was, and that is the sort of evidence the hon. member brings forward, and he expects the Minister to reply to it. The hon. member will not give his definition of communism, so the hon. member for Winburg has come to his assistance and given a long-winded quotation from which it would be difficult to show that anyone in Pietersburg was trying to establish communism. The hon. member’s definition of communistic propaganda seems to be doing perfectly constitutional acts such as standing as a candidate in an election.

You had better go to school again.

I thank the hon. member for the courteous advice he has given me. We have to get back to this, that the condition of the coloured people and the natives of this country is one of as dreadful poverty as exists anywhere on earth ….

I do not think that the hon. member should pursue that subject any further.

I would just say, Mr. Chairman, that their poverty is a crying scandal, and if anyone wants to criticise those conditions in this country, the hon. member for Beaufort West describes him as a communist. In his vocabulary communism is a swear-word and nothing more.

It has been necessary for the umpteenth time to quote London and Churchill in order to make the members on the opposite side understand what Communism is. The Minister of Demobilisation is now so keenly interested in this debate that it will be necessary to quote London once more in order to show him where Communism in South Africa does exist. I see in this report that a Communist member in the British House of Commons put the following question to the Minister for the Dominions—

This question was put in the British House of Commons and the Under-Secretary for the Dominions, Evans, replied on behalf of Attlee, as follows—

Further, he also gave the following information which I particularly wish to bring to the notice of the Minister of Demobilisation—

This is a Sapa-Reuter report. The British connection works wonderfully in South Africa. At times it is a rubber ring which holds people so closely together that they do not believe things here in South Africa unless they are said in London. We have this strange phenomenon that the Minister of Justice knows, or should know, that there is Communism in this country; the Minister of Demobilisation and the Minister of Native Affairs and all of us know it. The churches are waging a terrific fight against Communistic influences. The Prime Minister himself admitted that, but it must first be said from London before they will believe it. While the Prime Minister is celebrating his birthday in London, the Ministers on the opposide side want to deny this and the Prime Minister must say it in London before they will believe it here. What he said here before their eyes and into their ears they would not believe. He must first say it in London and then they will believe it. I want to draw further attention to this matter. On the 24th March, 1944, a mass meeting was held in Germiston. I want to read a few things about this meeting—

I want to read one extract—

This meeting appeals to the nation to support it in its fight against communism—

The Chairman of the Broad Church Committee described the struggle as follows: We have the Lord on the one side and Satan on the other; Heaven on the one side and Hell on the other ; Christianity on the one side and communism on the other. Here we find that a meeting, according to the report, attended by quite a few thousand people, takes a resolution in these terms and then members opposite still ask us where the communism in South Africa is. I have a letter here addressed to one of the members of this House and signed by one of the ministers of religion concerned with the trouble that arose in Johannesburg. He states that they do not want those workers in the factory to be subject to the tyranny of a capitalist. But that their aim is to fight the communistic principles embodied in the existing trade union, to destroy them and to put the trade union on a Christian national basis. And then we find members on the opposite side saying that there is no such thing in our people. I think it would be a good thing for the Minister of Justice to get up here and to admit that he is aware of the communist propaganda which is being spread in the country. None other than the Minister of Labour admitted here when his Vote was under discussion that the same trouble that arose in Germiston is now threatening at Paarl.

He did not say that it was communism.

He said that the same trouble that arose in Germiston is threatening in Paarl.

He was not referring to communism.

I was referring to the trouble. If I had been an S.A.P. I would feel just as bad about it as the hon. member. Perhaps the Minister of Labour could not act differently because he is one of the patrons of the Friends of the Soviet Union, and if they need protection he has to protect them. We find, however, that the church in South Africa deems it necessary to appeal to the whole nation to protect our country against communism. We have all this evidence of communism in the country, but we have to read out to them that it was stated in London that there is communism in South Africa before the members on the opposite side will believe it.

The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) has again tried to strengthen the impression that there is a so-called communist danger in South Africa. I want to ask him, and I want to ask the Minister, whether it is not the opinion of this House and of the Government that we should take more courageous steps in South Africa against the Nazi danger? I want to ask the hon. member for Boshof whether he agrees that we should make a start with anti-Nazi, propaganda in South Africa, that we should adopt those measures in place of anti-communistic propaganda. I do not want to repeat it here, but there is sufficient evidence that there is Nazi propaganda in this country. I say that Nazi propaganda is a danger to South Africa, as I have proved in the past. I want to ask the hon. member whether he will support us in taking antiNazi measures in South Africa.

I am as opposed to a Nazi Germany as I am to a Communist Russia.

I am not accusing my hon. friend of being in favour of Nazism. I am asking whether he agrees with me when I say that the greatest danger to South Africa, as far as propaganda is concerned, is Nazi propaganda?

I mentioned examples, and I should like to hear you do the same.

But I have already given examples this afternoon in a previous case. I was then asked by one of the hon. members whether the Nazis had put up any candidates. In other words, the hon. member wanted to suggest that the Nazis regarded themselves as being so weak that they did not even put up a candidate at the general election. But surely my hon. friend knows that the Nazis do not believe in putting up candidates, and for that reason they did not do so. You cannot take the election as a test of the strength of Nazism in South Africa.

Nor of communism.

My hon. friend knows that in the Soviet Republic you have the biggest parliament in the world. There are two parallel Houses of Parliament which represent the country, one on an economic basis, and the other on a national basis. The communistic system does recognise the people’s vote, but the Nazi system does not recognise the people’s vote. I want to convince my hon. friend of the great danger which would threaten South Africa if the natives accepted the doctrine of Nazism …

Have you any proof of Nazi propaganda in this country amongst the natives?

Oh yes, as a result of propaganda the native is beginning to hate the white man.

That is what communism teaches him.

Under the Russian system there is no such thing as racialism; in actual fact that is the basic doctrine of Nazism. The “Herrenvolk” idea is that your own people are the best and the only people in the world, and that is the doctrine of Nazism. My hon. friends have even succeeded in bringing the churches under the wrong impression. Even the churches are beginning to believe this story. They are beginning to believe that there is a communistic danger. My hon. friends are playing the role of a man who amuses his children in the candlelight by making shadow figures of jackals on the wall with his hands, when in fact there are no jackals. They have succeeded in making propaganda as a result of which even the churches are actually believing that there are communistic influences at work in South Africa. I do not believe that communism has become a danger in South Africa.

In that case you do not believe what your own Prime Minister said last year.

Unless I am mistaken the Prime Minister said that he knew that communism existed. I admit that it does exist, but I say that it does not exist on such a big scale that we must now drop everything; that we must not plough; that we must not milk the cows; that we must throw away the buckets, and that we must hasten to kill the communists. What did exist in South Africa, and what did cause harm was the Nazi movement, and I want to emphasise again that any person who tells me that the native is susceptible to the doctrine of communism, does not know the native. But the native is susceptible to Nazism. The native is inherently a capitalist. He wants to be the master of his own goods, and he does not believe in communal possession. What is dangerous and what should not be fostered, is the spirit of Nazism. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) ….

Made a joke.

The hon. member has only one argument which he continually advances, and that is: “Look out for Hitler.” He is like the man who tells you: “There is a very serious, dangerous, infectious disease in the country, but we must not pay any attention to it; there may be another one; let us rather combat that.” He says: “Yes, the Minister may have said that there is a danger.” Last year the Prime Minister stated in this House—

We are continually asked how many votes they got at the election. That does not affect the matter. Their work is amongst the natives, and the natives do not vote at the elections. That is where the danger is, amongst the natives—not amongst the Europeans. Let me quote from this article from which I quoted this afternoon. This is the position in Canada—

That is precisely what we have in South Africa today. These hon. members are continually putting up smoke screens and speaking of Nazism. I say a greater danger than Nazism confronts this country, and that is Communism.

I was surprised at the statements of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg). The fact is this; the Government party put the hon. member for Krugersdorp into uniform. They showed him a bogy, namely, Nazism, and now he describes everything he sees as Nazism. The hon. member for Krugersdorp actually makes the statement that the native is more susceptible to Nazism than to Communism, and then he goes so far as to say that the people who allege the opposite do not know the natives. What about the generally recognised communal principle which is found in the life and structure of the native? One does not find Nazism in the life of the native. I am surprised to hear such wild statements. It is admitted by every expert in this country, by every person who has the slightest acquaintance with the customs of the native, that there is not a section of any population in the whole world which is more susceptible to the communistic doctrine than the native, because of his own social structure; there is no population in the world which is as susceptible to the doctrine of communism than the native.

That argument has been repeated ad nauseam.

The hon. member makes wild statements in this House for which he is not responsible, and it is not right on his part to make such statements in this House. It is the duty of the Minister of Justice to protect the natives against that type of doctrine. The natives represent that section of the population which adopts the attitude that the colour bar should be completely wiped out. The natives are susceptible to that doctrine. We must not make irresponsible statements here; we should at least see to it that the statements we make are based on facts. I want to ask the hon. member before he makes such wild statements, first to get a slight idea of the life of the natives. It is the duty of the Minister of Justice, for the sake of the natives’ happiness, for the sake of the relations between the various races, to take very drastic steps against communists, and I say that if the Government were to apply the same measures in connection with communist propaganda as they applied in connection with the so-called Nazi propaganda in this country, they would have to enlarge the internment camps tenfold.

I have been asking the hon. Minister of Defence from the beginning of the Session why he allowed Europeans in Andalusia to be guarded by coloureds, and his reply was that there were not enough Europeans. Today the Minister of Justice advances the argument that the Germans did it, and that we must therefore do it too. I wonder which of these two replies is the correct one. You can imagine what influence this has on the coloured people. We frequently drive past the Government camp, and we notice coloured soldiers walking about with rifles on their shoulders. They march up and down with a rifle; while the farmer has no rifle His rifle was taken away from him. He has a grudge. In the Kimberley district and in Kimberley itself there are large numbers of coloureds, and they are now being taught that the coloured people are superior to the Europeans; they are superior because they have to guard European prisoners of war. This type of spirit fostered a great deal of ill-feeling against the coloured people. 1 want to say a few words in connection with the case of Alex Jentzen. When I arrived in Christiana the first news I heard was that a coloured man had shot a European. That created strong feeling in the country. Here a coloured person is allowed to walk about with a rifle and to fire at Europeans. The other case which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister is the case of Bredenhahn. The hon. Minister stated at the beginning of this Session that Bredenhahn would be released. I then asked him whether I could inform Bredenhahn’s relatives, and the Minister replied in the affirmative. I asked when he would be released, and he replied in ten days’ time. Those ten days were not ten days, but this person was only released a week or fourteen days ago.

You were fortunate that it was not three months.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to this case. One does not expect this from a Department. Then I just want to refer to the book, “The Roman Catholic System,” which has been banned. It is generally known that £20,000,000 was recently made available by the Roman Catholic Church for propaganda purposes, and of that sum £2,500,000 was sent to South Africa. Has the question of money got anything to do with the banning of this book, because that book contains very strong propaganda against Catholicism?

The hon. member is creating the impression that the coloured guards are walking about with rifles on their shoulders and shooting people at will. The authorities were short-staffed and coloured soldiers were therefore used for this work; and they are doing it well. There is no evidence that guards deliberately fired at internees. We are sorry that this man was shot, but if a man tries to escape and he is shot, it surely does not prove that these troops exceeded their powers. Those hon. members should rather concern themselves about the 75 officers who were killed in Germany. The country is grateful for the work which is being done by the non-European soldiers, and for their patriotism and sacrifice.

The Minister did not reply to the question as to whether there were native guards at these camps.

There are no native guards.

How many non-Europeans are there?

I shall be able to let the hon. member have the figure later.

Will the Minister replace the non-Europeans by Europeans?

I can go into it, but I cannot make any promise.

It is an important matter. There are enough Europeans in this country to do that work. Then, new police offices and magistrate’s offices are required at Koppies.

That does not fall under this vote.

I think we have now disposed of the other matters, and I want to raise a new point, namely, the conditions in the internment camps. This matter was discussed by the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and before that there was an investigation by a special commission which went into the whole question of the conditions and malpractices in the internment camps. It was brought to light that no proper books were kept, that there were thefts on a large scale, that worn-out equipment was destroyed, that there were no records of the articles in use. A disquieting state of affairs was revealed. Quantities of supplies were unloaded and left unguarded. It was described as a condition of chaos. It became so bad that the Government was compelled to bring about changes. The internment camps were transferred from the Department of Justice to the Department of the Interior, and today they again fall under the Minister of Justice. Changes were made time and again. First of all it was Gen. Beyers; then Col. Strickland, and then someone else. Thousands of pounds are at stake; and there were many irregularities, and I feel that the Minister ought to make a statement in regard to this matter.

I notice under Item G (1), “Civilian Protective Services,” that the expenditure of last year is not shown, as in all the other cases. Can the Minister explain that? We should be able to compare the expenditure with that of last year. Then I notice that there is a director who gets £630 per annum, and three assistants each in receipt of £600. According to newspaper reports, the civilian protective services have practicaly been abolished. What is the position?

I should like to hear from the Minister why they did not keep proper books in regard to the subsidies of the internment camps. Gen. Beyers, in giving evidence before the Select Committee on Public Accounts, blamed the Government. He stated that to begin with they had a certain system; and that another system had to be introduced later. They had a store in Pretoria, the front entrance of which was guarded. But the back door remained open, and articles were carried away through that door. That came to light in the evidence before the Select Committee. I should like to know whether an effort was made to arrest those people, and whether they were prosecuted. At Warrenton they simply unloaded the stuff in the internment camp. The internees helped themselves, and no one could give an account. One officer, at any rate, was dismissed because of it. This type of thing took place under the department of the Minister, and I think we ought to have an explanation from him.

In connection with the last point which was raised; to begin with the control was under Prisons. Later it was placed under Internments, and then under Interior. There was a transition period when we did not have the machinery. It was difficult to get bookkeepers. But that is a matter of the past. Under the Minister of the Interior the matter was put in proper order and, as the hon. member knows, the matter is now in order. Those things to which he referred took place a few years ago. Certain people were arrested and steps were taken against them. At that time it was not under my jurisdiction, and I cannot give all the details today.

I want to refer to the case of Engelbrecht in my constituency who was interned on the ground of false statements which were made against him. He is a man of 60 years, and he was detained in the camp for eight months, involving great financial loss to himself. I should like to know from the Minister what is going to happen to these people who made false statements against him, and whether any compensation will be paid in respect of the loss which he wrongly suffered. He is an ex-teacher, and a man who is respected in his area. I want to ask the Minister whether any concessions will be made to him, and whether the Government is simply going to continue with this type of treatment.

There is another important matter which I want to raise, and that is the salaries of the European interpreters and messengers in the magistrate’s court and the Supreme Court.

Order! That does not fall under this vote. It falls under the next two votes.

I hope the Minister will give his attention to it.

This is a serious matter with which we are dealing here. The Minister stated in reply that there was a transition period in connection with the internment camps; and he tried to shift the responsibility on to another department.

No, I stated that the Department of Prisons had the control to begin with; thereafter it was taken over by Internments, and later it went to Interior.

The position remains the same. “Prisons” fall under the Minister. Here we find that the Select Committee stated in its report that there was a confused position “at the time control was taken over by the Department of the Interior.” We find that the officers and officials who were under the control of the Minister were negligent and did not carry out the duties which were entrusted to them. I do not want to mention the names of these officers. But it is stated of one, for example, “that a fair amount of blame rests on him”; it is said of another that “he neglected his duty,” and of a third it is said that he “neglected” to take certain necessary steps. These officials fall under the Minister. These charges were made by a special committee, and were later endorsed by the Select Committee on Public Accounts. The Minister cannot advance the excuse that it was due to a transition period. The Minister is responsible for his personnel. Hon. members ought to read this report, because we shall not have another opportunity of discussing it in the House. This is the only chance we shall have to draw attention to it. It is stated here that the Department of the Interior took over at a time when there was a condition of chaos. This is a very serious matter and it is our duty to bring it to the notice of the country in all seriousness.

I should like to raise a point which has not been raised previously. Some time ago a number of people who stole and sold galvanised iron sheets were prosecuted. I put a question to the Prime Minister in regard to the prosecutions and the people involved. He replied that the matter was sub judice. We are now approaching the end of the Session, the Prime Minister is in London, and I should like to have a statement from the Minister of Justice in regard to the steps which have been taken.

We notice that a report appeared in the newspapers to the effect that a ship was coming to South Africa to remove certain internees. There has been no statement from the Government up to the present. We should like to know what the policy is. We want to know whether these are internees who are being repatriated; how many of them there are and who they are. We want to know whether they are being exchanged for our people who are in the hands of the enemy. How long have these internees been resident here; are they inhabitants of South-West Africa who are being exchanged, and, if so, what is being done in connection with the families of those people? What is the policy in that connection? I should like the Minister to enlighten us on this point.

This exchange is being effected with people who have indicated that they want to be repatriated. If the women do not want to go along, they will not be repatriated. The other question which the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) raised, is still sub judice.

With regard to the repatriation of enemy subjects, if their wives and children remain in this country, what will the position be in connection with their property? Will the wives be able to carry on their farming operations and their businesses, or will they be liquidated?

The repatriation does not affect the property. It depends on whether they are married in community of property or not. If the property belongs to the husband, it will remain under his control.

If the wives want to remain, are you going to allow the husbands to go?

Yes.

Assuming the man is a farmer, will his wife be allowed to carry on the farming, although he is repatriated? How many people does the Minister expect to repatriate?

Approximately 1,000.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Swart put, and the Committee divided:

Ayes—23 :

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, H. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Klopper, H. J.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

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

Noes—58 :

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Gray, T. P.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Johnson, H. A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Neate, C.

Payne. A. C.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Tighy, S. J.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Vote No. 38.—“Justice,” as printed, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 39.—“Superior Courts,” £289,500 put.

I move—

Agreed to.

HOUSE RESUMED :